Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SteamWake

10-09-09, 08:02 AM

For What?

The award could be as much about issuing a slap at Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, as about lauding Obama. Bush was reviled by the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming. Remember that the Nobel prize has a long history of being awarded more for the committee's aspirations than for others' accomplishments — for Mideast peace or a better South Africa, for instance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel_analysis_1

stabiz

10-09-09, 08:05 AM

Yeah, what the ... It must be the first time someone wins for intentions. I firmly believe the award should be for people who have left a footprint of some kind.

Tribesman

10-09-09, 08:05 AM

If he had the slightest bit of integrity he would turn the prize down.

But really it should require more than simply not being as big a fool as Bush was to merit consideration.

Schroeder

10-09-09, 08:07 AM

I think this is way too early. He hasn't achieved much yet. Maybe they want to influence him to keep to the diplomacy instead of relying on the military options. :hmm2:

Dread Knot

10-09-09, 08:15 AM

Needless to say most Americans waking up to this news probably spewed their coffee halfway across the room. I can hear the "consolation prize for losing the Olympics" charge coming already.

Dowly

10-09-09, 08:16 AM

Silly...

TDK1044

10-09-09, 08:18 AM

It was a close run off between him and Heidi and Spencer.

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 08:18 AM

Yeah, what the ... It must be the first time someone wins for intentions. I firmly believe the award should be for people who have left a footprint of some kind.

Yeah, like Al Gore :doh: Makes no sense to me bro. Win millions for good intentions. :up:

Tribesman

10-09-09, 08:25 AM

Win millions for good intentions.
Like Kellogg did.

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 08:31 AM

If I'm not mistaken the deadline for nominations is always Feb 1st. Just what did he do before Feb 1st 2009?

Onkel Neal

10-09-09, 08:49 AM

Farce.

“Who? What? So fast?” a shocked Walesa said when reporters told him about the latest Obama win.

If I'm not mistaken the deadline for nominations is always Feb 1st. Just what did he do before Feb 1st 2009?

Indeed. The Nobel people had to give it to Obama asap, if they waited a couple years, it might be obvious all that sweet talk and promises were for naught.

Skybird

10-09-09, 08:59 AM

Same question from me: for what? So far he has not many acchievements to show, just voiced intentions and blocked, delayed and prevented plans - some of which one even cannot be sure he has not expressed for anything more but different, more instrumental purposes only (nuke-free world, for example - but especially this intention alone gets mentioned by the comittee).

It is my understanding that an award like this is given in appreciation and recognition of already delivered acchievements. And award is given after a deed, not in order to motivate it or to assist it in the future execution. But the Nobel comittee repeatedly in the past 15 years has given the prize for literature and peace to people whose culturaL OR PoLTICAL "AGENDA" THEY WanTED TO PUSH BY THAT: tHAT MAKES THE NOBEL (CAPS LOCK FRENZY!)Comittee interfering with political developements where it neither has the legitimiation to do so, nor is in congruence with the intention of the Nobel award.

In the case of Obama it may be explained by a perception of all his many (too many!) high flying plans and promises being in danger of crashing during attempted take-off, and it may also be explained by the massive degree by which he is perceived as a messiah who promised to form a better world. If that is the case, then this years award'S says more about the hopes of the masses, then about the accievements of Obama, and it says about how hopelessly overestimated he is - so much overestimated that he almost necessarily must fail in delivering fulfillment for all these expectations. For which he is to blame himself, too, since he msaaively helped to let them skyrocket binto outer nirvana in order to win the election. Now it is becoming a bommerang more and more. But hey, every politicians lives by making unfulfillable promises.

I must say that since longer time my respect for the Nobel peace prize and the literature prize is low, if not non-existent. and intentions alone - mean nothing if not being turned into reality, for good or for bad. I wish for a better world, too, where reason and justice rule for the sake of freedom - why don't I get a Nobel prize? And yesterday I had a good intention and something that I considered to be a brilliant idea - award, please!

The literature prize also is strange, a German author born in Romania - who almost nobody knows in Germany. She lives just two parallel streets away from where I lived with my parents in Berlin, in Friedenau, I often passed that house and street when I lived in Berlin. that part of Berlin, Friedenau, is home to two more Nobel prize winning authors, both just some hundred meters away from our former home. :) The world is a village.

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 09:01 AM

It is my understanding that an award like this is given in appreciation and recognition of already delivered acchievements.

Mine as well. It is kind of a black eye to those before Obama that did actually contribute to the world as a whole and not just think about it as Obama has done.

Skybird

10-09-09, 09:04 AM

Grman newspaper Die Welt brought it to the point by saying this:

Mit dem Friedensnobelpreis an Barack Obama hat das Wunschdenken einen nie da gewesenen Triumph über die Realitäten der Weltpolitik erzielt.

Translation:
With the peace Nobel award for Barack Obama, wishful thinking has gained a triump like none before over the realities of global politics.

Perfect summary.

