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.
Must be for that PhD of his in Fried Chicken-ology.
It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The end of the world is truly at hand.
Why?
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.
I think he may possibly deserver the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.
Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
The Nobel *Peace* Prize was always a joke.
the moon? How is that peaceful? The Raelians are going to be pissed!
Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.
Best Slashdot Co
That is one hell of a first 11 days.
(Or one hell of a consolation prize for not scoring the Olympics.)
(Or an ironic thing to give a man who declared war on the moon.)
(Or one hell of a band-aid for being satirized on SNL)
What exactly has he done to deserve the prize? Would it not have been better to wait until he got done with his presidency first?
As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.
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?
HE has yet to do anything but spend me out of a job. he is the worst president ever and he got the peace prize. i am ashamed to be an american with him as president.
there are 10 types of people in this world, those who read binary and those who don't. which are you!
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
One week after Obama was elected, the possibility to nominate someone for the nobel prize was closed.
So he basically got nominated for a week's work.
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.
"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.
This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.
In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.
So do you think he looks so good just because he came after GW? Since when do we give out Nobel prizes for intentions?
How can they give someone the Nobel Peace Prize for something he has not done yet? The US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are no closer to pulling out than we were 8 months ago. From Wikipedia: "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'" What has Barak Obama done (not talked about doing) in the last 8 months that makes him worthy of the prize this year?
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
does this graph
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/189342-LC02FT150W995AC4HSAOQWU8WZACL1&crt=4&rspid=46741811
seem just a little odd? its from the washington post poll about Obama deserving the nobel prize.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
However, I would love if President Obama showed the world how good he is by refusing to accept it stating he has so much more work he still needs to do. However isn't Will Smith giving out the award? I don't think I could refuse an award by Will Smith so I can't blame President Obama if he reluctantly accepts. For what it's worth I still think he is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, even this soon in as long as he can deliver on the good strong start he has made.
cannot be taken lightly, but I think his best strategy yet might be to decline the Nobel.
body massage!
I'm relatively neutral towards the guy but really I don't think he's done enough to deserve this.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi. What a joke.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
... criticisms of KDawson for posting this article start in 3...2...1...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)
I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
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.
This is not news for nerds. It's news for CNN, Fox, etc. Please stop trying to turn this site into Digg.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
How is it that the Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded for good intentions? Or is the prize in fact a parting shot at Bush the Younger, Dick Cheney, and their merry band of losers, whose mess Obama is still trying to clean up.
In fact, this is going to make his job a whole lot harder. With the Arabs saying "It was too early to award him" and the Israelis saying "This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking" and both looking at him with incredulity, Obama will have a harder time at a Middle East peace than any other U.S. president.
Too bad for him.
This is Slashdot. Obama is supposed to be exactly the same as Bush. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss, and all that.
Don't get me wrong, i like the dude, and i probably would have voted for him if i lived in the States. But to award him a Nobel is a monumental joke -- he's accomplished absolutely NOTHING to this day.
His name is spelled Gandhi NOT Ghandi So you know
Wait, isn't the Secretary of State responsible for US foreign policy?
Hillary Clinton screwed again!
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.
But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.
You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.
Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.
Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.
I for one consider the Nobel shark, jumped.
He is going to send more troops in Afghanistan where nearly every week unarmed civilians are killed by "friendly" fire and they give him the Nobel Peace Prize? WTF?!?
Obama will surely be better, much better, than the criminal George Bush, but until the day he orders the troops to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan, then cease all operations abroad related to that lie called "war on terrorism", he will just be a better US president from the US side and just another bad one from the rest of the worlds' point of view.
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism - in fact if was brought there after the US invasion - and it's pretty clear now that war in Afghanistan is dragged in order to last as long as possible to justify the foreign force presence. If he doesn't bring all troops home he's not much different from GWB. Now someone explain to me how could this guy get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately Obama, like every other US president, is a puppet controlled by the Congress. This means he will never ever bring all troops home.
After 8 years of pure hell, Obama should thank Bush for making him look so good.
I mostly LIKE barack but I seriously had to sit here for about 10 seconds and try to come to grips with fact that I just lost almost 6 months of my life and that today was April 1st. Honestly - wtf were they thinking. If this is some kind of political maneuvering Obamas part then it's deserves to backfire on him. I wonder if he could refuse to accept the aware. Of course that too would have it's on political consequences
I wish the world was a better place.
I wish people would get along.
I wish people would help each other when needed.
I wish people would let others live their own lives.
I wish people wouldn't force their beliefs on others.
Ok, where is my Nobel?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WHAT the fuck? If they're giving out prizes for not being George Bush, then I want one too.
Obama hasn't had time to wipe his ass yet, let alone deserve a Nobel Prize. That bar is awfully high, or at least it should be. WTF.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This was simply compare and contrast. After Bush's supreme idiocy, Obama coming out and endorsing intelligence, diplomacy, and common sense looked genius.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
War on drugs and all that. We were eradicating the Mooninite's Moonajuana crop.
Wait, is it April Fool's/Fools' Day already? I thought it was in October...
"Obviously, you need to be an Einstein to navigate the Austrian Patent Office website." - platinumrat
This win was to show that trolls come from Sweden.
biggest joke I have ever seen. He is doing the exact same thing Bush did with the war efforts. Apparently, you can win the Nobel prize through words, not actions. The Nobel peace prize has forever lost any meaning to me, it is another liberal pedestal.
Jimmy Carter has won one too and he's the worse US President there has just about ever been.
nobel prize lost all credibility when algore was given the peace prize. this is laughably fun, sick, and stupid.
They have orbited a big old satellite of fail over the shark tank.
Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
It is really shame that they forgot something like this :(
I like Obama. I like much, not all, of what he's doing. But come on!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
This really just happened.
As I read this thread, I said "Obama won the Noble Peace Prize" and he immediately shot back, "Why? He hasn't stopped the war or anything."
I am not taking about an indoctrinated child poised to defend (or attack) certain ideologies. Hell, I don't even think he knows what the Nobel is...but he sure can figure out that Peace Prize and "ongoing war" should not go together. Pretty perceptive.
B.O. winning the nobel prize is like me winning the lottery, I'll keep playing and eventually I'll pick a winner, go ahead and pay my 130 million now.... It should be based on accomplishments. How many first round draft picks, children of successful people, and joe blow end up with nothing from something.
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 Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements" Like the saying goes "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Get ready it's going to get hotter...no wait that's just Global Warming!
Highly biased decision! What he has done to this world on peace? He has not even completed any remarkable task in his own country...Best joke of the year!
bits and bytes of life should serve the needy - My bits and bytes
Every time I hear those words I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRUsdQ-rNVk
I suspect the reasoning behind this prize has much more to do with influencing his future actions.
To a great degree, he's limited by the opinion of the general population, as well as Congressional and media attitudes. And, some of his "peace"-oriented moves may be the result of hardball geopolitics; the rollback of missile defense in Europe probably had more to do with a backroom exchange of favors with Russia (I hope we got a good trade out of it).
However, remember when he pondered reaching out to the more moderate (moderate being an extremely relative word, in this case) factions of the Taliban for negotiation? The backlash made him reverse quite quickly, but I doubt few politicians in the US would have been willing to voice the possibility of less-shooty-more-talky in this case.
Now, the peace prize is a little different (okay, a lot different) from the scientific prizes, but it still carries a lot of heft. Not only does it possibly open up some possibilities, it may also close of other avenues of action, as he may now feel he has to live up to the reputation of a Nobel winner. Even if he doesn't allow himself to feel that pressure, from the public's perspective, it now makes it more ridiculous, for a "Peace Prize winner" to be seen talking in the cowboy-tough manner that U.S. presidents seem to resort to whenever they need to ward off accusations of being soft.
Well, he has continued action in two wars, while --- not... starting a new one yet?
That and declared that he wants Gitmo closed, you know, when they get around to it.
The award was given by an international committee, not Faux News. When you consider how the international community views the U.S. as compared to the previous administration, Obama has made tremendous strides. Whether this award is due to actual actions by Obama, or due to the message he sends is immaterial. The fact is the world views the U.S. in a much more positive light and is much less inclined to view it as the enemy, thereby promoting the prospects of greater peace throughout the world. In addition, the prestige of this award (at least to non-US conservatives) will empower Obama even more, as he will have additional clout when working with his adversaries because he will come into the negotiations as a man of peace rather than a man of war. While he is still having to grapple with the remnants of the Bush administration debacle in a responsible way (and not getting any help from the right), it does not diminish his overall message of peace and cooperation with other nations throughout the globe.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
lol@bush that's, it's weird everyone forgot that idiot dictator of yours so quickly... compared to bush even Elmer Fud would make a half decent candidate, yet McCain failed (lol@lol)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... they should have waited the end of his presidency, some more years to assess the results of his actions and then decide what to do. What they did is detrimental to the authoritativeness of the Nobel Peace itself.
Cool they have paticipation peace prizes now. I wonder when the "all i got was this peace prize" tshirts start showing up
Barack Hussein Obama!
"You love me, you really love me"
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I think this is a racist move by the Nobel people.
It seems everyone realized at once.
Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.
Well, he was one of the very few in Congress that spoke out against invading Iraq.
Free Martian Whores!
I'll have to start a blog outlining all the things I want to do, like solving hunger, cleaning up all the pollution from the ocean, and bringing peace and love to all mankind.
If I get enough subscribers that I become famous, I can get the Nobel Peace Prize too! And I don't even have to leave my desk.
