Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
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.
But looking at it, this is not the worst selection by the committee. If they can give it to Arafat, why not Obama? Until now he hasn't started any war. He is only continuing the war that was started by his predecessor.
Striving for peace (and the public good) is a wonderful thing, as is good diplomacy. However, these are things that we should expect of national leaders, not rare things to be celebrated.
While I'm far to the left of Barack Obama, I have a certain respect for him. Nontheless, I don't think he merits the prize - he has not done anything amazing towards it, and a prize that's made of combined forward-looking and acknowledgement of someone doing their diplomatic job properly isn't much of a prize. We may be less of a diplomatically wayward nation now, but each president we've ever had (and probably ever will have) reinvents our foreign policy - BushSr and Clinton, despite both of then being very well-informed and capable in foreign policy, still reinvented it during their office.
I don't think the prize means as much when it's used this way.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
It could be construed in another way. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, now Obama will have to think twice before going to any war from now on. Basically by increasing the load of expectations on him, I think the committee is trying to direct his hand to a carrot when both carrot and stick are viable alternatives.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Yes, the cut off is Feb 1st.
Which means he was nominated while people were still in the international post-coital bliss of his inauguration.
As for the moon, I think the last thing we want to do it bomb them, they've been known to throw rocks back at us....
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan
I took this news as a sign that the Nobel committee determined that the ongoing lengthy engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan are a bloody means to a peaceful end. I don't really share this opinion and I think a lot of people in the world would (similarly) support the removal of the Taliban but not whatever you want to call Iraq right now. The interesting thing is that they should have given Bush the Nobel Prize for Peace if they felt this way last year ... he started those wars after all. The only other explanation is that these wars were largely overlooked. I only draw dangerous discrediting conclusions if I look at the situation logically.
Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
I think every president discovers this. Obama's Responsible, Phased Withdrawal from Iraq (biggest of many reasons I voted for him) reads thusly:
The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
I honestly have heard no word of this. I guess he got into office and things got too real too fast for him? No word on that although I haven't been scouring his speeches. Now if that's why they gave him the Peace Prize, I'd agree with them. But that was a paragraph buried in his campaign promises (and not in progress yet), not something he's done.
I'd suspect this award was given out for the purposes of sparking controversy or to put the onus on Obama to become what they want him to become -- a peacemaker. I agree this was not a prudent decision although I don't see it as critically as most people. It is just an award after all.
My work here is dung.
I'd agree that the allocation of Nobel peace prizes is pretty shoddy; but blaming left-wing bias seems silly. Henry Kissinger got one, after all, and he isn't exactly a lefty hero. So did mother Teresa who(despite some well publicised, if somewhat ghoulish, charity work) was about as far right as they come.
Seriously. I voted for the guy, and I have very mixed views about his performance so far -- he definitely doesn't deserve this.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
They take every chance they get to get foreign A-list celebrities to come to Norway.
1) They can get top notch music artists to perform for free at the ceremony.
2) They get Hollywood superstars (e.g. Scarlet Johansson) to host the event.
3) Third and final sell-out is giving the price to someone famous.
This kind of takes some of the prestige away from the proper scientific Nobel prizes.
- El riesgo siempre vive - Private J. Vasquez
The best part isn't that Obama won the prize 8 months into his presidency but rather that he was nominated 2 weeks after getting into office. So this crap that he's working towards peace was merely tacked on in an attempt to justify the award.
It's interesting that this reflects, quite nicely, the problems with America's youth today. Kids have been overly coddled by their parents, children win awards for merely participating so that no one feels left out, garbage like that. So we're stuck with these millennials who can't deal with the challenges of life and expect the government to shield them from everything. So Obama winning this award for "intentions" is quite fitting.
I'm both a Democrat and an Obama supporter (Feel free to read my comment history if you think I'm bullshiting to make myself sound more sympathetic, it goes back years and is pretty firmly liberal throughout), and I agree. If it was 7 or 8 years from now and Obama was coming out of office having accomplished some of the many things he has promised to do, I would be behind this 100%, as it is I was fairly shocked. As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented. Give him a chance to get the results, then give him an award.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-s3XnE9TmA&feature=channel
May be part of the reason. I know this does not constitute the only reason for getting the prize, but i'd say it's a contributing factor. He's trying to mend the strained relations between the US and Middle East (Read: Iran) created by the last administration to stop things like war from happening.
I'm curious who the other nominees were that lost out to this bizarre result.. were they so unworthy?
Considering the first year of his predecessor, not doing even one thing could actually in theory be considered doing the right thing at this point..