The whole comment, very critical of the decision, is worth to be read:

http://www.welt.de/politik/article4788737/Nobelpreis-wird-fuer-Obama-mehr-Buerde-als-Segen.html

They say the premature award will be a heavy (=counterproductive) mortage for Obama, and they call the past peace nobel awards since Perez, Rabin and Arafat a process of growing "Verkitschung" that now reaches a climax with Obama.

Die Juroren in Oslo haben sich von einer Obamania fortragen lassen, die - zum Besten der Menschheit – bereits deutlich am Verblassen war. (Die Welt) - The jurors in Oslo allowed themselves to be carried away by an Obamania that - for the best interest of mankind - already had started to fade very clearly recently.

stabiz

10-09-09, 09:07 AM

Hehe, there is some speculation that they (we) did this to get a visit from Obama. When those freekin Danes get a visit we want one too!

SteamWake

10-09-09, 09:08 AM

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;)

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 09:08 AM

stabiz

10-09-09, 09:10 AM

Btw, are nobody going to disagree with the opinions in this thread soon? It doesnt feel like Subsim GT when all are hugging and high fiving.

Skybird

10-09-09, 09:20 AM

Btw, are nobody going to disagree with the opinions in this thread soon? It doesnt feel like Subsim GT when all are hugging and high fiving.

The unusual consensus shows how very much idiotic this decision is. My breakfast fell out of my face when I read it this morning.

Dowly

10-09-09, 09:22 AM

My breakfast fell out of my face when I read it this morning.

And your breakfast was on your face becaaaause...? :o

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 09:22 AM

Perhaps this poor maneuver with the Nobel Peace Prize will shed some light on just how stupid and just how much faith the world is putting into Obama that is totally misdirected.

SteamWake

10-09-09, 09:27 AM

I just think it points out what has been known for a long time.

The Nobel Peace prize commite should be re-named to Agenda Steering Committee.

What was once an honerable and noteworthy accomplishment is reduced to 'we like you and your agenda'.

Splitting the atom... pffffft that was nothing.

Skybird

10-09-09, 09:36 AM

And your breakfast was on your face becaaaause...? :o
and that I get asked by a ferret...?! :D

Dowly

10-09-09, 09:39 AM

and that I get asked by a ferret...?! :D

Yes, sadly for me, I cant use my hands to the same extent as you would, so when I'm eating, my face tends to go very near the food, for reaching purposes, you know.

But for human to show this behaviour it is most illogical. :hmmm:

SteamWake

10-09-09, 09:43 AM

Fellow Nobel prize winner Jimmah Carter weighs in.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter says the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama is a "bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment."

Carter won the peace prize himself in 2002, two decades after leaving office. In a statement, he described the Nobel committee's decision Friday as support for Obama's work toward peace and harmony in international relations. Carter says the award shows the Obama administration represents hope not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

Discosanta

10-09-09, 09:44 AM

Hehe, there is some speculation that they (we) did this to get a visit from Obama. When those freekin Danes get a visit we want one too!

Wouldn´t surprise me one bit if it was true. Some Norwegian politicians like to believe that this mini nation is some kind of humanitarian superpower with major influence in world affairs :rotfl2:

Skybird

10-09-09, 09:45 AM

The Tagespiegel presents:

SUPERDOVE !

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2231/3040583supertaubets.jpg (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/3040583supertaubets.jpg/)

Skybird

10-09-09, 09:46 AM

Yes, sadly for me, I cant use my hands to the same extent as you would, so when I'm eating, my face tends to go very near the food, for reaching purposes, you know.

But for human to show this behaviour it is most illogical. :hmmm:
When it comes to eating, we all are just ferrets.

Biggles

10-09-09, 09:50 AM

Wouldn´t surprise me one bit if it was true. Some Norwegian politicians like to believe that this mini nation is some kind of humanitarian superpower with major influence in world affairs :rotfl2:

Hehe, the prize is not even Norwegian, it's Swedish really, you just get to handle it for us!:salute::O:

Dowly

10-09-09, 09:52 AM

Hehe, the prize is not even Norwegian, it's Swedish really, you just get to handle it for us!:salute::O:

But as we Finns REALLY run the world, we just let you have the Norwegians to handle it so you wouldnt cry. :O:

Biggles

10-09-09, 09:54 AM

But as we Finns REALLY run the world, we just let you have the Norwegians to handle it so you wouldnt cry. :O:

:haha::har::har:

You do know how to make me laugh:salute::yeah::O:

Dowly

10-09-09, 09:56 AM

:haha::har::har:

You do know how to make me laugh:salute::yeah::O:

We invented laugh, it's really crying, but we didnt feel the need to tell anyone else. So, when you hear stories of Finns being all serious and stuff, we are actually happy and enjoying our lifes.

Damn we are cool. :rock:

HunterICX

10-09-09, 10:01 AM

I don't see the big deal, if you ask me...it clearly proofs that Nobel prizes have little meaning..nothing more then a ordinary Oscar.

