|
On October 09 2009 23:27 Velr wrote:
Well... The positive thing about this is.
probably even the last American will realise how hated Bush was in the rest of the world :p. This is kinda a price to the US-Voters ^^. YEAH for voting bush 2 times here`s your "You are stupid" trophy ^^ I think it`s not a good idee to give out nobel prizes every year they should wait until someone does something really amazing but you can`t blame obama for this I mean he`s the "victim" and I guess he rather not recieve it cause now he got an even greater burden it`s like giving the award for best scorer at the start of the season and now he has to earn it ^^
|
If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
|
This was a bad decision. The Nobel Prize in every other field recognizes the accomplishments of the awardee.
Already the Nobel Peace Prize is the most worthless of the Nobel awards because of the highly political nature in which it is awarded. To allow the award to be given based on "intentions" rather than accomplishments denies it of the last of its already shakey credibility.
It is much too soon to give Obama this award. There is still war in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the worse. And the situation with Iran is highly unstable. Let's see how he handles these issues before we talk about whether or not he is worthy of any "Peace Prize," however much of a joke that prize may be.
|
Nobel price for peace shouldn't be given to humans at all.
+ Show Spoiler +they better give it to cute animals.
|
On October 10 2009 03:01 cUrsOr wrote:
Only a US president could win the Nobel Peace prize while waging 2 wars in foreign countries that have around 90% of the casualties being civilian. The US calls it terrorism... but when they do it... its time for peace prizes? Anyone who thinks this isn't utter bullshit should go spend 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan then come back and tell me how peaceful the commander in chief must be.
He walked into these wars, not started them... This is about the silliest argument there is against Obama receiving the prize. Not to mention there is a significant difference in the 2 wars and why they were initiated. Personally I would like to have seen if he could make any sense out of the mess in Afghanistan or bring the next step in the peace process to Israel/Palestine, before receiving such an award.
|
On October 10 2009 03:11 cUrsOr wrote:
If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
Haha guess who will not stop to fight when Obama "stops" (you mean withdrawal, right?) the war? And the tone towards Israel has become a lot harsher recently, but whatever...
Well it was still a bad move since it was obviously going to backfire. I'm really curious to see how this will be used to criticise Obama though ^^
|
this is such a terrible decision. God that man has done nothing, is doing noting, and will do nothing.
What a waste of a once prestigious award.
|
As an Obama supporter, I agree that this was a bizarre and ridiculous choice.
On October 09 2009 Gideon Rachman, foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times wrote:
While it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' -- my kids get them all the time -- I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard, Sums up my thinking
|
The competition must have been REALLY terrible this year.
That's really all I can say.
|
On October 10 2009 03:11 cUrsOr wrote:
If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
Against popular opinion, Obama, since his campaign, has pushed for a time table to get out of Iraq. As this article demonstrates, it is happening and is not just a matter of packing up and leaving.
|
Obama handled it well. He said all the right things in his speech.
Obama said he was not certain he had done enough to earn the award or deserved to be in the company of the "transformative figures" who received it before him.
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33237202/ns/politics-white_house/
|
I agree with this decision.
On October 10 2009 03:21 Misrah wrote:
this is such a terrible decision. God that man has done nothing, is doing noting, and will do nothing.
What a waste of a once prestigious award.
^I don't agree with this. By simply taking office after our horrible previous administration (we entered a war and an economic depression), he has improved our foreign relations (such as with Russia). He is currently actively trying to rid the world of nuclear arms, as well as provide what I believe to be a far better health care plan for our country. I am sure he will be able to accomplish at bare minimum these two important tasks in the future.
|
I love how rolling your tanks into, and bombing the shit out of, another country is something the commander in chief can do over a 2 week discussion period... but getting OUT obviously takes years and years.
The argument isn't weather he is slightly better than past presidents, the argument is weather or not the man deserves the nobel peace prize!!!
Hypothetically, in 3 years, 1 war is ended, we close Gitmo and Afghanistan is totally different... SURE he would deserve it. But he doesn't deserve it now.
|
is awesome32280 Posts
On October 09 2009 21:29 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2009 20:27 seppolevne wrote:On October 09 2009 20:11 LaLuSh wrote:
This is what happens when you entrust the norwegians with a branch of the nobel prize.
Good job Norway. You just made the nobel peace prize lose all its future credibility.
This would be the equivalent of the swedish academy awarding a nobel prize in literature to Dan Brown. as if it had any left after they gave it to Al Gore. Al Gore is ok compared to some other dudes... Arafat, Kissinger...
|
...
I really don't see how he deserves it. 
|
While I don't think he deserved it, can anyone come up with some people who would have been good choices? I cannot think of anyone which is sad for a number of reasons.
|
On October 09 2009 20:00 Highways wrote:
Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke recently.
Dont think too much people take it seriously anymore.
yea
|
LOL, the nobel peace prize has been a joke ever since they gave it to Arafat. This only further discredits the prize. Who ever gets to decide the winner must be retarded.
|
On October 10 2009 03:01 cUrsOr wrote:
Only a US president could win the Nobel Peace prize while waging 2 wars in foreign countries that have around 90% of the casualties being civilian. The US calls it terrorism... but when they do it... its time for peace prizes? Anyone who thinks this isn't utter bullshit should go spend 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan then come back and tell me how peaceful the commander in chief must be.
|
On October 10 2009 00:51 Last Romantic wrote:
Fucking ridic. Obama has 0 accomplishments.
at least he wasn't instrumental in bombing Cambodia
damn Kissinger set the bar low
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg)