In chemistry for their work with Mentos & Cola. Also: Michael Moore - Literature Nancy Pelosi - medicine Osama Bin Laden - Peace Bill Nye - physics
OMG! The day has come...
The Nobel Prize has become a pawn of the economical political system we live in. So, now it's only a farce for the weak minded masses. You know, the same people who think that being in "Who's Who" is an honor and not a money making scam to sell you a false sense of recognition.. right?
To me, they have given him this for not being George W. Bush. Hey, I'll take one.. I'm not him either! I can prove it, I have a backbone! *chuckle*
So, when I invent a energy / mater sequencing device (a replicator) I'll just have to be happy with the knowledge that I ended world hunger and poverty because I'll just get another Nobel to add to my paperweight collection then? (LOL)
Strange days!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
This is part of a huge conspiracy to re-enact The West Wing in real life.
The Nobel Prize committee is just following The West Wing script, where the ideal president has a Nobel Prize (fictional President Bartlet received a Nobel Prize in economics).
First Paul Krugman, now this. How irrelevant is the Nobel Prize these days?
Just a bunch of elitists scratching their own backs.
The bar has been lowered. You can now win the prize by moving troops out of one destroyed country, and into two others - pending destruction.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
Note the past tense.
President Obama has done nothing at all to reduce standing armies, and his work towards a fraternity between nations is in its infancy.
I have every intention of ending world hunger. Do I get a prize, too?
The Committee has gone from being a joke (Al Gore) to a... huh -- where do you go from joke?
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Obama wins the office after accomplishing nothing in the Illinois senate (yes I live in Illinois) and accomplishing nothing in the US Senate.
Now a nobel peace prize? Might as well give him a Super Bowl ring too.
This is essentially a big F YOU from the world to the Republican party. Love it.
No you don't.
you didn't CARE who got it. You barely knew what it was about even.
The only lowering of the Nobel prize is one you are doing by making such a big thing about this.
Raelians? Forget the Raelians. Gidney and Cloyd are coming, and the Earth is gonna get scrootched!
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
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.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
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.
I'm trying to figure out what he did? Does spending trillions count?
Bill Gates through his foundation has done more for world peace. Please remember the nominations closed TEN days after Obama took office. I guess that giving billions of your own money to help the poor and establish peace does not count with the Nobel Committee.
There's a fella jumped in to help a child out of a river that had burst its banks.
But he received nothing for it.
Another bloke started a war because someone dissed his daddy.
He received nothing for it either.
THEY are jokes.
PS tell me the last time Gandhi proposed the removal of 1000 nuclear warheads and also had the power to see it done?
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize!!
Cheap Jordan Shoes Free Shipping
Yo Obama, I'm really happy for you & I'm gonna let you finish, but Mahatma Gandhi had one of the best Nobel Prize candidacies of all time!
... because I "intend" to bring about world peace. "How?" you ask. Doesn't really matter since it is my intention, but here's my plan... I'll just go around giving lots of speeches until everyone is so tired of my speeches that they will promise to be good just to get me to stop giving speeches. Peace achieved.
do you think most of america has any idea what is happening around the arabian peninsula?
more to the point: do you think the administration actually cares what the people want? everyone that i know, regardless of their religious or political views, says that the war in iraq was/is a waste; it's little bush trying to be like big bush.
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?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
he isn't trying to make health care more affordable. None of them are. They are about consolidating the power of the Federal Government.
If they were trying to make health care more affordable they would have first...
1. Removed the blocks put in place so you cannot buy or take your private health insurance across state lines.
2. Medical malpractice and tort reform, because the amount of insurance needed to practice some medicines is beyond reasonable
3. Clean up the fraud in Medicare so more of the money is actually available for treatment
4. Expanded HSA so individuals can make their own health care decisions.
The real fault of the US's current health care is that severe medical hardships can strip a family of all their property - something that state medical systems already do (at least you can go bankrupt fighting a private insurer but states still take property)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Damn, WTF is with the left wing shitwit bury brigade today? Obama gets mentioned in the title and they're guarding like hawks to push their agenda.
Slashdot's mod system is fucking broken when insightful posts get bury-brigaded like this.
... has such enormous praise been foisted on someone that has done so little.
If Obama has any integrity, even a shred of it, he would refuse to accept the prize.
I kept expecting the guy during the announcement to say, "Bababooey!!"
Why is everyone making such a big fuss about this? I mean, come on, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago for making a video about climate change. That doesn't even have anything to do with peace. Giving Obama the Peace Prize doesn't seem so bad in comparison.
Henry Kissinger also won one and he's the jackass who said we need to make more nuclear missiles to get rid of missiles.
Can I get a Nobel Physics prize because I fully intend to create a unifying theory to explain all four of the fundamental forces?
The Nobel Peace prize means nothing now.
It's not about what he has done it's about what he's trying to do (most recent the neclear disarmament talks at UN)
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.
Besides, this isn't american idol or BCS or even Oscars. There are no mathematical formula for giving nobel prize!
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 see everyone on here critizing the nobel comittee for selecting Obama. Maybe that was just there best choice right now. This isn't the time of Ghandi. People are just now realizing our world is going to shit faster than we expected and they're trying to grab on to anything they can to slow the process. Instead of just looking at the problems of the present, peopele are starting to look at the big picture to help steer us to a not-so-shitty future.
Everything has bias. Stop even attempting to claim that anything is objective. People use bias as a way to attack the value of what is being said. The truth is that everything said or written carries a spin intended by the original author. Whether this affects the veracity of what is said is an entirely separate matter.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The "peace" prize jumped the shark a long time ago. Wilson, Roosevelt, Kissinger, Arafat? Obama should decline the prize as an insult.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I have every intention to cure cancer sometime before 2050, Where is My Nobel for Medicine?
for losing the Chicago 2016 olympics?
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi.
Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. So I don't think Gandhi should be expecting a call from Stockholm anytime soon...
Actually looking at your definition, I feel even more strongly about post I made above. I will repost it for you...
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
He may not have the bullet points, but I think he has achieved a lot towards those goals in the short time he has been in office
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.
who nominated him in the first place ?
Man, they should see the work I'm going to one day do in a yet to be determined field!
I think that this administration gives most of us more hope for good things here at home in America and abroad than we ever could have gotten from the last administration. I think that few would argue against Obama being more intelligent than Bush and maybe more morally sound than he or Clinton. That said, this award is given very prematurely and with little merit in my opinion. I too question not only its validity but the possible motives by behind it. Even if Obama had brought about world peace and puppies and rainbows for everyone in his first 8 months the nomination coming only a short time into his presidency smacks of popularity. If he had received this in 2010, even without doing much more than offering up more promises and rhetoric, I think that the Nobel committee would have a better shot at making this award carry some weight. As it stands, either Obama will push forward with more peace initiatives (either on his own or due to the pressures of the award) or the Nobel will be tarnished. I think we'll land somewhere in between. Either way this will be a lightning rod for controversy for years to come.
A lot premature. Barack has accomplished very little in terms of peace. They could have just waited 10 years and then give him a prize if he really did anything good. They've been giving many of these prizes years after the actual achievements, so what's the rush?
After all, the USA could still start a war with Iran, and so much for world peace then. You can say they are making nukes for all they want, but there's no real evidence yet[1].
[1] http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html
officially a participation ribbon.
:wq
As long as they're rewarding potential and intent - why not give a physics nobel for my kid? He is very smart for his age and all his teachers say "the kid has a lot of potential". Oh yeah, it will motivate him too.
Seriously, I used to be pissed that Mahatma Gandhi was never given a Nobel, but looking at a lof of winners after him (Arafat, Kissinger, and now Obama to name a few), it's probably an insult to Gandhi to be grouped with this bunch.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
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.
"Hire Nobel, get Nobel."
(Should I patent that?)
If you think Ghandi deserves a peace prize, you probably need to read up a bit more on Ghandi. He's not the selfless saint that society has conditioned itself to portray him as, much in the same way they've misrepresented Mother Theresa (who we've been groomed since birth to regard as the ultimate in selflessness and altruism, without any real cause).
This is probably redundant but it seems odd to me to award someone a prize for hoping that they are going to do something great. I mean, sure, Obama has definitely shown us that there are Americans with good smiles and good acting capabilities...but if that's what he is being awarded for why hasn't Brad Pitt landed one of these babies?
I suppose that the committee has the right to give the prize out to whoever they want for whatever they want but giving it to someone for their efforts and implying that, hopefully, those efforts will pay off one day just seems like an absurd case of futurism: "We predict that amazing things will come from this man, so we are going to award him for those things now." What if he gets shot? What if zombies attack before any of his work can pay off? What if our recent bombing of the moon (teehee) backfires and the intergalactic police invade our planet for vandalism? I know these are absurd examples but the point is that tomorrow is never promised (hell I'm not convinced it even exists in anything but our imaginations), and that even holds true for the invincible Barack Obama.
I guess giving it to him for his efforts is decent enough to offset this, but hell, I think a lot of people have been putting effort into making the world a better place, whether it be through blogging or grassroots activism or science experiments or white-hat hacking. Why don't they get prizes too? They are putting in major efforts as well right?
Odd...
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Give the peace price early in order to make it more difficult, politicaly, to bomb later.
Which pretty much permanently canceled whatever prestige or symbolic value the prize might have had.
you had me at #!
I'm curious who the other nominees were that lost out to this bizarre result.. were they so unworthy?