HunterICX

Biggles

10-09-09, 10:05 AM

I don't see the big deal, if you ask me...it clearly proofs that Nobel prizes have little meaning..nothing more then a ordinary Oscar.

HunterICX

Not quite true if you ask me, but it does prove that the Peace prize is the most controversial of them all. This wouldn't be the first time people get upset about their decision.

Dowly

10-09-09, 10:08 AM

Not quite true if you ask me, but it does prove that the Peace prize is the most controversial of them all. This wouldn't be the first time people get upset about their decision.

True that. For one the 2007 (?) winner who had made a bank for poor people. Great idea, but hardly qualifies for Nobel Peace Prize if you ask me. :hmmm:

SteamWake

10-09-09, 10:08 AM

Not quite true if you ask me, but it does prove that the Peace prize is the most controversial of them all. This wouldn't be the first time people get upset about their decision.

Its the first time that nearly everyone, with the exception of Jimmy Carter (theres and endorsement) are saying WTF?

Skybird

10-09-09, 10:18 AM

Even the Oscars are awared to movies only that already had been shown in the cinemas. There is no Oscar for "intended movie project in the coming three years".

Thomen

10-09-09, 10:23 AM

When I came downstairs this morning, cup o' Java in the hand, the first thing I heard from across the room: " What the?!?! That must be a joke or something! Obama got the Peace Prize?!"

WTH? They could have at least waited a year and see how his 'peace' politics pan out, before jumping the gun. Seriously, they need to tighten the anti drug laws over there. The committee seems to smoke some dope or something like that.
Wait.. forget that.. Be more social... Send me some of the stuff! :D

OneToughHerring

10-09-09, 10:30 AM

Well Alfred Nobel invented dynamite so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still continuing it makes perfect sense.

Oberon

10-09-09, 10:33 AM

Heard this on Five Live and thought 'Wha?'

I mean, I'm no Nobama but you know, the guy hasn't really done anything! Certainly not anything deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize!

Talk about a popularity contest! :damn:

Biggles

10-09-09, 10:35 AM

Well Alfred Nobel invented dynamite so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still continuing it makes perfect sense.

My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world conventions. As soon as men will find that in one instant, whole armies can be utterly destroyed, they surely will abide by golden peace.

Alfred Nobel.

His intentions were never to invent something to harm people, but inevitably this is what happened. The human mind is a complex thing...

Onkel Neal

10-09-09, 10:57 AM

Even the Oscars are awared to movies only that already had been shown in the cinemas. There is no Oscar for "intended movie project in the coming three years".

Now that you mention it, just wait until Obama sweeps the Oscars! :o

SteamWake

10-09-09, 10:58 AM

The man that invented the machine gun was a doctor and invented it to 'save lives'.

But honestly where would we be without dynomite?

SteamWake

10-09-09, 10:58 AM

Now that you mention it, just wait until Obama sweeps the Oscars! :o

Perhaps the daytime soap opera portion :|\\

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 11:00 AM

Now that you mention it, just wait until Obama sweeps the Oscars! :o

:har::har: Awesome!

Maybe he will team up with Kanye West at the MTV awards.

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 11:10 AM

How to win The Nobel in 12 days.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/tommy-seno-obama-nobel-prize-win/

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

August

10-09-09, 11:14 AM

I smell payoff... :hmmm:

Aramike

10-09-09, 11:20 AM

How can this NOT hurt Obama's legitimacy? This is SO far off-base that even his own ideological kin are scratching their heads.

Unbelievable.

Dowly

10-09-09, 11:30 AM

Love how the guy in the background starts to laugh when Obama is announced as the receiver of the award. :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDygJXC4OFM

August

10-09-09, 11:30 AM

How can this NOT hurt Obama's legitimacy? This is SO far off-base that even his own ideological kin are scratching their heads.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable yes but I don't see this really hurting Obama at all. The Nobel Prize committee on the other hand...

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 11:35 AM

Love how the guy in the background starts to laugh when Obama is announced as the receiver of the award. :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDygJXC4OFM

Looking at that video I suspect there was some jokes going around the room long before the announcment!

SteamWake

10-09-09, 11:38 AM

Unbelievable yes but I don't see this really hurting Obama at all. The Nobel Prize committee on the other hand...

They lost alot of credibility when Jimmy got one. Now their credibility is all but evaporated.

I know the nominations were when O was in office for 12 days, when was the vote?

Aramike

10-09-09, 11:39 AM

Unbelievable yes but I don't see this really hurting Obama at all. The Nobel Prize committee on the other hand...Heh, if giving the prize to Yasser Arafat didn't already destroy their credibility...

SteamWake

10-09-09, 11:45 AM

Even Obama's constituants... Im sorry... the media find it absurd.

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Deep embarrassment my ass his ego is even bigger now :o

SS107.9MHz

10-09-09, 11:55 AM

While I can understand the award in a "this is what we expect of you" kind of way, it sems to me that, on the grounds we're standing... this is completely preposterous... This was one of the first news I saw today and I went "what?!! can't be rigt...maybe this is a shortlist or whatever..." but since there is no such thing in the Nobel's...

