Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize 1721
Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.
For what? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
For all his talk his biggest accomplishment so far is bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars - if anything that would be economic. I'm no W supporter, but what possible cause is there for this other than anti-W sentiment?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
The win was so meaningless and out-of-place that the CBS morning news anchors actually did a double-take and assumed it was someone playing a practical joke on their teleprompter when it ran across the first time.
CBS, who have their lips glued to Obama's butt when it comes to news "reporting."
You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way. This is similar to when they handed it to Al Gore previously, a move widely recognized as having no basis in fact but being merely a slam at Bush because they were still pissed about the way the 2000 elections turned out.
Of course, they're also recognized as much for people they failed to award (such as Gandhi, whose death finally shocked them into saying "oops, no living person exists qualified for the award" for a year because according to the terms of Alfred Nobel's will they cannot award the Peace Prize posthumously) as their routine mistakes (such as Yasser Arafat, awarded a "Peace Prize" and then proceeding to go on to lead over 20 more years of terrorist attacks).
Today is October! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:3, Informative)
From what I understand, Barack Obama is personally responsible for the recent push to increase nuclear disarmament. This is fairly well known in diplomatic circles. I suspect this was a prime reason why he was awarded this prize.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the source -- it's a British newspaper.
The BBC is not, has never been and can never be a newspaper. It is a publicly funded broadcast news outlet which has far less bias (read: practically none) than any US news network you can name, and is a trusted news source around the world.
Calling the BBC dubious is... dubious at best.
Re:proletariat (Score:4, Informative)
Have you actually looked at the Health Care Reforms that have been proposed in Congress? They're not going to make health care more affordable, they're not going to provide universal coverage. If they pass as written, the main thing they're going to do is increase the revenues of the current Health Insurance companies by about 10%.
Surely you remember those current Health Insurance companies? The ones largely blamed for the problems with American healthcare? Yah, those guys will make more money, the rest of us will spend more money, and Congress will call it good.
One needn't be president to start the meter (Score:5, Informative)
Obama began working for peace long before inauguration day. He fought to refine the death penalty in Illinois as a state senator to reduce chances of the innocent being put to death, and was largely responsible for brokering the deal that did just that. He worked for nuclear non-proliferation in the US Senate, working with Lugar (R-IN) for funding and policy to destroy assorted weapons. On the campaign trail, his words (yes, words!) spoke of a new American policy, one of peace.
Now, maybe you feel that those deeds are sufficient, maybe you don't. But, to suggest that his body of work under consideration can only begin once he was inaugurated president is sheer folly.
Done nothing? (Score:2, Informative)
1. Completely altered and improved the worldview of the US, bringing down a lot of tension that had built up.
2. Reached out to Muslim nations and started a new era of improved relations.
3. Followed through on commitments to pull back from Iraq. He didn't start this policy, I know that, but he has stuck to it and the nation is far more autonomous now then when he took office.
4. Relieved tensions with Russia by taking back a completely silly missile defense site in Poland.
5. Completely changed the US policy on climate change and is working to try and make us actually do better. Which makes every other nation happy.
6. Actually brought Iran to the table and has them acting less crazy and agreeing to ship out portions or their uranium. Sure its not perfect, but it's not a bad start either.
I'm sure there is more, but I'm just saying that there are some achievements of note even at this point in his presidency.
If nothing else, it will be super fun to watch right wingers lose their minds over this. I would even consider watching Glenn Beck tonight, just for the entertainment value.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:3, Informative)
It's even simpler - it's available to ANYONE who makes appropriate liberal noises, whether it matters or not. Being staunchly on the left wing helps tremendously.
It's ALL about appearances. ...it's a continuing list of the incompetent, irrelevant, and self-promoting.
1985 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1988 United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces
1990 Mikhail Gorbachev
1993 Nelson Mandela
1994 Yasser Arafat
1995 Josef Rotblat
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1999 Médecins Sans Frontières
2001 United Nations
Kofi Annan
2002 Jimmy Carter
2005 International Atomic Energy Agency
Mohamed ElBaradei
2007 Al Gore
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2009 Barack Obama - nominated after TWO WEEKS IN OFFICE.
In that sense, it's appropriate, considering the whole PRIZE is merely a sop to the Nobel family's conscience and an effort to whitewash their connection with the invention of dynamite.