Some would say the prize is premature, but this prize isn't about accomplishments. It's about one of the top leaders of the world, coming into office, and immediately doing everything in his power to apologize to the world for our arrogance, remind us and others that the US is one among many nations, reaching out to all other nations, friends and enemies, and making efforts to reduce nuclear arms around the world. Has he succeeded in all these things? Some. Will he succeed in more? Well that's the point of the award.
The award serves two purposes. One, he is rewarded for his intentions. It lets Obama know that the rest of the world perceives his intentions and actions favorably, and that he should continue in this way if he truly seeks peace and harmony among nations. Second, it gives him a slight boost in authority. He is now widely recognized for his intentions, and his desire to bring peace to the world, and that should help him (albeit, only slightly) when negotiating with others. It gives him credibility, and leaves less room for others to doubt his motivations. It encourages others to support his efforts if they also seek peace.
In other words, the award is recognition of his efforts so far, and will act as a tool to help him proceed with his peaceful goals in the future.
The NotBush Peace Prize has been awarded to the man who now presides over the largest war machine in history; who has made no cuts to the military budget; who is escalating the war in Afghanistan; who is moving forward with a missile defense system in Europe which will end MAD; but who has stated an intention to end our reliance on nuclear weapons for global (in)security.
While I'll definitely grant you that the BBC is WAY more unbiased than Any American News Network, I'd hardly call them unbiased. Now if you were to come up with some kind of mutant crossbreed of the BBC and The Register, then you might actaully have an unbiased news source. Or you might just get an eternal dragon eating itself or a Phoenix rising from it's own ashes. Both are more likely than an unbiased news source. It simply doesn't exist. Some are better than others and the only way to get a decent picture is to read from both sides of the argument and try to figure out what the real story is, that lies somewhere between the two news sources. The only way to get at the truth is to read several sources on both sides of the fence. Even then you have a fat chance, because the truth is a closely guarded secret restricted to those who have the power to bend it to their will.
-- But then I may be a pessimist when it comes to human behavior. Or a tinfoil hat wearer, but that doesn't mean THEY aren't out there trying to turn us all into mindless zombies living at Walmart and Eating @ Taco Bell. Personally, I prefer hats made out of Aluminum sheet. It's thicker, sturdier and reflects more radiation. Much better protection.
Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.
Airmax Tn
Nike Air Force One
Airmax Trainers
Air Jordan Fusion 4
Jordan Shoes
Jordan Store
Shoes Store
Nike Shoes Store
Shoes Buying
CHEAP Nike Shoes
CHEAP Air Jordan Shoes
Air Jordans Retro
Cheap Jordan Shoes Free Shipping
Why did he get that prize?
The US is still at the top of the most invading countries.
They are threatening Iran without reason.
They are protecting Israel instead; why no NPT for them? What about warcrimes?.
They still do not want to stand trial in the Hague.
Their country, the US of A, is crumbling each day that the debt increases, no good basis for stability and peace internally.
So why is the president of a mess like that awarded a Nobel prize?
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
see those grumpy old swedes?
they picked the award
not the parent teacher association of peoria illinois
now you can wax and wane philosophical all you want about the decline of a true meritocracy in the usa, that's perfectly valid. and you can register a complaint about the empty vapid faddishness of the wine and cheese set in stockholm, again, totally valid
but confusing the two is just a desperate troll
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is even stranger that awarding the prize to Yasser Arafat!
I don't doubt that things are different in the international arena, but I wonder how much of it is Obama. I wonder if a big part of it is that he is the new guy from the other party. He hasn't been in long enough to genuinely change perception that much. It just seems like the Nobel Prize people are really saying that they really, really, really didn't like Bush.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
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.
Hey, that editorial crack is completely unfair.
They were not trying to turn the world into a more back-biting, Machiavellian, toy for manipulation by megacorporation advertising and strong-arm back-door deals.
They were succeeding. "Trying" is for sissies.
Disclaimer: The above is a joke and is not intended to imply that I like the current course significantly better than the old one. New corruption pretends to sweep clean, but it's still corruption, and we still employ Halliburton and Blackwater.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Points for stupid straw-man arguments.
Oh you mean Cuba - where they JAIL aids patients
Or Canada where if you need a heard bypass surgery you might just DIE before your turn comes - unless you take your own money and go to the United States?
Don't worry, the private health insurance industry will fail. :
No for-profit establishment can begin to compete with the not-for-profit able to print money to pay its debts government clinics. Wait, I hear it, the faint murmur of "post office" and "Fedex" - old president's tale there - the Post Office and Fedex don't really compete - Fedex may not, by law, deliver first class mail. for packages
The Postal Service was the least expensive by far for local and long-distance deliveries. For letter-size envelopes, such as the ones it gave us for sending the books, it charges a flat rate of $16.50. (Flat rates for slower delivery are lower.) The other shippers base prices on weight and distance traveled. UPS charged $62.87 to send our book next-day to Oregon and $29.55 to Manhattan. FedEx charged $54.57 and $27.48, respectively. ...Asked how the Postal Service, an independent part of the U.S. government’s executive branch, can deliver overnight shipping for less, a spokeswoman, Yvonne Yoerger, said: "We have an infrastructure in place and letter carriers everywhere. We’re simply adding package delivery to a network that already exists."
http://consumerist.com/5072394/overnight-shipping-battle-fedex-vs-usps-vs-ups
When your boss figures out that he can unload the cost of your medical insurance onto the taxpayer, you will find out exactly how much you get to keep your own doctor or health care plan. The one out of a hundred bosses who let people choose regardless of the cost will not be able to hire everyone who wants to maintain the choice.
Death Panels? No, but there will be shortages and rationing - simple economics: reduce the price of any good to zero and the demand rises past the ability to produce the good.
Hoards of atheists burning churches? really? what do atheists have to do with the health-care issue?
as an MCSE now...
Coming so shortly after SNL's scathing "Not Done" skit, this has reduced the Nobel Peace Prize to little more than a Valentine's Day card for popular liberals. [i]"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said.[cnn.com][/i] So, in the vacuum of people who have made real strides towards peace in the past year, the committee is going for someone who made the loudest promises. Brilliant.
> He's not the selfless saint that society has conditioned itself to portray him as
Dude, no one's a *saint*. Even the folk promoted to Catholic sainthood were human beings with all sorts of foibles. But Ghandi deserved this award a lot more than Obama did. A whole lot more.
Go somewhere random
Note the past tense.
By getting elected, and preventing warmonger fucks like Palin from being anywhere near control of the US military.
By standing up to same warlike fucks on the election trail, and artfully making sure their motivations and manipulations were laid bare for ordinary people to see.
When he took the oath he has already done more for world peace than any president since Carter..
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I really dont get it. I'm a progressive independent, and Obama hasnt done a damn thing yet!
As far as I see it, he's as lame as Bush was.
He's failed at Univeral Health care
He's failed at getting out of these stupid wars against boogiemen
He's failed at solving the economic crisis
He's handed over billions of our tax dollars to the wealthy, while mom and pop lose their homes and jobs and receive NOTHING from the government.
He's as fake as the rest of them. They're all corrupt assholes.
Bring on the real Revolution.
matter this much?
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
can i round up some tipsy old farts at the golf course and announce their vapid opinion on the world media stage too?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Like the United Nations, the Nobel committee is now irrelevant. The only thing Obama has accomplished is to further polarize the people of the United States and grow the government to obscene levels.
I'm waiting patiently for responses that blame Bush and call a me racist.
Well... I actually think it's a stretch to say "Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize", which implies he actually did something to earn it or had to compete with others to get it.
The committee gave it to him for whatever reason they wanted to. Probably should have been "Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize", which is a more accurate description of what happened.
Next maybe he can toss the football around with Emanuel on the White House lawn, and they can award him the Heisman.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I just learned I won the Academy Award for Best Picture because I promised a really good movie in a few years.
This is my signature.
soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin
Any questions?
Name one. I'm serious.
..except you don't want to.
THAT'S why you won't get the prize.
So many other people have actually accomplished something. I guess you can get a Nobel prize for being black??
BS. According to another source, Nominations for the award closed Feb 1. All he did by then was actually take the oath of office.
This is a political Left wing stunt, right up there with giving the award to Al Gore.
Your reasoning for why he deserves the Peace Prize seems to be, "Because many people in the world like and trust him," right?
Focusing in on the "fraternity between nations" part of the definition? With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Which basically means, any time we have any national leader who is broadly well-liked, we should give him the prize?
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 would say that the current POTUS is nominated by *someone every year, as a matter of course.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Judging from the international polling and studies to date, most notably the most recent global Pew poll (more details here), you're completely wrong. Obama has, in fact, genuinely changed the perception of both the United States and our interests. And the Nobel committee unanimously agreed that Obama has exemplified and personified the approach to world matters that the peace prize is meant to award.
E pluribus unum
miss America. for her ambitions for world peace!!!
I feel sad on behalf of the scientists who where awarded the nobel prizes in physics and chemestry. They recieve the award for a lifetime's work, that truely change the world, and they can look over to the guy who recieved it for being a black man sitting in a white house for 11 days.
Wait a minute. Obama, a Nobel laureate, just refused to meet with the The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), another Nobel laureate. Does that mean he will have to give his medal back?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
What's it called, when you are so used to bad TV, that a not quite as bad show will look to you like the best thing ever? Or when so many people tell you that a movie is great, that it can never match your expectations?