PS: Maybe they need to have a "Best New Comer" award!:yeah:

Rafael

10-09-09, 11:58 AM

Ridiculous decision! This man has not proved anything :o

Stop with the Nobel Peace price!

Remember a man called 'Arafat' got one too. A terrorist!

Skybird

10-09-09, 12:32 PM

Now that you mention it, just wait until Obama sweeps the Oscars! :o
Sweeping the Oscars? I tell you the Oscars will line up in long golden columns and jump onto his seat like Lemmings, swarms and swarms of them! :D

Task Force

10-09-09, 01:40 PM

err... I guess they ran out of people to give it too... lol

(MY SPYS FAIL AGAIN!!!)

Tribesman

10-09-09, 01:40 PM

Remember a man called 'Arafat' got one too. A terrorist
McBride, Mandela, Begin, Horta, Trimble, Sadat Tho.
Quite a few terrorists have got the prize so thats irrelevant.

August

10-09-09, 01:50 PM

Go to this website and help Obama win the Heisman Trophy!

http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/

SteamWake

10-09-09, 02:10 PM

McBride, Mandela, Begin, Horta, Trimble, Sadat Tho.
Quite a few terrorists have got the prize so thats irrelevant.

Dont forget nominations for Hitler :shifty:

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 02:11 PM

Go to this website and help Obama win the Heisman Trophy!

http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/

:har:

AVGWarhawk

10-09-09, 02:17 PM

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/image001.jpg

Rafael

10-09-09, 02:21 PM

Quite a few terrorists have got the prize so thats irrelevant.It's not irrelevant if they would stop with the Nobel peace price. :yep:

Shearwater

10-09-09, 02:47 PM

It's not Obama's fault for being nominated, but that of the nomination committee.
But I still can't believe it either. Questionable, to say the least, and not exactly helping to enhance the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize.

geetrue

10-09-09, 04:07 PM

Just you wait and see ... President Obama will retire to Hawaii and write a book about all of his acomphlishments while in the white house.

When is the biggest question ... :salute:

Platapus

10-09-09, 04:37 PM

I think the Nobel committee made a mistake. I firmly believe that the award needs to be given to someone based on accomplishments.

The proper time to nominate President Obama would have been Feb 2011. That would have given him enough time to actually accomplish something (or fail to accomplish something) that is worthy of the award.

I like some of the stuff Obama wants (as well as don't like some others) but I don't think I am alone in being a "results" type of citizen.

Talk is nice
Intentions are noble
Efforts are to be commended

But at the end, it is the results that matter. It was far too early to nominate Obama for this award and, in my opinion, insufficient evidence of accomplishment to warrant the award.

It is just not right. :nope:

Stealth Hunter

10-09-09, 04:53 PM

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/image001.jpg

Minor problem mate, the Middle East does not have too many fair-skinned, blue-eyed, straight-haired, fluffy-bearded people.:up:

ETR3(SS)

10-09-09, 04:56 PM

Minor problem mate, the Middle East does not have too many fair-skinned, blue-eyed, straight-haired, fluffy-bearded people.:up:That would be because Jesus was none of those, but don't tell the Christians.:O:

SteamWake

10-09-09, 05:02 PM

(or fail to accomplish something) that is worthy of the award.

:har:

August

10-09-09, 05:21 PM

Sideshow Bob: The Nostradamus of the modern age:

"Now honestly what is that? Do they give a noble prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?!"

MothBalls

10-09-09, 05:35 PM

Knowing the prize was going to be awarded soon I was wondering who the possible candidates were. The thought of Obama being a candidate never crossed my mind. When I saw reports of this I thought it was a joke. Then I realized it was a joke, just a very bad one. I just can't understand the reason or action to justify this.

I'm very disappointed in the decision and I think the rest of the world is scratching their head on this as well. Although the world reaction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm) was very polite, I think people are just trying to be politically correct rather than sincere. I'd be willing to bet the first reaction everyone actually had was "WTF were they thinking?".

darius359au

10-09-09, 06:09 PM

Saw this on the news lastnight and it was a case of "what the..." , till I worked out how he did it - He's a Ga'ould and used his wooggy mind powers:D

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8328/aphoboma.jpg

FIREWALL

10-09-09, 06:18 PM

The Nobel Prize just became a worthless JOKE. :down:

Any future winners will be looked at by their peers with a " So What "

Onkel Neal

10-09-09, 06:21 PM

Although the world reaction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm) was very polite, I think people are just trying to be politically correct rather than sincere. I'd be willing to bet the first reaction everyone actually had was "WTF were they thinking?".