Oh, c'mon. Let's at least be fair about it. I know that's hard for people to do when the subject matter is George Bush, but honestly, what did he do in his first year that was so bad? The bulk of what I remember about his first year was all domestic issues -- his tax cuts, no child left behind, the tie in the Senate after the Senator Jeffords switched parties, etc, etc. You may disagree with a lot of that domestic policy but tell me, what bearing would it have on the international communities opinion of us?
Now those same people who cried it out back then, are on the other side this time accusing Obama of not doing anything yet..
Yeah, and the Democrats are now the ones using terms like "un-American" to describe those that disagree with their agenda. What's your point, besides all politicians are hypocrites?
On a seperate note, WONDERFUL Sneakers reference in the sig.
Thanks :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I get my news from a number of sources, from Al Jezeera and the India Times to the BBC, from CNN to Fox, from Freerepublic to the Daily Kos.
BBC has just as much bias as any other outlet - only their bias is in what stories are chosen, as opposed to the commentary upon them.
Any nerd should understand this - GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. You have to collect news from multiple sources and weigh the actual facts, not the commentary.
Learn about Photography Basics.
I've noticed for the past few years that the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to definitely be moving in a direction not of honoring people for recognized achievements, but instead using the prize, seemingly, to try to promote an agenda. The parent's point is a good one - Obama hasn't really done that *much* yet, to promote peace - though I'm sure he has nobel, err, noble intentions, the actual results don't seem to be in yet.
Peace is a bumpy process. Those you named did make serious contributions towards peace, which in no way negates later setbacks. Aung San Suu Kyi has not brought about a democratic Burma, and the Dalai Lama has not brought a peaceful co-existence between Tibet and China.
Kissinger is rightly vilified for brutal American tactics in Vietnam, but he did begin the troop drawdown that eventually led to the end of the Vietnam war (which is exactly what the anti-war movement is demanding for Iraq and Afghanistan today). And Arafat did make serious efforts towards a peace deal during the 90s, even though it eventually fell through (as did his co-recipients Peres and Rabin, who equally deserve the recognition for the effort and the blame for its eventual failure).
So I'm going to go out on a limb here, and be a contrarian: in the past year, I don't think anyone has done more to advance the cause of peace than Barack Obama. So, politically problematic though it may be, I think the prize is warranted on its merits.
I'm an American. One who was more than pissed off with Bush. One who voted for Obama. One who is still proud of that choice.
I've seen a stark change in the world perception of the USA. I've seen opinions and hopes change within my family, friends, neighborhood, state, etc. Even Republicans I know, while still a bit jaded over Dem's winning is hopeful for the future under a Dem.
But what has _Obama_ the man done to win this prize?
I'm just an average citizen and all I've seen so far is an attitude shift in the country and world towards the changing of our President to a non-republican. And I'm not even sure the Republican change is even as important as the simple leaving of office that Bush graced us all with.
My point here is simple. Did Obama gaining leadership deserve him winning the Peace Prize, or was it awarded to the _office_? Did the real healing began _merely_ because Bush left?
Say _anyone_ else won the Presidency, not even necessarily a Democrat, but say anyone who was against War in general and came across as a "peacetime" president or at least, not a war mongering one. Would they have won as well?
I'd suggest that yes, yes they would have. At least if they were as personally likable and articulate as Obama is (regardless of who writes his speaches, he at least comes across as edumacatud).
My opinion is that the absence of Bush won the Prize, Obama just happened to be the person who filled that slot.
"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."
We damn well need to make buddies with Putin if we have to attack Iran, and it's not like selling out Poland to the Soviets doesn't have precedent. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
To put things into perspective, since you obviously have forgotten. At this point in W's first term, we were one month post-911. So, by all means, please elaborate on this "far more peaceful action".
"agree to your general's request for 40,000 aditional peacekeepers."
There, I fixed it for you. Now, I don't mean peacekeepers in the sense of, necessarily, UN Peacekeepers, but more in the sense of troops whose mission in Afghanistan is to keep the peace. Sometimes, the world needs strong men and women who are capable soldiers, in order to prevent *worse* violence and bloodshed. Our forces aren't over there gratuitously slaughtering Afghani's. The fighting they do is in response to agents of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who are attacking them, attacking the Afghani government, and attacking civilians.