In this case, are they really honoring him for not being a obvious visible piece of criminal shit, like that one before? I can only say, what Chris Rock said: "[They] always want some credit for some things they are supposed to do. [...] [Like] 'I take care of my kids'... You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker!". (Obama does not want it, but they give it to him for the same reasons.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/world-reaction-to-a-nobel-surprise/
anyone who came after gw bush in the white house would look deserving of the peace prize in comparison, by simply not being gw bush. that's the sum total of the truth about this prize right there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course Barrack was awarded the peace prize. This years prize also includes a set of Ginsu steak knives and 10 free car washes.
don't know about Ghandi, but they at least should have given one to Gandhi.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. Make a speech and some promises.
2. ???
3. Nobel Peace prize!
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You should look things up before you open your mouth, and remove all doubt of your understanding of the subject.
The first nobel prize was awarded in 1969. Ghandi died in 1948. Obviously you are ignorant to the specifics of the nobel peace prize, that the prerequisites for even being nominated for it contain this;
The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize.
The Nobel Foundation also has explicit rules about giving the award to a person posthumously. Here is the relevant section right out of the Foundations guidlines;
4. Work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award. If, however, a prizewinner dies before he has received the prize, then the prize may be presented.
Explain to everyone WHY you find it interesting that a man who died 21 years before the prize even existed, hasnt won it.
is all it is
Obama needs a source of revenue to pay for all of his spending. I view legalization as inevitable. A tax on pot is one of the few things he can do that would not violate his pledge to avoid tax increases for the middle class. California is leading the way because they are DESPERATE to balance the state budget. Either they legalize pot, or they get the mother of all bailouts from the federal government. Obama either plays along with Calif., or stands firm and watches 49 other states do the same thing to balance THEIR budgets.
A tax on something I don't use (that was previously illegal) is one of the few taxes I can support.
Can I have a Nobel Peace Prize?
The work he has done on nuclear disarmament (largely unreported in the US media) has been simply astounding. FWIW.
He got the prize 'cos he's not GWB. That's how low the threshold is, these days.
Obama is only perpetuating two illegal wars of agression and a global network of 737 military bases.
Actually, I think they did this to PREVENT him from launching aggression on Iran. ;-)
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I can think of so many people who deserve the honor more. That this prize, full of tradition and prestige, is squandered on an undeserving politician, diminishes the worth of the award. I would have awarded it to Greg Mortenson, myself.
First Al Gore, now Obama. Are Democrats BUYING these Nobel Prizes somehow?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
He may not have fulfilled any of his campaign promises or in fact done anything except holding speeches, but there's one huge achievement for world peace he can be credited with: Replacing Mr. Bush. That's what he got the prize for.
Complete agreement on all points: I come from the same general side of the political spectrum as you and I was like WTF? I'd love it if he won the Nobel in 7 years for all the amazing things he'd done over those 7 years, because I think the world could be a much better place. But now? no. It could even be a disincentive: why try hard, when you've already won the freakin' Nobel?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I think it's probably likely that he'll turn it down, thereby making him seem like "the honest guy." The whole thing reeks of PR stunt.
I find it interesting that you think a prize that didnt exist until 21 years after Gandhi died, and is never awarded posthumously, should have been awarded to him.
I personally feel the American people should get the Nobel Peace Prize. They did more for peace by voting Bush out of power than Obama has done.
I dunno, it doesn't exactly look to me like anyone else has done anything towards the end of "peace" this year. Maybe they should have just called off the 2009 prize altogether. :P
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
He was in Congress then? Here I thought he only became a Senator after the 2005 election...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The Nobel Prize is hardly worth the paper the check is written on anymore - other than the fact that they get money. Otherwise, who really cares anymore. They gave the same prize to Arafat and Gore for Pete's sake - A terrorist and a hypocritical glory-whore. The year they gave them the prize there were other people more worthy. The dumb committee members are just making their lame political statement.
W(ho)TF cares about this Peace prize? Probably Nobel - because they've made him turn over in his grave AGAIN!!! Give the poor stiff a rest!!!!!!!
I intend to prove string theory correct. Do I get a Nobel Prize, too?
Carter? CARTER?!?! Give us a freaking break. The inept bungler who accomplished almost nothing. The bright boy who thought he could pull together a multi-service task force on a whim, so they could rescue hostages, only to have them getting killed in the desert. Carter should have stayed with nuclear propulsion, and left leadership to men who lead. FFS, I'm not aware of one single command decision that he made while in the Navy. Carter was a functionary and mechanic with scrambled eggs. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, of course. It was only when he began to think that he was something more that he screwed up. Lapdog to Admiral Zumwalt is not a qualification for president.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Fortunately, it only hit a Walmart.
Table-ized A.I.
Dude, they are Swedes
I find it funny that there's an ad for "Stop ObamaCare Now! Click Here!" on this page.
It seems a ham sandwich could have also won this prize for sharing the only possible criteria for this award - Obama was not George W Bush.
Never mind that he's keeping the same policies and hasn't actually done anything yet. He intends to. And he is definitely not the same guy we had before.
What I can't decide is the angle:
1) Are they pressuring Obama to now do something to actually earn this award?
or
2) Are they reinforcing the results of the election, hoping to promote similar results in the future?
Or what?
They certainly, absolutely, positively are not awarding this prize to someone who they feel genuinely deserves it. As others have said, he was nominated in February. I'd insist that we limit his list of accomplishments to that date, except it would be the exact same list as today.
Today I feel like the stereotypical 'stupid American'.
I suggest that if Obama accepts this award, he be impeached for a serious breach of ethics. There are others in the world who actually did things, and he would be doing something immoral to willingly deprive them of their recognition.
While I agree with you and several (sub-)responses here in that he has not actually accomplished much (yet??), you guys seem to be ignoring the actually summary of the article here ["the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements"] as well as the statement from the committee [they are recognizing "his extraordinary efforts"].
From the Nobel website:
While you may not think he has done a damn thing to deserve it, apparently the committee thinks otherwise.
Karma: NaN
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.
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
By that time, Obama will be out of office, and the price will no longer make any difference. As Nobel intended it, the peace Nobel price is to be awarded for achievements dating back no longer than a year. As such, the price is intended to be a vote on current political matters. However controversial decisions turn out under that condition, it is Nobel's will.
Excellent point. I wish I had mod points!
And the Nobel committee unanimously agreed that Obama has exemplified and personified the approach to world matters that the peace prize is meant to award.
I notice you carefully avoided the word accomplished in your hosannas.
this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented.
And with this action, it no longer is.
Actually, I think they (Nobel committee) already made that mistake by giving Al Gore a peace price for work that isn't really peace related.
I don't see Nobel getting a Ghandi Prize either... fair's fair.
Even worse, the nominations for the Peace prize start in February, correct? So Obama wouldn't have been in office for even a month before they stated he would have been worth the prize. Granted, they have had a few more months before actually determining the winner, but this took a lot of hubris.
BUT HØW DØ WE GET THE FAMØS PEØPLE HERE!
THE FJORDS?!
Sure they are pretty, but you know how BORING! it is to gawk at the aftermath of a glacier all the time!!
hmm....maybe we could get NASA to jam a satellite or two into them?
please?
We'll give you a peace prize next year!
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
he is not george bush. He represents a choice by the american people not to put another hatemongering, fearmongering rich white guy in the white house. Just BEING THERE is a huge step forward for america, and he's defused a lot of the international unified hate directed at our nation. The former administration was so evil that gore and obama both won peace prizes. Don't for a second think that it's just about them. Because anything appears shiny when you contrast it on a background like that.
I am posting anonymously because it is my god-given, protected right. For now.
I live in Norway, and can honestly say far from everybody here is fond of this.
Many criticize the committee for awarding a prize to a man that has not earned it (yet), merely planning. That is not really what prizes are given for. It is a political game though. They expect U.S. president to follow up on expectations after this prize and deliver - including saving the environment, limping economies dependent on U.S. far too much etc.
Can't say this justifies the committees decision. It seems people with power decided to use Nobels Peace Prize to advance their own schemes.
"The [Peace] Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy."
source by "Francis Sejersted
Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Commitee, 1991-1999
26 April 2001"
Hamas says Obama hasn't accomplished enough, and awarding this prize was premature.
Israel says it was awarded for "wishful thinking".
Why am I not surprised by either?
From the Washington Post, scroll down to "Updated 7:34 a.m.":
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The reports are that he's flying to Oslo to accept. Are you surprised now? This is beyond a joke and it amazes me that any American could take seriously anything these Eurotards say or anyone they give awards to.
Obama is essentially getting an award for campaign promises and campaign speeches. It's disgusting.
It's like filling a plastic bag with dog shit, putting it on someones front door, lighting it on fire and knocking on the door - then hiding in the bush to get a good laugh. No one that has any sense at all puts any credibility in the Nobel Prize any more. It is a political prize given to the Left and they are the only ones that see value in it. The Academy Awards used to be valid as well, but it, too has been politicized. Real accomplishment in our world no longer is valued by those on the Left. I mean, they gave the prize to the leader of the terrorist organization PLO for crying out loud.
The Thing is.
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 agree.
I think the best thing Obama could have done is to refuse the award. Doing that would have demonstrated the integrity that he likes to portray -- and that Americans really like to believe their presidents have.