Exactly my sentiments for all the people who voted for him. ;)

Obama. Next: knighthood!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/04/01/Obama%20queen%20and%20first%20lady-thumb-320x428.jpg

FIREWALL

10-09-09, 06:26 PM

Exactly my sentiments for all the people who voted for him. ;)

Obama. Next: knighthood!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/04/01/Obama%20queen%20and%20first%20lady-thumb-320x428.jpg

That's one way to get near him with a sharp object. :haha:

CaptainHaplo

10-09-09, 06:34 PM

People.....I am astounded.

He deserves this for one major accomplishment.

2 words.... say it with me...

BEER SUMMIT!!

Biggles

10-09-09, 07:28 PM

I guess it all comes down to how you shall interpret the will of Alfred Nobel. He wrote:

...och en del åt den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och avskaffande eller minskning av stående arméer samt bildande och spridande av fredskongresser.

Or, for those of you who don't understand Swedish:

...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

If you are about to follow it word by word, then their has been alot of errors in the past. For instance, it clearly says that a person is to be awarded the prize. Yet, 16 times the award has gone to some sort of organization.

Any thoughts?

Schöneboom

10-09-09, 08:25 PM

Glenn Greenwald took the words right out of my mouth:

When I saw this morning's top New York Times headline -- "Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?hp)" -- I had the same immediate reaction which I'm certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing. Upon further reflection, that isn't all that far from the reaction I still have.

Aramike

10-09-09, 08:43 PM

Go to this website and help Obama win the Heisman Trophy!

http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/Done! :haha:

AngusJS

10-09-09, 08:49 PM

Obama by no means deserved the Peace Prize. But it shouldn't affect his credibility, as he had nothing to do with it.

They lost alot of credibility when Jimmy got one.Uh, like him or not, he did broker the Camp David Accords, found the Carter Center, and actively pursue peaceful resolutions to conflicts around the world.

January 25: Skipped church.Gotta love Fox. :roll:

Dan D

10-09-09, 09:28 PM

"Yes, weekend!"
(free until Monday)

SteamWake

10-09-09, 09:52 PM

"Yes, weekend!"
(free until Monday)

I'll drink to that ! :rock:

Onkel Neal

10-09-09, 09:58 PM

People.....I am astounded.

He deserves this for one major accomplishment.

2 words.... say it with me...

BEER SUMMIT!!

:har: Well played!

AngusJS

10-09-09, 10:41 PM

How to win The Nobel in 12 days.February 1st is merely the deadline for submitting nominations for the prize. The committee didn't base their decisions on those 12 days alone, though the person who nominated him did (or on some other previous period of time).

Aramike

10-10-09, 12:35 AM

Obama by no means deserved the Peace Prize. But it shouldn't affect his credibility, as he had nothing to do with it.
I think in a sense it does. People who've done nothing but fawned over Obama are now talking about how he hasn't really done anything.

While this clearly is a decision that Obama has nothing to do with, it is indeed refocusing the discussion and showing the man in a different light.

sergbuto

10-10-09, 03:08 AM

Sometimes, not doing something is better than doing stupid escalating things. Just for a contrast.

Although, that does not mean that Nobel Prize committee's decision is the right one.

Skybird

10-10-09, 03:34 AM

Uh, like him or not, he did broker the Camp David Accords, found the Carter Center, and actively persue peaceful resolutions to conflicts around the world.

Carter is not perfect and some calls he made imo were wrong assessments, but all in all he is as much underestimated a president like Kennedy and Reagan are overestimated. Kennedy and Reagan were just better stage actors and more competent in selling themselves.

Reagan also was less hampered by moral scruples although he loved to talk about morals - this shine was what made him popular, while his deeds repeatedly left much to wish for in moral integrity. Carter, probably for religious reasons, I am not sure, is more serious about his morals and acting according to them, and promptly finds himself in a situation of being refused at home. Interesting contrast. :hmmm:

MR. Wood

10-10-09, 03:47 AM

The Nobel Prize just became a worthless JOKE. :down:

Any future winners will be looked at by their peers with a " So What "

You are right on that I mean carter then gore now
o b a m a

Aramike

10-10-09, 03:55 AM

Carter is not perfect and some calls he made imo were wrong assessments, but all in all he is as much underestimated a president like Kennedy and Reagan are overestimated. Kennedy and Reagan were just better stage actors and more competent in selling themselves.

Reagan also was less hampered by moral scruples although he loved to talk about morals - this shine was what made him popular, while his deeds repeatedly left much to wish for in moral integrity. Carter, probably for religious reasons, I am not sure, is more serious about his morals and acting according to them, and promptly finds himself in a situation of being refused at home. Interesting contrast. :hmmm:I couldn't disagree more.

Being hampered by "moral scuples" or not has little to do with the policy decisions implemented and the results derived from such decisions. Okay, so you think Reagan acted immorally while Carter did not, fine. If our lead policy makers are judged by their moral impetus in the moment then perhaps you're right (although Carter's original position of preventing the deposed Shah from entering the US for medical purposes raises serious questions about that). However, if those same policy makers have their morality judged by the result of their decisions, Reagan stands far ahead of Carter in every conceivable way.