Would the U.S.A. have accomplished *more* for peace by staying out of WW1 and WW2 than they did by entering into it? It's hard to say for sure, but I think that Hitler and Mussolini would have probably finished conquering Western Europe and the U.K., and once they were fighting a one-front War against the U.S.S.R, they would have used the resources of Europe to make the war against the U.S.S.R drag on for a lot longer, costing many more lives. Who would be victorious in the long-run is unknowable, and not important in this case. The point is, U.S. intervention in World War 2 helped to end it sooner, and establish a world order which, while not perfect, quite probably was far more peaceful for the last 60+ years than the alternative (of course, we'll never know for sure).
Sometimes, the greatest benefactors of Peace are those who are willing to make War.
On a more personal level, is someone who steps in to prevent, say, domestic violence against a woman by her boyfriend or husband, a violent person? A perpetrator of violence? Of if they end up having to fight with the violant spouse/boyfriend to protect that woman and/or her children, are they *peacemakers*?
If I had mod points, sir, You would get them. Bravo for calling both parties out on their bullshit without sounding like a biased moron. The entire system is set up as an 'us' vs 'them' mentality, that blinds us to the fact that both parties are only looking out for the intrests of their team, not the interests of America. Until Americans can break free of this mentality, our leaders will continue to disapoint.
The time for the purification is at hand! The impure shall be cleansed and crystal clear purity shall fill the cup of th
So he should get the award because he's better at lying or because we just haven't given him enough time to hang himself?
America is rather disconnected from war, so people who make comments like 'incite the US to civil war' are generally ones who have absolutely no clue what war really is. Even now, with a 'war' as its being called in two different countries, Americans have no idea. We lose as many if not more soldiers in training accidents during peace time as we've lost in our two current wars, and people are freaked out about it.
Most Americans now days are so spoiled I'm pretty sure more than half of us would just mentally shutdown and ignore the world around us if we were actually involved in a real war with someone.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
While I like your little essay, I think by focusing solely on the international arena, you're missing out on a lot.
First of all, exporting US dollars as aid to other countries just gives the rest of the world more incentive to keep our currency from collapsing.
On to Obama -
I didn't vote for Obama (nor did I vote for McCain), but I've started to really like him. While he may not be accomplishing a whole lot yet, he's at least bringing light (and consequentially, discussion) to a lot of topics that were overlooked during the Bush years.
The Republicans aren't even debating his points based on actual facts, but relying on lies and character defamation.
I can totally relate to Obama. He's just trying to get some shit done in a broken system, and a bunch of crazies are trying to bring him down for no particular reason. So yes, his changes are going slowly, but I'm optimistic that he'll get most of his agenda done. He's already doing pretty well: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
To compare that to Bush's accomplishments is absurd. While I tend to give Bush a lot more benefit of the doubt than most people, I don't think he engaged the American public nearly as much, and in this time of cynical politics we need someone like that more than ever.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I think Bush did largely ignore domestic issues on many fronts. And I don't believe that Bush was a great president by any stretch of the imagination. But he wasn't this horrible, evil, warmonger that people made him out to be either. In fact, immediately after 9/11, there was popular support to go into Iraq, because people assumed there was a connection there. Bush urged us not to rush into Iraq, saying there was no evidence of a connection. He urged diplomacy for another two years.
When diplomacy fails, and Bush says Iraq is part of the war on terror, people twist it to say Bush is lying and saying Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.
When Obama first started running, I liked him. I told friends he was my favorite candidate. But frankly I find myself liking him less and less all the time. I think the thing that really killed it for me was finding out he voted 5 times against a "born alive" bill.
I know people have differing opinions on abortions (especially at the different time frames) but when you kill babies that are born and survive outside the womb, you really fucking lose me there.
It should be noted, that one thing I really liked about Obama, was that he went across party lines to support things he believed in, even if it was unpopular. For instance, he called out Democrats in Congress for their weak bill, and supported Bush on a bill that would call for immediate and drastic increases in fuel economy from American car companies if we were going to give them money. Sadly, the much weaker bill passed, but few politicians seem to care about doing the right thing. They only care about making their party look good at the expense of the other party.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
It didn't piss off the Poles, because the majority of Polish citizens opposed the plans in the first place, and supported Obama's decision. It pissed of the Polish government, because it presently consists mainly of the boot-lickers for the American administration (I'm sure people from UK can see some similarities here).
Same applies to the Czechs, only the opposition there is even more pronounced.
The prize committee specifically mentioned Obama's environmental (i.e., global warming) as a main reason they awarded him the prize. In any case, if it is for Obama's nuclear disarmament diplomacy, then award the prize to him 20-30 years down the road when we can see if what he did actually was effective.