I've never particularly liked Obama (I think he's a good man, I just disagree with his politics), but refusing this prize would have impressed me deeply. His decision to accept an award he clearly has not earned tarnishes his character in my eyes, and that's really the only thing I thought he had going for him.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It may be that the award was given to narrow the President's options in regard to Afganistan. It is somewhat difficult to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and then send agree to your general's request for 40,000 aditional combat troops. Normally, when the prize is given to people who've not acomplished something, but are hoped to continue toward a goal, the committee has given the prize at pivitol moments to encourage a certain type of behavior. Arafat is a good example of this. The Nobel may have been awarded at a time when the POTUS is earnestly debating views on Afganastan to encourage a certain outcome in his deliberations.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
I agree with you, they have given the awards in retrospect several times.
But apparently the argument is that this will raise the expectations and motivate Obama to go through with his rhetoric.
There is alot of worthy winners of this prize these centuries, lets hope that future individuals that stands up and fought for what they believed in in the face of adversity will get their just honor.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Maybe it's just the list of nominations is getting thin and the committee is having to loosen their standards to award a person.
There was a record-setting 205 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Nominations closed on 2009-02-01, 2 weeks after Obama took office.
sharia is an abomination and it is unfortunately spreading (see malaysia, indonesia)
but its not universally recognized
all societies go through fits of reactionary lunacy. the muslim world must weather their fools, and the rest of the world must remind them that sharia is an obvious trangression of basic human rights and will not be tolerated in the least, and with any luck, the storm clouds will pass quickly
if not, we have a lot misery and suffering we need to deal with, the obvious byproduct of the stupidity of sharia law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
War is peace.
I think that wouldn't be such a good idea to see the peace prize just as a "lifetime achievement" thing, after you've done everything. When reflecting on history, you may easily see what has been going on, and what the big players were.
I think what the jury is trying to do is tell others that there is a change going on around Mr. Nobel-Prize, and people should listen a little because they think it is gonna be big and influential for our time.
In 50-100 years we will know if it started a new peaceful era of mankind or if it was just another US government. But then we can't influence anymore how big a 'revolution' of some sort, if it was happening, will get, i.e. how many people it will affect. I think the idea is to draw more peoples attention to it and to think and reflect upon whether this is a change on the global scale of some sort, and to hop onto that train.
And perhaps to think about what your countries path will be for the next 50-100 years. Governments don't do that.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I don't think that this will be other than a nuisance for Obama. As US president he has all the recognition and power he needs. This just puts pressure on him and could end up completely backfiring on the committee if he ever has to do something that's good for America but not, on the face of it, for overall world peace.
For Mr Tsanvgirai it would be very helpful in every way because his rather disgusting opponents do try to belittle him at every step.
He's a man who has been hospitalised by beatings but he has always preached for peace so Zimbabweans, though miserable and downtrodden, have not become murderers. It seems to be working very slowly but all would be lost if there were military coups or Tianemen-square-type failed protests.
So I'm Zimbabwean, obviously.
This is all just my personal opinion.
I would expect any reasonable supporter of Obama to feel this way. This award makes a typical Onion headline look tame in comparison.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
wait a minute here.. if I can win the nobel peace prize by reducing standing armies, does that mean I could get it for launching a nuclear strike that takes out a sufficient number of the enemy's ground forces?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Don't be suprised. The best way to win a Nobel Prize right now is to bad-mouth the United States. Jimmy Carter did it, and got the prize. Obama does it, so he gets one too. What's hard to understand about that?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
The Peace prize is awarded by Norwegians, by some request in Alfred Nobel's will. The rest of the awards are decided by Swedish committees.
- El riesgo siempre vive - Private J. Vasquez
I'm looking forward to getting next years Physics Nobel Prize because I have some great ideas about energy. I thought the Nobel Prize Committee made a serious judgement error when they gave the racist de Klerk of South Africa the Nobel Peace Prize together with the deserved winner Mandela a few year's ago. Now they've given it to someone who has great ideas but who is in charge of a country at war which continues to incarcerate people at Guantanemo Bay without trial. Maybe there will be more respect for the Ig-Nobel prize after this.
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi.
What a joke.
Ghandi was kind of assassinated. Posthumous awards are not granted.
You surely don't mean before the invasion, do you? He wasn't elected to the Senate until after the invasion, around the time when it was 'cool' to be against it.
parsing sentences. you're doing it wrong.
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
...well, he did replace Bush, that's apparently an achievement worthy of a Nobel prize! :-)
Another international organization awarded Glenn Beck the International Pee Prize, for what he is doing to his pants.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I think the real accomplishment that this reflects is Obamas role in changing the perception of the US as an aggressive unilateral nation that has no serious interest in dealing with global warming or participating in true international cooperation. In this respect it is similar to the Gorbachev award in the 90s. I think it is an opportunity for some introspection into how US diplomatic style affects the rest of the world for better or worse. It is also an indication of a changing of the winds on how we as a nation are perceived, and perhaps an opportunity for a better relationship with the larger community of nations. Like the general goodwill of other nations extended to the US after 911, this is an opportunity that can be squandered, or used constructively. Only time will tell whether Obama seizes or drops this moment.
With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
I'm certain he will reduce our own standing armies.
(OURS, meaning the US for you foreign folk)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, ...
I would be surprised. As I recall in the elections, I was supposed to believe that he had accomplished much and had vast amounts of experience. What I think of him as as the President doesn't matter (yes, I'm conservative; yes, I voted for a republican; no, I'm not trying to be partisan in this comment) - Obama doesn't strike me as a person of great humility at this point.
Does that mean he can't be a great President? No... just saying that humility/being-shocked-at-getting-honored is something I haven't seen yet :)
And now Obama will have to think about all his future decisions under the light of having received this Peace Nobel Price....
I couldnt have tought of a better way to make him truly commit to make a difference in terms of peace....
It's kind of ironic if we think that Norway is interfering in U.S. Politics with such a move...
Nominations for the prize were due 12 days after he took office. What exactly did he do in those 12 days (or prior) to earn this? Make promises? Shoot, I promise to cure cancer, aids and MS. Where's my prize? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Obama, though I certainly think this is a farce.
You must understand that India/Pakistan was in a state of flux for a period from 1947 to somewhere in 50s, or probably even the 60s. When Gandhi died in 1948, the conditions in India were pretty violent. It would be understandable if the Norwegians were not convinced of the viability of India as peaceful, stable, unified country.
Most people could appreciate Gandhi's work much better in the 70s.
Pardon me, but he has already done something! He's not W and that in itself is a lot. Hell, McCain could have won the presidency and even that would have been a big improvement worthy of the Nobel Peace prize.
...is ticked.
As the great Mitch Benn said this morning: "It's official: George Bush was such an asshole you can win the Nobel Peace Prize just by not being him."
This is so clearly political it is disgusting. Without commenting directly about my feelings on Mr. Obama, lets face it: he has not done that much tangible toward world peace, especially by comparison to most past winners. Okay, sure he's only been in office less than a year, so he still has time. Many winners get the prize years after they actually **DO** anything. Why now? It's generally been frowned on to give the prize to a sitting politician because of the obvious political ramifications and the fact that it makes the committee look like they're entirely political.
That said, in circumstances where the prize has been awarded to a sitting head of state, it is ALWAYS because they have done something tangible and unusual in its implications. INTENTIONS DO NOT COUNT. **I** very much want to bring peace to the whole world, but I don't get the prize because you actually have to do that and not just want to. In the past, the prize was given for major peace accords, changes in policy or brokering some kind of treaty or ceasefire with direct results. Simply being more diplomatic than ones predecessor is not enough to make you stand out as the most pro-peace person on the face of the earth.
There is certainly some time left for Obama to do something worthy of the peace prize. He's barely been in office. Really, there has not been enough time to put any of his actions in any kind of a greater perspective. That is always important and it's the reason why the prize has historically often been held off for several years before giving it out.
This should be very obvious. A lot of people like Obama because they disliked George W Bush so much and they think Obama is very different. They also find him to be an inspirational speaker. The man is definately a good public speaker. He's gotten a lot of support as an alternative kind of politician. This is all fine, but you don't award the peace prize to someone because of that kind of thing.
...that he's had a substantial impact on international relations and the way we think about race in this country simply by being the first black person (or even first not-plain-old-white person elected to the presidency of this country). That's a major accomplishment in the vein of MLK Jr. in itself.
Don't get me wrong, I was surprised; I think everyone was. I'd like to see some significant progress in re-thinking the drug war and marriage equality before deciding one way or the other about him.
But it's not my prize. If you don't like it, get your own internationally prestigious peace prize and give it to someone else.
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
He got it because:
1. He's the president.
2. He's not John McCain.
3. He's not George W Bush.
4. Joe Biden is not Sarah Palin. Also.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
My opinion is simply : yes they're the same. But it'll take the republicans longer to destroy America than the democrats. Potentially postponing said collapse till after my death. If that's the best I can have, I'll gladly take it.
Perhaps this says as much about the weakness of the field as anything else!
Attempted murder? Now honestly what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted -c-h-e-m-i-s-t-r-y- peace?
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Who is this Ghandi you speak of?
Oh, you mean Mohandas Gandhi! As a poster above us noted, the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be award post-humously.
He was kinda a dick too. Used WWII as leverage to try to get the British to leave India. Also was also somewhat racist.
"Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes."
Not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but he was a man & no man is perfect.
(Not that I agree with this current award. Too soon, too soon.)
There is a war going on for your mind.