In the end, that's nothing more than making tough decisions, and sometimes presidents are unfortunately torn between two distasteful avenues. Carter tended towards taking the short term moral high ground. Reagan tended towards the long view. Carter was hampered and weakened by this supposed morality while Reagan was empowered.

It always seems to boil down to one simple query. What is more moral - doing what feels to be morally right in the moment but will lead to disasterous results later or doing what feels to be somewhat immoral but will lead to moral prosperity later?

In the end it seems as though history has judged quite correctly - Carter was completely ineffective in forming policy that would positively impact future world events while Reagan's policies were instrumental.

Skybird

10-10-09, 04:11 AM

I am not willing to accept

- conspirating with and supporting the nation's enemies (Irangate),

- criminally abusing one' own nation's citizen to win elections (getting a deal with Iran not to release the hsotages before Carter lost the elections so that he cannot get a boost from his efforts to get them freed, fact is Carter still was trying and was hanging on the telepohone the very moment the media announced his defeat, there is even video footage of him in that situation),

- attacking one's own nation's people by drug crime in order to give foreign rightwinged militias in honduras an income by which they can pay the weapons one is delivering them, for that corrupting one's own nation'S policework,

as regular policy.

Reagan was a blender par excellence, a rethorically skilled speaker, and his presidency was the role of his life. but it was just a role he masterfully played, a screenplay character that depicts everything what Americans seem to think being american is about, he had not really the integrity that he claimed to talk of. And that's pretty much all about him. His public perception is not about what he did in failures and crimes and achievements, but about a nation that already was satisfied to be made wallowing in sentimental moods and memories of the of good old times.

Aramike

10-10-09, 04:34 AM

The first part of your post is more than a bit "tin-hatted" so I'm going to skip it completely.

Reagan and his policies were far more effective and influential than you're giving him credit for. He was definitely more than just an empty (but persuasive) suit.

Reagan understood the one thing that Carter never could grasp - peace can only be achieved at gunpoint and with strength. Okay, fine, I'll give Carter the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he believed far too much into some inherent "goodness" of people. But I will hardly admire the hopelessly naive.

It's a very simple world we live in, really. Reagan got it right. He knew that not everyone shared the same sense of morality therefore he strived to achieve a position where, if necessary, his nation would be able to impose such morality upon others. That position became the ultimate deterrant.

On the domestic front, Reagan was really the first president of the 20th century to understand the full impact of supply-side economics. His tax policies literally propelled a country into nearly out-of-control growth.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with everything Reagan did. But it is hard to dispute the positive impact of his policies. On the other hand, Carter's policies regularly led to an entrenchment of recession and international blunder - despite how well-intentioned he may have been.

Skybird

10-10-09, 05:06 AM

That's no tin-hatted, but documented facts.

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented.

That the Irangate scandal could have happened without knowledge and at least silent agreement by the White House, is a naive assumption. North was just a pawn sacrifice to protect the White House's higher ranks that were responsible.

And on the drug business of the CIA to help the contras paying their weapons:
In the late 70s, the CIA had it’s hand’s in drugs, like it had in other parts of the world as well: in order to raise financial funds that it needed for it’s hidden operations somewhere else, and that it does not want the public to know about, so they better should not be listed in any balances checked by political control committees. According activities with regard to Middle America and the Contras are well-known by now, and the drugs being smuggled into the US by the Contras to use the profits for buying weapons – all this with help and assistance by the CIA that even hindered law enforcement by federal authorities and made local police accepting drug distribution - certainly were not the only source of incomes of this agency.

the result was a flooding of especially the West Coast and the black slums with cocaine and heroin delivered in the end by the Contras, with police investigations hitting a total low in activity. the weapon companies delivering the Contras their weapons got payed with these profits and thus directly profiteered from state-assisted intensification of drug-consummation and drug crimes (including gang wars), and the number of drug addicts and deaths went up.

I recommended before and recommend again the careful study of this book: "Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion" by Pulitier-winning (for reporting on a natural desaster) journalist Gary Webb, who then got killed in mysterious circumstances: the coroner rated the two shots to his head as suicde - but TWO shots? Maybe he had two heads, who knows.

I also (again) recommend a more academic work by Prof. A.W. McCoy, "The Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the golobal drug trade", but I admit it is a bit difficult a lecture. It meanwhile got released in German, too, three years ago, I think - short after I finished the difficult English book. :shifty:

----

Just because you do not like dark business being mentioned and prefer to ignore it - that alone does not make reminding of it a conspiration theory.

Aramike

10-10-09, 05:25 AM

That's no tin-hatted, but documented facts.

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented.Please cite credible sources on that. I can't find a single thing during a quick Google search to back that up.

Edit: Upon further review, I can only find "tin-hatted" sources making this claim. Pretty much every reputable source I can find seems to attribute the release to the same thing I've always believe - a stick it to Carter/fear of Reagan ideal.

Another Edit: Here's the Wiki of the so-called October Surprise Conspiracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

Not surprising I missed it - I tend to dismiss such theories out of hand - rightly so. It seems as though every credible source out there dismisses this as a tin-hatted theory.

