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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.