Might makes right, eh?
http://nbgazette.com/index.php?entry=entry090910-210927
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35807.html
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Hey, he was declared "The Greatest President" before even taking office — much less concluding even one Presidential term.
Seriously, if he wants to earn true respect, he would reject the award: "Thank you, folks, hold that thought until 2012, but for now my accepting it would make the mockery of the award itself and of most of its past recipients."
Fat chance, I know...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Stark, staring bonkers. Are they breathing from the exhaust pipe over there?
Bad choice of words; I should have said "in the legislature" as he was indeed a Senator.
Free Martian Whores!
Hey I like Obama and voted for him, but this is crazy.
He has not done anything yet. Maybe he will do something brilliant, so wait and give him the prize then. Maybe instead he will do something terrible in which case you can give the prize to somebody else.
This simply the Nobel committee awarding Bush some kind of "anti-Nobel prize". And I don't like Bush either but this is pretty transparent. Way to go guys, you have discredited yourselves and made the neocons hate you more than ever.
Always assumed this was for accomplishments, not good intentions.
Aww, so this is why he's sitting on the decision to increase troops in Afghanistan or not.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
...to be perfectly honest it sounds like they did this just to slap Darth Jar-Jar and all those millions of Bushistas in the face. It's a well-deserved slap, but the wrong kind of slap if you ask me. They're not very good at picking up on subtlety.
"Einstein didn't even have Power Point, but that's essentially what he did too."
So you're arguing that Al Gore actually conceived the theory of global warming then? Did the science? Worked out the equations? Submitted the research to peer review? That Al Gore?
I guess he really did invent the Internet then.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I sat here for the last hour trying to think of any really good things Obama has done that deserves this prize and I think I've got it. He helped to deflate that pesky US dollar, I mean who even uses those anymore, no wonder why OPEC is asking for oil to be bought with something else I mean even the Canadian dollar is worth more now days. Plus it helps the committee's Euro look better.
Have in practice done nothing but tilt the playing field. Affordable housing is in reality housing that you can only stay in while you're unemployed, meaning getting a job is a stupid financial move. What the hell does "equivalent" health care even mean ? That everyone grows equally old ? Face it : "yellow" people will outlive you, on average, and you'll outlive blacks, again on average. They will, however, run circles around you on the track, again on average. Some even say both effects are related. "Same level of educational opportunities" can only function if we do not use schools and classes. People drag eachother down, out of spite, out of ... So putting anything more than individual troublemakers in "better performing" classes will simply destroy the scores of the class, not improve the troublemakers' scores.
All these sound like
The lunacy of it all is, it doesn't matter how well studied a problem is, in America (and fairly, in many other places), only the populist notion matters. No matter how wrong it is. Now we'll lower energy usage by "increasing efficiency". Except that this is a well-studied problem. Besides, actually lowering energy usage means either letting people starve, deprive them of products, or freeze. Everyone's grandmother and her dog know just how popular those prospects are.
The only "equal opportunity" that can be imposed from above is equal misery for all : a short, violent life followed by a painful death. All other opportunity has to be made by the person enjoying it later.
But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics.
I wasn't aware you got a nobel peace prize for screwing over Poland. Where's Hitlers Nobel Prize? (Goodwin! I called it first!)
Or perhaps the position change you are talking about, is bending over for Iran.
I don't think there's anything he has done that hasn't acted to decrease peace over the next decade. Watch and learn.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Proof that both sides have people willing to believe the horseshit spin machines.
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
Just what is the International Community? Is there a membership card? Requirements for getting in? Because if you mean "other people across the world", it also includes North Korea, Libya, Cuba, etc.
Besides, this amorphous community didnd't vote on the Nobel. A bunch of guys from Norway did. And they seemed to have done it more to poke George W. Bush in the eye than to actually reward any real accomplishments.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The committee awarded the prize to whoever George Soros orders them to award it to.
... this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented...
Used to be, my friend, used to be... Now it is pretty much meaningless.
Stop! Dremel time!
Can you imagine the amount of positive spin Obama would have gotten if he had simply and humbly declined the prize on the grounds that he had not yet done his work and suggested they reconsider him after his term?
yeah, that reminds me of an old communist joke back in Romania during the 80's, Russia and Romania share brotherly love, the big brother gets the bigger piece of the pie :) ... fraternity, right.
"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. " -Fielding Mellish - Bananas (1971)
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
The Nobel Peace Prize has come from a prize to recognize the efforts towards peace to a prize trying to promote the peace. Sooner or later the Nobel Peace Prize group will win the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to promote peace. It has really become meaningless.
There are tens of thousands of homicidal people in the U.S. government. Some of them want war with Iran because they will make more weapons profits. Some of them are Jews who don't like Muslim opposition to Israel. Some of them just want war because they like violence. Some of them want war because they support their families by killing people in other countries.
The Iranian government says it has no nuclear weapons. The U.S. government has thousands of nuclear weapons, and U.S. government officials have in the past few years sometimes threatened to use them. The U.S. government bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, so the threat is credible. No other government besides the U.S. government has used nuclear weapons in war.
All governments need nuclear power. Some people in the U.S. want their companies to supply nuclear reactors. They don't like "proliferation" because that would lower their profits.
Henry Kissinger degraded the Nobel Prize far far more and a lot sooner than Obama. Kissinger caused trouble every place he got involved in. One could argue he prevented his nutty bosses from WW3.. if that is the case he deserved it.
Allowing the FAKE Nobel prize in economics has degraded the Nobel which NEVER has been or will be for economics, which is more voodoo than science anyhow. The economic one is only Nobel in name, its done by the bank to cleverly promote their economic interests.
Gore deserved his shared one; not an individual one. But Obama getting one now for going around and apologizing for the bush years might have been desperately needed, but it is not enough.
Again, I do expect most americans to not realize how much hope the world has been given with Obama sounding like the 1st adult president in a generation. The USA is part of the world who's power and influence is fading; we could fall gracefully like a jet into the Hudson or we could go down in a blaze of glory taking as many down with us as we can... Despite him being a calm pilot, giving him an award before the crash landing is premature. I think this shows how worried people are about the future; they have to promote the one they think will deliver the best result before it is too late. The highlights of news in the USA to the rest the world shows racism, crazy people, neocon "thought," tons of HATE in the opposition who want to go down in on a biblical scale.
What is needed is a TIME LIMIT like the Catholic church does with saints. They wisely had a rule to avoid momentary excitement from trivializing the promotion.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Ghandi
Gandhi. I really don't know why this misspelling is so common
Well even Kissinger received a nobel peace prize so better for Ghandi he is not in the list.
Otherwise would be a much worse joke.
Yup. I'm an Independent and I like Obama, but it's very likely he's going to have to escalate in Afghanistan, due to hawkish things he said on the trail. This is not a man who ran on a peaceable platform. He didn't say "war is wrong," he said Iraq was the wrong war.
From the Nobel site:
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements... [in various award categories].
So, the Prize is supposed to be for achievement, not intent. Even for his intent, it's clear he intends to prosecute wars in the interests of our national security, and he has said so explicitly. He just doesn't intend to prosecute them unilaterally.
His Afghan/Pakistani policy is marginal at best (civilian casualties anyone?) and he should not be a Peace Laureate while he's considering additional troop deployments. Furthermore, he has yet to avert a war and thus achieve peace with Iran's nuclear situation. Come January, the Israelis could be bombing them with weapons they bought from us. We could be at war next year and this UPI poll claims that 61% of Americans would back a military solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
What has he done to ward that kind of "drum beat" off? Has he come out and said the American public is wrong, at risk to his political skin? Has he made clear statements against the Israeli demonization of Iran? Against the Iranian demonization of Israel? It makes no sense to award this to him as he has been a remarkable coward on the issue, hoping it will blow over, and probably praying that cooler heads will prevail. That is a good way to start a war, not "achieve" peace.
The Nobel foundation may end up looking very foolish next year.
--
Toro
"In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements" Really? 'Honoring intentions'? WTF! Is there a relationship between intentions and results? I am googling away my life in search of collective enlightenment of the mankind. Great intentions. Now, dear committee, please honor me!
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
All this talk about "too early" and "yet"...I wasn't aware that the Nobel committee had a "People who are guaranteed to get the Nobel Prize" list. Are you sure you didn't mean to say "If his leadership and policies result in a long (several years, perhaps even a lifetime) term, large scale, largely positive effect in improving the quality of life and the state of world affairs...then he should get the prize after this has been validated.
This is slashdot. Where's the overwhelming skepticism?
Few of the Nobel Peace prize winner match that exactly. Two guys got one for repackaging payday loans into 'micro loan'.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
All negative posts have been reported to the White House. You may or may not be contacted.
captcha: evilly
...with Obama, we get preemptive peace prizes.
Given that he got Georgie boy out of the White House, he probably was the most peace-promoting person in the world last year.
Lets see....Mohamed El Baradi (2005) UN Nuclear arms 'expert' who kowtows to his Muslim masters to the detriment of the worlds population.
THen there's Kofi Anan (2001) - who as UN Secy General, conspired to circumvent UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein (who probably would have also won this prestigious awaerd for diktators, save for his untimely demise) for his own (and his son's ) $$$ benefit
And who can forget Yasser Arafat - a mass murderer (or is that freedom fighter?!) who got the reward for killing many humans (remember wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer - an octogenarian thrown off a cruise ship in the Mediteranean) in a terrorist attack that was planeed by the Nobel Peace Laureate...
So Hussein Obama is in good company...