Re:Obama Ghandi? (Score:5, Informative)
It was a screwup done in the 1940s, or even earlier. Not awarding a price the year he died is as close as they can ever come after Nobel's instructions. So it happened and they'll probably still talk about it in another 100 years but the past can not be changed. It's not Obama vs Gandhi, it's Obama vs other candidates of 2009 vs not awarding one at all. There's a lot of lesser candidates that have gotten price because there wasn't any better, perhaps that is the problem?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
These are not very left-tilted politicians in Norway. One is a former chairman of the conservative party, and another a former representative from the rightmost party currently in the Storting [wikipedia.org].
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:1, Informative)
He was nominated just weeks [wsj.com] after he took office. A recent push cannot be the reason.
Re:personally (Score:5, Informative)
(He used Keynote)
Re:Joke (Score:4, Informative)
What the... how is abandoning a country desperately in need of aid and peacekeepers a *good* idea? Is the situation in Afghanistan messy as hell? Yes, absolutely. Is working to stabilize the country and drive out the Taliban and Al Qaeda the right thing to do? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Or are you one of those folks that thinks that military intervention into, say, the Sudan or East Timor, is the wrong thing to do because it involves soldiers and guns?
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Informative)
Try again.
The point of the Nobel Prizes is to recognize people who do good for mankind. Three of them are for advancement in the sciences. One is for "in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency." One, a little more nebulous (and reputedly a form of attempted moral consolation after Nobel witnessed the horrors his invention of dynamite had caused), is for the advancement of "Peace" (exact wording: "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.")
Nobel's will specifies the following things:
- the prizes are to be awarded for something already accomplished.
- the prizes are to be awarded to someone living (it can't be awarded posthumously, which is why there was a "bye year" when Gandhi died and the committee realized they'd royally fucked up and missed their chance to recognize his work).
- One is to be awarded for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and "international peace."
In the sciences, the time lag is tremendous. This is partly a result of some early awards being given to "advances" or "discoveries" which were later discredited; the downside is that a number of possible recipients have been passed over because they died before the committee had fully vetted them. Literature's time lag has evolved as the committee shifted to covering a body of long work from an author, rather than a single book.
The "Peace Prize" is the most politically charged, and many propositions have come forth to alter it and prevent bad awards being made. Left-wingers go after the 1973 choice of Henry Kissinger (for negotiating the Vietnam peace accords) based on his involvement in other conflicts. As early as 1905, the choice to award it to President Roosevelt (for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War) was criticized because his administration was involved in a bloody revolt-suppression in the Phillipines at the same time. Right-wingers criticize the political handing of the award to Al Gore. The choice to give it to Yasser Arafat, given that he kept leading and encouraging terror attacks for years after (also, because it was awarded for the Oslo Accords but Arafat was recorded saying on Palestinian national radio the next week that signing the Accords was a sham on his part), is hit often, as is the award given to anti-semite Jimmy Carter in 2002. Rigoberta Menchu nearly had her 1992 prize revoked after it was revealed that much of her autobiography (which was part of the basis given in the committee's written statement on why she received the award) was a fabrication. Cordell Hull, given the award in 1945 for helping found the UN, had 5 years prior been the major decision-maker (Secretary of State) in FDR's administration when they sent a ship full of Jewish refugees back to Europe (most of those refugees then were killed in the Holocaust).
So yeah, there's ample tradition on many fronts to criticize the awarding of the Peace Prize. Given that the nomination process closed when Obama was only in office eleven days, I think anyone from any side is justified in saying that giving it to Obama is premature, since the requirements are that you have already done something worth giving you the award, not that you are "expected to" do certain things.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:1, Informative)
Dude, I condemn based on written Shari'ah law, universally recognized by Muslim religious authorities...
Re:personally (Score:5, Informative)
Which accomplishments would those be?
Probably it's for canceling the plans for the ABM (missiles/radar) in Europe, which he did last month. While it pissed off a lot of Poles, it sure made Russia feel safer.
So the Russians canceled their new short-range nuclear missile deployment in turn, which made a lot of 'Old' Europeans feel safer.
Now, since Obama got a Nobel Prize, he should have no problem applying for an O-1 visa, leading to a green card, and eventually, one day, a US citizenship. I keed, I keed...