Skybird

10-10-09, 05:55 AM

Strange that I read about it repeatedly over the years. Also, on both issues there have been several full length documentaries on TV, of German and international making.

It's not as if internet links are the decisive criterion whether or not something can be true or not. there has been a world (and books and papers and media) before the internet, I seem to remember.

The 45 or 60 hour documentary that I also remember, on Carter's final days, very likely was american-made, since the original tone was American English. In it Kissinger took a very critical stand on the Republican's activities during the campaign to defeat Carter. While he criticises Carter's policies, he attacked the Reagan camp sharply over the deal with the hostages.

Back then, years ago, I did not had it in web sources, and I simply do not take the effort to google it now. Knowing that I had what I claim in the above from several sources in books and TV, sometimes newspaper essays, is good enough for me to stick to it and not abandoning it just becasue I have no links.

20 years ago or so many people used to think that as long as it was not on TV, it was not real, and if it was on TV, it must be true. Today, people think the same way, but nor regarding TV, but the internet, and "links".

Web links are not everything, and many debates just worsen to "link wars".

However.

Tribesman

10-10-09, 05:58 AM

I can't find a single thing during a quick Google search
:har::har::har::har::har:

SteamWake

10-10-09, 07:26 AM

I interrupt the skybird aaramike tribesman show to bring you this article. Which in my opinion nails it.

In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

and

But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: "I don't have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

MR. Wood

10-10-09, 08:49 AM

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released :rock:

Skybird

10-10-09, 09:17 AM

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released :rock:
According to the first Iranian president after the revolution, Bani-Sadr, the Republicans approached him with an offer to arrange a favourable deal for Iran (who later got delivered fighterbombers via Israel - gotta love history's irony), pointing out that they had the influence inside the CIA to change the activities of the CIA in Iran for the better or worse, and at the same time made clear their threat to assassinate him personally if Iran would not play ball to delay the release of the hostage until Reagan had won for sure. Parts of the Iranian government were sympathetic to the idea anyway, since Carter for them was a hate-figure with whom they thought to have some business to settle after Carter willed the armed rescue attempt that unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, failed.

the whole "october surprise" story is controversial, one has to admit that, yes. However, it is not true that there is consistent, uniform evidence that it all is just conspiration theory, and that everybody dismissed it as nonsens. at least as many witnesses and directly affected parties - I would say: even more - claim directly - or by the details of their part in the whole story give strong indication - that it all is a true story indeed. Also, if considering the political realities that later formed up, it makes much more sense to assume the Republican conspiracy took place indeed.

The Senate Committee examining the accusations and coming to conclusions of that nothing had been proven, means not much if remembering that political multi-party committees wage positional wars against each other in such committees, turning them into a domestic party-warground. Political observers in Germany for example say that the past 6-8 years have seen a record high of examining committees of the Bundestag, but I cannot remember that any of these many committees ever came to a clear and useful conclusion. Party interests blocked each other effectively, enforcing a result so much watered down that everybody could read everything into it.

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 09:30 AM

TDK1044

10-10-09, 09:50 AM

The only thing that would now give the Nobel Peace Prize real credibility, would be to have it presented at the United Nations. That way, a meaningless and useless prize could be handed over at the home of the meaningless and useless. :)

AngusJS

10-10-09, 09:54 AM

there has been a world (and books and papers and media) before the internet, I seem to remember.LIE! There was no such thing!

:DL

Skybird

10-10-09, 10:04 AM

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.
The hostages were released within hours after announcement of Reagan'S victory. You do not know much about Iranian mentality, hm? To release them so quicikly without being rewarded for themn, equals a desastrous loss of face and gives the impression of being afraid. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan or the US (as if the hostage taking hasn't shown that). Plus your "explanation" leaves out several other details, like the timed delivery of fighter bombers.

You are right. Common sense some people seem to lose when talking about politics.

Okay, enough thread-hijackin for one day. We all seem to agree that the Peace Nobel for Obama rewards desires, hopes and wishful thinking only, and regarding the man's actual acchievements is undeserved. I leave it to that.

Onkel Neal

10-10-09, 10:04 AM

That's the way I saw it too. And reading numerous books, most reflected the same attitude. The Iranians were really paranois about the US and CIA, a big part of what led to taking the students hostage. They were seriously worried about Reagan taking office.

Now, that's my kind of president :salute:

Skybird

10-10-09, 10:05 AM

LIE! There was no such thing!

:DL
Whom you are talking to? There is no wikipedia entry on my person, which means I do not exist. You seem to talk to a voice inside your head only. :D

Skybird

10-10-09, 10:10 AM

Bad timing, Neal. :O:

for you: http://www.roozonline.com/english/interview/interview/article/2009/january/22//tehran-wanted-to-deny-carter-any-kind-of-victory.html

A position on the detail that falls somewhere inbetween your and my view of it.