/.'ers hating on Obama. You Obama haters are losers. Libertarians are a joke. You know what the difference between a libertarian and a republican is? republicans actually hold power, libertarians just like to piss in the win. conservatives are a joke, and so are you obama-haters. he beat you in the election after 8 years of that horrible man, you lamers supported. anyone that supported bush hates america.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Well, there's the Cuba thing; that's done a lot to soften up that relationship. He's backed the US off of the eastern Europe missile program, which is good. He managed to get Russia to stand beside us on the Iran issue as a result, which is huge in terms of war-prevention. He ordered the US military to end the war in Iraq. And he gave that big speech in Turkey about America's relationship with Islam, which is a decent first step on the road to accord with Islamic nations.
Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean he's done nothing.
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
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The prize was for getting rid of George Bush.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
I guess they really do aware the Nobel Prize for attempted Chemistry.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed, we should leave the insane dictator in place, let him continue to pull out dissident tongues with pliers, let his sons continue to kidnap and rape women, let him continue to buy weapons from western European suppliers with his food-and-medicine allowance?
I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait
"... 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan..."
How can a man who is actively involved in killing other people win a peace prize?
Shouldn't this read "Obama wins the Nobel Hope Prize" ?
Obama is only perpetuating two illegal wars of agression and a global network of 737 military bases.
God, you are a fucking jackass, do you know that?
I have no idea how I wound up on your friends list but do me a favor and remove me so I don't have to see your dribble at +5.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How is removing anti-ICBM equipment inherently peaceful?
...awarded based on his potential, to correct for years of racial discrimination
I kid
I didn't mean to say that he hasn't done anything; I was commenting on the GP's rationale for the prize. The question marks were, "This is your reasoning?"
This award is a mistake, no matter what you think of Obama.
I agree (and I actually like Obama, for the most part). It just serves to devalue the Peace Prize further... ... but wait, is there anything left to devalue? It has always been a highly politicized award, and the recipients were always chosen by means of politicking, and not for actually having done something useful.
Or, sometimes, by conveniently ignoring all the nasty parts that came out of their decisions - as was the case with e.g. Gorbachev, whose misguided rule was directly responsible for a number of bloody ethnic conflicts and genocides in Central Asian republics of the USSR, and the economic collapse (leading to millions of ruined lives) in Russia and Ukraine. And yet the West gave him the prize because he made the Big Scary Commie Threat go away, and that's all they cared about.
I won't even go into Arafat's peace prize. That's beyond stupidity and cynicism.
This must be a proactive move to force Obama to back up his talk with actual action - there's no other sensible explanation.
Here's a list of all Nobel Peace Prize recipients. http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html
How many other times has the prize given for wishful thinking or for merely saying the right things? I wonder when Obama will start the Iraq war crimes trials? And, uhm, how many more troops is Obama sending to Afganistan to secure the pipeline route and protect the poppy fields?
Gee, can I nominate the Rothschild family for their efforts to establish an earthly utopia for us all?
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
I maintain that anyone elected after Bush would've had that effect. The USA went from "known bad" to "possibly less bad". No matter who would've won the election, everyone would've agreed that it was an improvement. The prize was essentially given to Obama for his achievement of getting elected after Bush.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
This is quite transparently a proclamation of how sick much of the world was of the Bush administration, and simultaneously an endorsement of Obama's plans.
Yes, a thundering world endorsement by 5 (yes, five) Norwegians.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
And that ladies and gentlemen is what we call Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm sure there is someone somewhere in the world with a body of work that shows achievements in peace. I think the committee should be worried. A lot of unintended mistakes can happen over the next 3 years that can contribute to large scale violence. I hope it doesn't but that is why these awards are usually held until *after* the accomplishment.
Don't think you're different just because you're not a conservative Republican ;) From our side, it looks just the same. I don't have a problem with, say, Jimmy Carter being recognised this way -- I seldom agreed with him (and am not sure the end result of his efforts wasn't worse than the problem) but he went forth and did his damnedest for years on end, with no thought of gain from it (being long since out of office and out of the power loop). But Obama had to have been nominated before he'd actually DONE anything... so what was the award FOR, anyway?? Per the will cited above, the award is supposed to be for actual and lasting accomplishments, not for grand visions and short-term changes.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
WTF! Barack "more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill and torture" Obama?
So next in line probably
* 2010 Pol Pot
* 2011 Benito Mussolini
* 2012 Adolf Hitler
* 2013 Joseph Stalin
Fucking incredible...
Teddy Roosevelt brokered the peace between the Japanese and the Russians. That was the sort of thing the prize was intended to honor initially. Kissinger and Arafat also were brokering or just brokered a treaty when they got the prize. The treaties, motivations, and actions afterwards can all be picked apart but they got the prize right around the time they were trying to broker peace treaties to end longstanding conflicts.
The prize has grown cheaper and cheaper over the years as the standards got more politicized.
Oh well, on the bright side, the US has gotten the prize three times now since W. Bush was elected (Carter 02, Gore 07, Obama 09). So perhaps you don't like his policies but W sure could bring home the prizes for his country.
What a sad, sad day for America....
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
" According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." "
Obama is all about taking down our military might to remove the US from it's place of power and make use just one among many. While being sure to destroy as much of our economy as possible by record deficit spending and soon to come massive tax increases both direct and indirect. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see additional massive cuts to our military.
Once our economy is crippled it will be much easier to convince us all that we don't need the freedoms that we are used to, so that we can become just like the rest of the world. You know those nations that are just doing so great.
Now that's Change that you can believe in.
By pushing his radical agenda and fostering a massive peaceful Socialist revolution right under freedom loving American's noses, Obama more than fits the mold that Nobel put into place. Both in encouraging "fraternity" with other world Socialists, by becoming just like them, and by undermining our standing army's military might at every turn.
I'm surprised that they didn't give a Noble Prize to every State-ists Democrat in Washington for fostering these same goals.
Wake up America. Not everyone who posts to a BLOG is a US citizen or believes in the freedoms that we hold self-evident. Stand up for the US Constitution and stop voting for the very people who want to take away your freedoms, under the lie of giving you security.
They will provide you the exact opposite, as history has proven time and time again. Return to the core values of our forefathers. In the belief of the individual, to strive for a better tomorrow and in doing so improve the world for not just himself but all around him.
This is what has made this nation great - not clinging to the old failed systems of Utopian idealists world wide. To do so, will return us to the day's of King George with the super elite and us commoners all vying for an ever small piece of the pie. Vote for true Constitutional Conservatives not those that make their promise to the cause celeb of the day.
Welcome to a long list totalitarian shills mixed in with a smattering of individuals actually working towards a better world.
where they now have roving bands of religious police in jeeps who enforce compulsory mosque attendance, headscarf wearing, etc. plenty there also think, for example, surgical severing of some thieves hands is a good deterrent (against gainful employment and for social ostracism maybe). that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned
these are all medieval abominations, and its a negative backwards development in parts of the muslim world like indonesia and malaysia and its an affront to basic human rights and human dignity and muslims must reverse these backslidings in their societies towards barbarity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Barack Obama, the President of Earth, has controversially launched an attack on the Lunar Imperium the same day he received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush.
"We closely examined Mr Obama's record over the past nine months," said Nobel Prize committee chair Thorbjorn Jagland, "and have established to our satisfaction that he has succeeded in not been George W. Bush in any manner whatsoever. Also, the flying cars, moving sidewalks and robot servants he brought in are pretty cool."
The committee had initially been concerned that Mr Obama may have been, per investigations by "birther" researchers, a replicant created by the team responsible for the cyborgization of Dick Cheney, to take his place as humanity's next robot overlord after Mr Cheney's term had finished. "However, we are now confident that his documentation of Autobot manufacture is entirely in order."
The surprise attack on the moon came after a CIA report indicated the Taliban had set up shop in the old Nazi moon base, based on intelligence gathered from secret mass phone tapping. The Obama administration denied it was merely an excuse to invade the Lunar Imperium and steal its water.
"It grieves us terribly that our lunar brothers have let us down so," said Mr Obama today. "But with mutual respect and communication, I am confident we can work through our differences. We'll teach them to love again DESTROY ALL HUMANS DESTROY ALL HUMANS SOCIALIZE HEALTH CARE I'm sorry, I'm having a minor glitch. I'll get back to you."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
1. Alan Greenspan appointed to chair the Federal Reserve
2. Ben Bernanke reappointed to chair the Federal Reserve
3. Sarah Palin paid a handsome fee to lecture group of Chinese on macroeconomics
4. President Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize with resultant spontaneous dancing and celebration in the streets of Honduras, Afghanistan and Iraq.
(O.K., just kidding about that spontaneous dancing and celebration thing!)
FUTURE PREDICTIONS
1. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee renames award to "Not George Bush Prize"
2. Sarah Palin is awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics.
3. Timothy Geithner comes down with severe depression after attending his monthly meeting with Kissinger and Obama and realizing he is only non-recipient of Nobel Peace Prize. Geithner devotes remainder of life to overturning Medicare Section D so that he can afford his massive doses of anti-depressant meds.
4. The Moon retaliates against the Earth by sending a rocket to crash into the Earth to determine whether there is sentient life - or water - there.
5. S&P, Fitch and Moody's create a new bond rating: Senior-tranche AAA Mega-Junk.
6. The Onion News Network Global Conspiracy is exposed: they admit to being the only news distribution network on the planet -- and all the other networks are just fronting for them.