Re:Gandhi never received the Nobel (Score:2, Informative)
BUT the reason no Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1948, the year of Gandhi's assassination, was because he was the winner, and it's never awarded posthumously.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no.
Shari'ah is NOT recognized by the very vast majority of Muslim believers.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Informative)
Ha! This was decided by 5 people, who even the AP admit were well left of center (3 more than the other 2, but all left). Did you even read any news on this topic?
Even the Whitehouse was asking if it was April 1st (no joke).
Nominations ended in early February, 12 DAYS AFTER HE WAS IN OFFICE.
This was a horrible choice that will likely cause more digust and dismissal of the entire Nobel process.
They couldn't wait another year and give the man a chance to actually do something???
What a slap in the face to all of those who are making REAL change towards peace. He may make great speeches, but so far he is all talk and no action.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:3, Informative)
This just makes me sick - it was only 7 years ago, and yet people believe this shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution [wikipedia.org]
23 Senators voted against the resolution allowing war to be declared in Iraq.
Furthermore - HE WASN'T A US SENATOR IN 2002! He served from 2005 to 2009, and one of the biggest criticisms the right had for the guy was that he was inexperienced, as a junior senator.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Informative)
Seems you're trying to be misleading. The link you give isn't about limiting what you can think. (Until mind reading is a scientific reality, that will never be possible.) It's about telling you you can't be violent.
Likewise you misrepresent that. It's not about telling you what you can say. It's about preventing the dishonesty of party political propaganda masquerading as news programmes. Certainly a side effect of that is limiting what you can listen to, if for some reason you prefer being lied to with propaganda rather than having a proper news channel.
Of course given your distortions, it's odds on that you are very fond of the propaganda channel known as Fox News. So one can see that you would indeed be disappointed to see a Fairness Doctrine. But for people who think democracy shouldn't be distorted by blatant deception aimed at the ignorant, it's nothing but a good thing.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Parent is dead on! [Nomin != Selection] (Score:3, Informative)
But nominating is not the same as selecting a winner, which happened more recently. Nomination only puts one on the list. A recent event that helped world peace was removing the anti-ICBM (anti-missile) equipment from Poland. Iran has no ICBMs so far, which is why Russians saw it as a threat to them and not so much to Iran, the claimed defense target. Whether this played a role in the decision or not is an open question. But it was an actual peaceful action that can be pointed to. "He did nothing but speeches" is simply not true.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Bush's actions did represent those words. Note that he only invaded two countries, instead of, say, all of them. And if we were really all that offended by Sharia Law, there are a lot of countries we missed.
Obama on the other hand, is doing what, exactly, in the way of "trying"? Pulling out of Iraq? That was agreed to by Bush the year before Obama became President.
Reinforcing the troops in Afghanistan? Yah, Obama did do that, but I'm not sure how that is really indicative of him trying to be nicer to Muslims.
Face it, so far what we have from Obama is some speeches and a lot of hope. I've nothing against speeches, but they don't get things done in and of themselves, and hope is a good thing.
Hope just isn't on the list of qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Re:personally (Score:4, Informative)
Your dog does it, but it's probably not ink.
Re:personally (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, chemical weapons were found in Iraq following OIF, which is a WMD and a violation of the cease fire of 1991 and all the UN resolutions that followed, but hey, don't let facts stand in in the way of your rant.
Bush wasn't up for election in 2008, the news, might want to pay attention to it over the near 2 years that people ran for the nomination in the US.
Re:personally (Score:4, Informative)
(It would be interesting to find where you cut and pasted that from...)
How exactly is spending buckets of money we don't have an 'accomplishment'? Other than from the POV of himself and political handlers - they've pandered to a lot of their political base and hopefully converted a few of those who voted for him primarily because he wasn't Republican. Not to mention the vast bulk of those 'accomplishments' are domestic, not the international effects the Prize is supposed to recognize.
I'd laugh if it weren't so sad. US national policy has been promoting nuclear disarmament since the 70's, and by and large practicing what it preaches. At best, he's done nothing but following the course already set.
Re:And, well, why not? (Score:4, Informative)
What exactly is your definition of an illegal war?