And a summary of several aspects, infos and persons that speak for and against the "conspiration" against an octobre surprise - as I said somewhere above, one must admit that it is controversially perceived, but summa summarum imho more speaks for that it existed than what speaks against it.

http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=31

Aramike

10-10-09, 01:58 PM

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.Yeah, that's the story. I vaguely remember the October Surprise theories from back in the day, but they just seem to be your typical evil Republican conspiracy theories.
That's the way I saw it too. And reading numerous books, most reflected the same attitude. The Iranians were really paranois about the US and CIA, a big part of what led to taking the students hostage. They were seriously worried about Reagan taking office.

Now, that's my kind of president :salute: Indeed. :rock:

Btw, Skybird, I wasn't trying to be glib about not finding links to it during a quick search. I was genuinely looking for references to what you were talking about as to educate myself further on the subject.

Oh, and isn't it interesting the way some threads turn here on Subsim?

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 09:32 PM

Skybird

10-11-09, 04:33 AM

Skybird - am not trying to nitpick, but I do want to correct something you said. The hostages were NOT released hours after Reagan won the election. Presidential elections are held November 5th in the US. The hostages were released 6 minutes after Reagan was SWORN IN - which always occurs on January 20th. This is roughly 75 days after Reagan won the election.

The timing actually SUPPORTS the idea that there was no negotiations between Iran and any US group over the election. Between the election and being sworn in, Reagan still had no ability to order an action. The moment his oath was done, he could act.

In fact, sources indicate that there was a plan approved of by Reagan to immediately deal with the Iranians and the hostages, that was waiting for the go word. It is also indicated that the "transition team" as it is called, let the Iranians know that hell would break lose if the problem wasn't immediately dealt with.

The Iranians - aka Komeine, feared that US action wouldn't stop with a simple hostage recovery, but rather a restoral of the Shah. Lose something - or lose everything was the choice they faced.

With the timing you are right. However, it was not without american favours in return, the freezed Iranian financial assets of Iran were released one day later.

Regarding Khomenei, I remember it differently, and one of the links above supports what I said on Bani-Sadr and Khomenei.

The story is not to be explained one way or the other, with all certainity, one can only take the many hints and observations and statements from different sources and different people, assess the one against the other, and then see which pan of the scale goes up and which goes down. I think the pan with the "conspiration theory" weighs heavier, and quite many being in better knowledge of the events also say so: more speaks for the theory than speaks against it.

For that practical reason I base on it being true.

CaptainHaplo

10-11-09, 09:32 AM

I agree on we each have our own opinion after weighing facts.

My view on the asset freeze removal is te whole "reward good behavior, punish bad behavior". It also could be seen as a "reset" like our current president is so fond of talking about.

I am looking into the fighter/bomber thing. Always good to look at it from all sides.

KG_Jag

10-12-09, 12:56 AM

This "prize" is determined my a handful of left wing Norwegian politicians. So why do we (in the U.S.) pay any attention to it at all?

Just two years ago they gave it to Gore for his book on the weather. At least he actually wrote the book.

Castout

10-12-09, 01:42 AM

Obama should have never taken the award and give a slap to their faces by declining.:down:

Skybird

10-12-09, 05:26 AM

then those mocking him now would have attacked him nevertheless, just for different reasons. The prize is a no win-no win-situation from the very beginning. Maybe that is why the first reaction to the reporters telling them about the prize was a complety unenthusiastic, laconic "Wow."

A competent jury in contact with reality would have known that. Obama - probabaly has cursed them for their folly. It makes everything, really everything more difficult for him.

SteamWake

10-12-09, 08:44 AM

At least he actually wrote the book.

Thats up for debate as well ;)

Even Obama's buddys are finding it hard to believe.

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's socialist leader Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that U.S. President Obama had done nothing beyond wishful thinking to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE59A1MU20091011

Shearwater

10-12-09, 12:01 PM

The prize is a no win-no win-situation from the very beginning.

Definitely. And I guess if he had turned it down, there would certainly be people who would find it overbearing.

SteamWake

10-14-09, 11:59 AM

The Taliban weighs in and they aint happy :haha:

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani Taliban has criticized the decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize saying the U.S. president should have received a "villain of peace" award instead

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,566080,00.html?test=latestnews

Skybird

10-15-09, 06:11 AM

There are reports now, basing on a Norwegian newspaper, that there has been bitter debate in the committee, with three of the five jurors having been against the prize awareded to Obama. But it was pushed by one member of the socialist party, suported by the fifth guy who also is member of that party. In the end, they stubbornly pushed it through.

Strange math.

Information on internal processes of the Nobel committees are said to be extremely rare. That it became known now may be a hint at the scale of the conflict behind the stage curtain.

Meanwhile a rumour appeared that Obama next year will be given the Nobel prize for literature, because he certainly will write a book one day and it is very likely to become a big success. :D If universities only could agree on giving him some honory doctorates, nobel prizes for chemistry, physics, medicine and economics are in reach for Obama, too. :yeah: