President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize

I'm surprised no one has said anything here about it yet.

 

Your thoughts on this prestigious award?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It's a little backward -

It's a little backward - doesn't someone have to earn an award before they get it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'm pretty sure by simply

 I'm pretty sure by simply taking GWB's place in office, he incidentally caused a great deal more peace than would otherwise have existed.  He should get the "Not The Biggest Douche in the Universe" award.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Who's in charge of giving

Who's in charge of giving out the Nobel Peace Prize now, Goldman Sachs or Lockheed Martin?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I could tell in Obama's

I could tell in Obama's response even he was like, *huh?*"Thanks, I guess???? What did I do?"

I did say however on another message board that the entire idea of a "peace" prize is dangerous, all be it well intended.

It does have the connotation of human empathy in the desire of having a violence free environment to live in. HOWEVER, I think it ignores globally our evolutionary alpha male drive to be on top. "Peace" subconsciously to most people is peace as long as others see it your way.

It wont bring peace between the right wing and left in America and I doubt Rush sees "Peace" the same way Obama does. And most certainly The radical Middle East sees "peace" as the submission of all others to Islam.

Having said that, given the intent of the prize, I think Obama won because of the 180 rejection in his campaign and in office of the Cowboy "Shoot first and ask questions later" attitude of Bush.

But it certainly wasn't based on any written law or pact or treaty or book.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  Having

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Having said that, given the intent of the prize, I think Obama won because of the 180 rejection in his campaign and in office of the Cowboy "Shoot first and ask questions later" attitude of Bush.

 

 

 

   I know you really admire Obama and I don't mean this post in a trollish way but what has Obama done in Iraq / Afghanistan that would constitute a "180 rejection" of our current military situation ?   Do our soldiers now fire blanks instead of real bullets ?  

  I believe I heard on NPR that Obama was considering whether or not to send an additional 40,000 troops into that combat zone.....( sorry, but troop build-ups usually mean more death and destruction. )

 Seriously, how is that a reversal of Bush policies ?  Also Obama criticized Bush's use of Military Tribunals yet he has refused to dispense with them.  He has repeatedly catered to the Gay community yet Don't Ask Don't Tell is still ending military careers for homosexuals.  WTF ?

So far Obama seem more intent upon public relations ploys than actual policy changes.  

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Prozac - almost all of his work has NOT been with Iraq / Afghanistan. 

 

It is with the REST of the world. He sat down and talked to many leaders we were not previously, as well as accomplished things that no leader has done before.

 

The g-20 summit for example, he got all of the countries to agree to a "peer review" of their economic policies by other governments, as well as monitoring by the International Monetary Fund. That is something practically unheard of for countries to share.

Obama afterwards: "We have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation that we've never seen before." 


 

There is a lot of work he is doing through diplomacy. In fact, he is changing the way diplomacy works internationally by bringing many nations IN to the international community, that previously were not actively involved in any way but name. 

 

 

 

As to the criteria that started it, this is what Nobel said in his will: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

 

According to the the committee, the award was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Prozac -

ClockCat wrote:

 Prozac - almost all of his work has NOT been with Iraq / Afghanistan. 

 

It is with the REST of the world. He sat down and talked to many leaders we were not previously, as well as accomplished things that no leader has done before.

 

The g-20 summit for example, he got all of the countries to agree to a "peer review" of their economic policies by other governments, as well as monitoring by the International Monetary Fund. That is something practically unheard of for countries to share.

Obama afterwards: "We have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation that we've never seen before." 


 

There is a lot of work he is doing through diplomacy. In fact, he is changing the way diplomacy works internationally by bringing many nations IN to the international community, that previously were not actively involved in any way but name. 

 

 

 

As to the criteria that started it, this is what Nobel said in his will: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

 

According to the the committee, the award was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

    I agree, Obama deserves credit for any accomplishments that he achieves regarding diplomatic relations.  Similarly, Nixon in the early seventies opened relations with Communist China which, given the political climate at the time, was seen as absolutely momentous.  Nevertheless Nixon's accomplishment in that regard should not be viewed as a suitable counter-balance for his political foilbles, be they broken political promises to his constituents or full-blown political scandal / crimes

 Edit:  ( Surprisingly Nixon's Sec Of State, Henry Kissinger did win the Nobel Peace Prize but two committee members resigned in protest.  Also, Vietnamese nominee Le Duc Tho refused to accept his award and stated "Peace was not yet really established in South Viet Nam."