The UN Security Council said they would have voted against going into Iraq as a UN effort, but the vote never took place. Technically, the UN's cease-fire agreement said if Iraq did not fully comply, the cease-fire was null and void, and UN military action was authorized. The security council find Iraq in violation of the cease-fire some 75 times.
The US went into Iraq with the direct support of over 30 nations. When the coalition displaced Saddam, the UN officially recognized the US control of the nation as a soverign leadership in the UN before Iraq had its own government in place. In effect, the UN recognized the war as being legal and valid.
Congress voted for it, and the UN ended up approving it. How was that illegal?
Afghanistan was already in civil war before we got there. We supported the side that was ousting a terrorist regime who initiated military conflict with the US on 9/11. We remain in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghani government. The UN recognized this as valid as well. Congress voted for it.
Again, how are either of these illegal?
Please look up the definition of illegal and get back to me.
Re:personally (Score:3, Informative)
Why would removing a defensive system make the Russians feel safer? The BMD can't deal with a saturated strike like the Russians are capable of delivering, it wasn't going to be part of a integrated air defense network, if the Russians wanted to take out Eastern Europe, they could have cruise missiles the BMD sits from the Tu-22 and Tu-26, then struck Poland and whomever.
Same goes for the US parts of it, they are good for small arsenals (DPRK, Iran), OK for medium arsenals (PRC) and poor for large arsenals (Russia, France, UK). So why exactly is a defensive system a bad thing?
As for Russian short-range nuclear missile deployment, well they still have a truck load of ICBMs and air launched cruise missiles than can hit any "Old" European capital in 15 minutes.
Re:personally (Score:2, Informative)
Eye for an eye, eh?
Yes, that's exactly right. If someone has announced his intention to kill you and has the means to carry out that threat then you kill him first. You didn't make the decision that someone was going to die -- he did. All you did was ensure that it wasn't you. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibility.
Have we caught Bin Laden yet?
Irrelevant.
So you're saying that US policy in the 80's was based on a threat to a few slavic states in Europe?
No, I'm saying that claiming the USSR wasn't a threat is either extremely naive or trolling. Based on your response I'm going to have to go with trolling.
We were told the Russians were going to nuke the crap out of us
Which wasn't that hard to believe, given their actions in Eastern Europe and their [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org] of aggression.
Pragmatically speaking the cold war in America wasn't about any countries but the US and Russia.
The Cold War 'in America'? WTF are you talking about? The Cold War was a global one. It was waged on every single continent and touched virtually every single nation.
Besides, the point is that there's always a shapeless threat. Today it's "Terrorism,"
Terrorism is a threat. To think otherwise is naive. I do agree with you that there always seems to be something that we are supposed to be worried about but you ignored my agreement in favor of continuing your flower child rant about the evils of "an eye for eye".
Just something for the plebes to get worked up about so political leaders can manufacture clout.
See, that's where my agreement ends. I will agree that certain politicians exploit threats in order to further their own agenda. You seem to think that the threats themselves are completely manufactured. I don't know how to respond to that, other than to suggest that you put the bong down and try looking at the geopolitical situation once you sober up a bit.
Re:personally (Score:3, Informative)
"Iraq was a response to a decade of ignoring UN security council resolutions and international law."
According to International law, the only justification for war is defense against an attack or an imminent threat of attack. Iraq did not attack the United States, nor was Iraq an imminent threat. According to United States Law, only the U.S. Congress has the power to declare war.
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the nation of Afghanistan attacked the United States, but I can see some small shred of an argument there. Even so, Congress should have declared war to make it legal.
As for the Iraq war, it is, and remains illegal, un-Constitutional, and totally unjustified.
Re:And, well, why not? (Score:4, Informative)
I never said might makes right.
The term illegal implies the US broke law. The US followed their own law for declaring war, and following international law as well given that the UN approved both actions.
I'm checking your links. You're first one suggests Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible for 9/11. Funny, because he admits to it and no one else has claimed responsibility. We have 9/11 conspirators who admitted to it in trial as well. You link claims there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
The link also claims that no one in Afghanistan attacked the US, thusly the invasion was illegal. Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that he had formed a partnership with the Taliban. He performed multiple terrorist attacks against the United States while operating as a guest of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden was indicted in US court, and the Taliban refused extradition.
You insist there is no proof, but even the UAE and Saudi cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and called for the Taliban to hand Osama Bin Laden over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban [wikipedia.org]
Again, the Taliban and Northern Alliance were in an existing civil war, both claiming rightful ownership of Afghanistan. NATO didn't attack Afghanistan. NATO attacked the Taliban. I think if you ask the Afghani government, they'll tell you that NATO liberated them.
Women are just beginning to have rights for the first time even in Afghanistan, thanks to deposing the Taliban.
Your second link seems to suggest that it isn't morally acceptable to go into Iraq, because it is an act of aggression. But it is morally acceptable to preemptively attack and sabotage military bases as an act of aggression, because you're worried they will eventually commit war crimes.
That is akin to pro-lifers killing doctors in the name of life.
You can't argue for and against preemptive aggression in the same breath. Regardless, the link only suggests the action is immoral.
It never says the courts for US action in Iraq to be illegal, because it wasn't illegal.
You can't escape the facts that the UN Security council did acknowledge the war as being legal and valid.
It is legal by every definition. That point isn't in contention. Arguing otherwise merely means you wish to ignore all facts.
If you wish to say you don't like the war, or you don't find it just, then go ahead. But again, you will likely do so in the face of a number of facts.
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Informative)
What bullshit. Terrorism is probably something you believe in prosecuting harshly, but that's just a crime combined with a political position.
According to Republicans, fly a plane into a building and it's mass murder. Fly it into a plane for Allah, and it's terrorism.
You must be joking if you are criticizing hate crimes as a double standard.
Re:personally (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like a +2 to me at the moment. In fairness, while my closing was factually accurate, it was disingenuous. Though wasn't the London bombing a retaliation for the UK following us into Iraq?
I'm disappointed that i left it in, since it detracts from the points I was really trying to get at.
There's a difference between being independent and self-assured v. not "giv[ing] a rats fuck" what the rest of the world thinks. I was also trying to get the Parent (or anyone else...) to explain what's "sad" about emulating ideas from Europe (or anywhere else...), other than a "not developed here" attitude.
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Informative)
Dude, unless you get a grip on reality, you're not going to make any more than you do today. These cartoon versions of the parties aren't going to serve you well.
International polling data on America's reputation (Score:3, Informative)
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush.
Taking a look at some of the international polling data:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264 [pewglobal.org]
I'd have to say that calling it spin is unjustified. The media was perhaps simplified as usual, but did indeed reflect accurately what was happening abroad. To say that America-haters existed before Bush is entirely correct, but misses insight into the magnitude of the shift; the degree to which it affected the mainstream public in various countries, and how it included countries that historically had been friendly or at least neutral.
Individual America-haters have always been able to make a spectacle; perhaps make some embarassing speeches, set off a few bombs. In a few countries, they even happened to be the head honcho in charge. In either of those cases I'm sure nothing much changed.
However, when the countries we're dealing with are democracies (we like those, right?), such major opinion shifts can have large impacts indeed on how foreign policy works, or doesn't.
Re:personally (Score:4, Informative)
Probably it's for canceling the plans for the ABM (missiles/radar) in Europe, which he did last month.
Seeing as the prize nominations ended in February, that's probably unlikely.
Re:personally (Score:3, Informative)
liberals are the ones who have plenty of time to post on popular internet forums. Conservatives are too busy WORKING
Re:personally (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you're first doesn't make you the best. Hell, in theory, every democratic government to arise after the US should be better than the US because they can adjust against our mistakes, not all of which have been or probably will ever be amended by the US.
That's not to say that what we have is terrible, just that democracy in itself is flawed. But despite democracy being a poor system it's the best we've got. Even in democracy, there is no perfect system (even leaving aside lobbying and fickle public opinion). From Arrow's Theorem (aka Arrow's Paradox), the ideal democracy is a dictatorship.
Also, because we did it first doesn't mean it was our idea. Really, we just emulated French philosophers.
Re:And, well, why not? (Score:3, Informative)
Nice dishonesty there. He didn't start those wars (one of which is perfectly legal). He got them handed over to him from the guy who started them. Basically, he has to clean up the mess, and unlike idiots like you, he realizes it isn't just a matter of snapping his fingers.