  Anyway, my previous post was meant to be a more specific response to Brian's claim ( as I perceived it ) that Bush and Obama are  examples of political matter vs anti-matter.  That they are opposites in regard to their military policies.  The 180 reversal of Bush's "shoot first, ask questions later" aspect of Brian's post was my focal point and not so much the Nobel Award.  The so-called War Against Terror remains a huge and unpopular issue in the minds of most Americans and the world.   In this regard I have seen Obama referred to by his liberal critics as Bush Lite.  A minor tweak here and there but no real substantive change.

  The Nobel Peace Prize is something that even I would be proud to claim and I would never fault anyone for being a proud recipient.

  ( Perhaps if he feels like it Brian will clarify his meaning in response to my post.  I could have mis-read his intent )

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Prozac - almost all of his work has NOT been with Iraq / Afghanistan. 

 

It is with the REST of the world. He sat down and talked to many leaders we were not previously, as well as accomplished things that no leader has done before.

 

The g-20 summit for example, he got all of the countries to agree to a "peer review" of their economic policies by other governments, as well as monitoring by the International Monetary Fund. That is something practically unheard of for countries to share.

Obama afterwards: "We have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation that we've never seen before." 


 

There is a lot of work he is doing through diplomacy. In fact, he is changing the way diplomacy works internationally by bringing many nations IN to the international community, that previously were not actively involved in any way but name. 

 

 

 

As to the criteria that started it, this is what Nobel said in his will: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

 

According to the the committee, the award was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

    I agree, Obama deserves credit for any accomplishments that he achieves regarding diplomatic relations.  Similarly, Nixon in the early seventies opened relations with Communist China which, given the political climate at the time, was seen as absolutely momentous.  Nevertheless Nixon's accomplishment in that regard should not be viewed as a suitable counter-balance for his political foilbles, be they broken political promises or full-blown political scandal / crimes

  My previous post was meant to be a more specific response to Brian's claim ( as I perceived it ) that Bush and Obama are  examples of political matter vs anti-matter.  That they are opposites in regard to their policies.  The 180 reversal of Bush's "shoot first, ask questions later" aspect of Brian's post was my focal point and not so much the Nobel Award.  The so-called War Against Terror remains a huge and bloody issue in the minds of most Americans and the world.   In this regard I have seen Obama referred to by his liberal critics as Bush Lite.  A minor tweak here and there but no real substantive change.

  The Nobel Peace Prize is something that even I would be proud to claim and I would never fault anyone for being a proud recipient.

  ( Perhaps if he feels like it Brian will clarify his meaning in response to my post.  I could have mis-read his intent )

 

 

Ahh, alright then. I don't think that President Obama has really changed a lot in regard to the wars, but I also think he isn't sure how to handle them with so many conflicting reports coming in. He has generals calling for surges, and others calling for drawing down. It's a mixed bag.

 

He is keeping busy with other things, I think he is focusing on issues he knows how to tackle first. International diplomacy seems to be his strong suite. I think that his foreign policy is a bit opposite of President Bush, if you look at it from the terms of President Obama being willing to discuss issues and President Bush dictating conditions, then putting out more than vague threats if they were not answered with a "yes".

 

One was strong-armed "my way or the highway", and the other is "Lets see what you want and see if some kind of agreement can be made to a mutual benefit" as a general foreign policy.

 

I'll leave Brian to speak for himself though as to his meaning.

 

 

The only nation not responding well to President Obama's willingness to talk is Israel really. While his speech to the Muslim world won us many friends, and changed a lot of the overwhelming negative sentiment against the United States in that area of the world, it also made Israel a bit upset with us. They have outright said "no" to our President several time now on issues where he asked them to give a little to get a little, and if anything seem to be working against diplomacy. Israel has even made vague threats against us if we didn't support them. 

 

At the moment, the Palestinians are watching Israel constructing buildings on the West Bank, and want them to stop. Israel said they won't, and their foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said there was no chance of a peace deal with the Palestinians for many years. So they are pretty much toying with peace talks while moving in and setting up home so there will not be an easy "out" of the situation.

 

The area is a mess, and President Obama keeps setting up peace talks, and is putting more and more pressure on Israel. I don't know what he can do about it though, because they don't seem responsive. The UN has also tried to put pressure on them for the past several years.

 

In addition to this, there is also Iran and Israel making vague threats against one another.

Presidential Candidate Obama told the caucus mid-last year after many trips abroad talking to foreign leaders, especially in the middle east (including Israel), "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don't work Israel is going to strike Iran."

 

 

And then there is Iran's secret nuclear enrichment facilities, which show that Iran is more than capable right now of making weaponry with. What has Obama done about this?

 

Well, secret negotiations between the IAEA, Iran, the U.S., Russia and France were going on. Discussions which led to a deal which would involve putting most of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to use for non-military but very profitable ends. They will send it abroad for further enriching and encasing in fuel rods which would then be introduced into a plant which makes medical isotopes, in Tehran.

 

So Iran is allowed to save face, and make profit while at the same time moving the push away from military towards economic growth. The benefit is there for all parties involved, and everyone stands to gain from new business partnerships. It also creates ties where there previously were none, since all these nations will now have an investment in each other for mutual gain. 

 

Bravo, I say.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:He should

Hambydammit wrote:

He should get the "Not The Biggest Douche in the Universe" award.

 

 

An award shared with the whole entire universe, apart from John Edwards.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Okay, shifting away from

  Okay, shifting away from my response to Brian and on to your more broadened perspective:  I believe Obama has good intentions and I don't see him as being as autocratic as Bush.  I agree that people and/or nations don't like being pushed around and a "kind word turneth away wrath" ( heh heh )  Props to him for that.

   I believe that the US should just dump Israel and tell them that they are on their own.  If they want to live in a neighborhood where they are hugely outnumbered by their enemies then they should be prepared to fight their own battles without help from the US.  ( Personally,  I advocate a Monroe Doctrine updated for the politics of the 21'st century but that will never happen. )  I agree with an obscure French diplomat whose name I forget who referred to Israel as "that shitty little country."

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Okay, shifting away from my response to Brian and on to your more broadened perspective:  I believe Obama has good intentions and I don't see him as being as autocratic as Bush.  I agree that people and/or nations don't like being pushed around and a "kind word turneth away wrath" ( heh heh )  Props to him for that.

   I believe that the US should just dump Israel and tell them that they are on their own.  If they want to live in a neighborhood where they are hugely outnumbered by their enemies then they should be prepared to fight their own battles without help from the US.  ( Personally,  I advocate a Monroe Doctrine updated for the politics of the 21'st century but that will never happen. )  I agree with an obscure French diplomat whose name I forget who referred to Israel as "that shitty little country."

 

I'm in agreement right now, mostly because it seems Israel doesn't want to play nice with anyone. The fact that they openly speak against our reasonable requests, flat out telling us NO, while demanding help the next sentence...I really don't know what to think of it.

 

If their government changes, or their foreign policy does, then maybe things can be different. Right now they have the same "my way or the highway" attitude President Bush's administration had. Except that Israel is not a superpower in the world, and they apparently think that we are obligated to step in FOR them if they attack someone. At least, that is the way it sounds from what their leaders have stated.

 

Which of course, we aren't.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Okay, shifting away from my response to Brian and on to your more broadened perspective:  I believe Obama has good intentions and I don't see him as being as autocratic as Bush.  I agree that people and/or nations don't like being pushed around and a "kind word turneth away wrath" ( heh heh )  Props to him for that.

   I believe that the US should just dump Israel and tell them that they are on their own.  If they want to live in a neighborhood where they are hugely outnumbered by their enemies then they should be prepared to fight their own battles without help from the US.  ( Personally,  I advocate a Monroe Doctrine updated for the politics of the 21'st century but that will never happen. )  I agree with an obscure French diplomat whose name I forget who referred to Israel as "that shitty little country."

I'd like to see that myself. Unfortunately, there are too many senators from Likud around.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
This is going to make

This is going to make dumping tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan pretty awkwaaaaaard.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:This is going to

jmm wrote:

This is going to make dumping tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan pretty awkwaaaaaard.

Should make some theists happy though. Make the pile of bodies higher so Jesus doesn't have so far to step down for his second coming.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

jcgadfly wrote:

jmm wrote:

This is going to make dumping tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan pretty awkwaaaaaard.

Should make some theists happy though. Make the pile of bodies higher so Jesus doesn't have so far to step down for his second coming.

 

 

Ouch.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:This is going to

jmm wrote:

This is going to make dumping tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan pretty awkwaaaaaard.

Not at all. If a certain someone hadn't gotten distracted in Iraq, Afghanistan likely would have been resolved years ago. Bin Laden might have been killed already and Pakistan might be a much more stable place. Obama has to do what he has to do to clean up Bush's mess.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
And the Nobel Prize for Peace goes to-

-Noam Chomsky !!!

Signature ? How ?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/

 

This is their announcement.

 

The Norwegian Nobel Committee


The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009


The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Until I thought about what

Until I thought about what the US has been doing in Europe and the far East lately, I too thought he should have to do something first. But then it occurs to me that your admin has mostly left Russia and China alone to their satisfaction lately, and Israel hasn't had every attack on civillians get support from the white house for awhile either. Amazing how things can cool down when a generally competent individual takes over from a megalomaniac.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.