I suggest you watch a 60 Minutes interview where FBI Agent George Piro managed to get a lot of truth in regards to Iraq's nuclear program directly from Saddam Hussein.
It was revealed through this special interrogation that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction after being disarmed in the 90's. He misled the world into believing that he had WMDs to not appear defenseless in front of Iran. He was afraid the Iranians might attack again.
The FBI was so proud of what George Piro accomplished, they considered it, "probably one of the top accomplishments of the agency in the last 100 years."
Not to mention that the Frontline documentary "Bush's War" pretty much debunked every single piece of "evidence" that Bush used to justify the invasion. And Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary from '03-'05, explained in his book What Happened that Bush only went as far as finding "evidence" to justify his war; he never bothered to verify its validity.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. Even Bush, in his later years as president, finally began to admit that his "evidence" was not valid. Please stop feeding this conspiracy theory.
> 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.
This is putting it all wrong as if they had some sort of rational ideal that they strove towards.
In fact, they were (and still are of course) sociopaths who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
I knew this about G.W. Bush the first time I saw him. This was the first election, with the counting problems going on and Bush said (paraphrased): "Let me get on, I have a administration to form". Of course, as the votes were close, Gore could have said exactly the same thing so I was disgusted. I became more disgusted when news media (papers, TV) never made any comment about this, which really made me aware of how poor a job journalists do.
In general, such reversible non-arguments are typical for the most anti social nutters there are, such as in corporations (management positions are a good hiding place for sociopaths).
Thanks, Shakrai, for pointing out what should be obvious to that poster.
No doubt there was spontaneous jubilation, dancing and celebration in the streets of Honduras (latest coup supported by the Obama Administration, business as usual), Afghanistan and Iraq. (Nope, just kidding.)
They probably are equally unaware that President Obama has appointed the most anti-worker, anti-union people possible: Diana Farrell, Laura Tyson, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Robert Hormats, Richard Holbrooke, Gary Gensler, Herbert Allison, Peter Orszag, Stephen Friedman, Gary Locke, Henry Kissinger, etc., etc., etc.
Obama, like Clinton, Carter and all those neocons before him, is in the pockets of the banksters. And would all those Americans who work to remain as ignorant as possible please realize they, too, are completely responsible for his perfidy.
Before he was elected to the US Sanate he was a state Senator, and indeed did speak out against the war when it was being proposed. It may have been one of the things to get him into the US Senate.
The real reason Obama was elected to the US Senate is the Republicans, and it's an interesting story. The Republicans were running Jack Ryan (Seven of Nine's husband), and Ryan was thought to be a shoe-in. But Ryan got caught in an ugly sex scandal and divorce from his Borg wife (ok, Borg actress wife) and dropped out of the race. The Republicans scrambled to find a replacement, who they insisted muct be black, and came up with some black neocon who had criticized Clinton for running for New York Senate when she was from Arkansas, even thugh he had never been inside Illinois' borders even once himself, not even for a visit.
Obama was inexperienced even in state politics, and had the Republicans nominated someone other than a sex-crazed pervert, Obama might not be President today.
The wags quipped "those Republicans! First they can't find Osama Bin Laden, then they can't find WMDs in Iraq, hell now they can't even find a black man in Chicago!"
Free Martian Whores!
The moon is just the child of a knocked up mother earth, little wonder there is some love/hate relationship.
Feel free to cast stones once you've done something for international diplomacy and peace or are in a position to do so.
Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
... collateral damages be damned.
I glanced at your posting history, and I'm not sure if I believe you when you say you get lots of mod points. But just in case you do, I intend to mod down any subsequent posts of yours in other threads, regardless of merit. If any other like-minded mods are reading this, I encourage you to help me- it doesn't take very long get someone posting at -1 by default.
Hitler also wanted 'piece'... a piece of Poland, a piece of Switzerland, a piece of ...
It sounds like you misunderstood my comment, and didn't read my response to Quothz. Or maybe you're just saying something really weird. I can't quite tell; you can clarify.
My point was that the GP's rationale for Obama receiving the prize didn't involve any accomplishments other than people liking & trusting him. I wasn't casting stones at the award; I wasn't saying that Obama hasn't done anything. If I was casting stones at anyone, it was the GP.
But even if I had been casting stones at Obama--if I was saying that he's done nothing--your response wouldn't make sense.
If someone says the president hasn't done anything, and he has, you can correct them, like Quothz did. You didn't. You actually seem to think that average citizens lack the standing to criticize giving the Nobel Peace Prize for promises & intentions. You seem to think, "Unless you're an achiever on the international scene, you should shut up about the whole subject." And that's pretty silly.
Obviously it was a mistake to give them the peace prize. The obvious solution is for the Swedes to compel Norway (with dynamite, if necessary) to give it back.
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" by Time magazine in 1938. We all know how that turned out.
I bet the editors at Time magazine a couple of years later were thinking "Gee guys, you think that award was a bit premature?" :) ...and yes I am comparing Obama to Hitler... I should win the biggest Troll award!
"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet."
~Lech Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
"He has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty."
~Hisham Qasim, Egyptian democracy and human rights activist
"While it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' -- my kids get them all the time -- I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard."
~Gideon Rachman, foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times
"The president has done nothing to push forward peace between Israeli and Palestinians."
~Ahmed Yousef, Hamas
Regards;
Seriously.
Do the teleprompters run Linux?
Secretary: Mr.President press is waiting for you sir.
President: Wait Damnit. I am reading through the slashdot article and figuring out if I deserved it or not.
-- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
I suppose it's a matter of political opinion, but there's two issues to consider. First, is that it's supposed to be a defense against Iran ICBMs. But since Iran has no (current) ICBM's, it's *perceived* as a disingenuous way for the US to place a missile shield against Russia in its own neighborhood. Thus, we have the "lie" aspect. Second, it encourages Russia to keep up or increase its stock of nuclear missiles. The more defenses there are, the more offense you need to counter it. It thus can create a proliferation, meaning more total nukes in the world. It's hard to argue that a strategy that results in more total nukes is "peaceful", at least in the short and mid-term.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.
In his will Alfred Nobel stipulated that the prizes should be awarded to young people that during the year before the prize is given have done something that will benefit mankind.
A. Nobel wanted to give young people, that started to do good deeds, more of a chance to continue to do good deeds.
Obama isn't exactly young, but he is younger then most previous Noble Prize receivers. With his progress in nuclear disarmament and in general creating a more relaxed relation between US and the rest of the world, he fits Alfred Nobels descripiption better than most other Noble Prize receivers.
And I believe the Norse Nobel Comity is trying to push the world in the right direction. They did a similar stunt when they gave the prize to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Despite the fact that those three historically had acted like raving war dogs than peace doves.
Obama's in good company
.
Wilson created federal reserve and income tax
Roosevelt created the new deal.
Obama bailed out wall street and is socializing medicine.
now future generations are not only doomed to poverty, but illness and slavery as well.
Add to my list the closing of the "secret overseas prisons", and denouncing torture.
Table-ized A.I.
Really.
Very good... but ol' boy's such an easy target. You get 'im every time. Fuckin' love it. Now go pick on somebody yer own size.
Maybe this is the sign that portrait a nice peaceful u.s. president invading iran. That obama, will not put end to any war, is just another face with the same agenda of the global oligarchy. ...dont really care who is "in charge", because he doesnt even know who really is "in charge".
For the record I'm strongly democrat. This is basically supposed to be the highest international honer you could ever earn. Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice, not a good one, but better. At least she has some done real leg work in the awards statement ""to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.".
Heck, why not give it to Bill for his past efforts in the former soviet block
[Insert "Yes, you can" joke here]
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance." Isaac Asimov
I didn't even know Slashdot had a second page for comments. My little scroll bar on the side is so small...
The Obombinator has mass murdered innocents including many children with his terminator death predator drones dropping bombs from the skies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, those children and other innocents are resting peacefully rotting in their freshly dug graves. It's appropriate that the Obombinator receives the Nobel Peaceful Death Prize which was created by a notorious Arms Merchant of Death who invented and then sold his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) across the world powered by dynamite. Very appropriate that the Obombinator wins a prize funded off of blood money. A blood money prize for a mass murderer committing crimes against humanity.
Who deserves this better than the man who ended the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and closed the Guantanamo prison camp?
Oh, wait, that didn't happen in this universe.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
A heck of a lot of Norwegians (roughly 70% in a quick poll I saw at a major newspaper) are as puzzled, incredulous, and shocked as the rest of you and are opposed to awarding the prize to Mr. Obama for all manner of different reasons both good and bad. In addition many of us are ashamed of the choice made by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee as it's nothing but politically corrupted sycophancy (as on many earlier occasions). The Prize has lost all its value over the past decades and should simply be ignored. So yes please ignore the prize as it's not worthy of any attention and is being decided and awarded by some of the biggest fools in our country many of whom could be considered enemies of freedom. Many Norwegians feel ashamed to be Norwegians today, I am one of them.
This video sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis
American citizen might be puzzled or even shocked (mainly GOP affiliates) to hear the news from Oslo. As an European (Swiss), I must say that Barak Obama stands for the America we love, as much as George W. Bush and his administration stood for the America we hate.
We have a dream of America. An America witch stands for freedom and democarcy. An America where everybody gets his chance, even the offspring of an affair between an African student and a white anglo saxon.
We have the dream of an America which stands for the firm belief "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence)
Barak Obama gave us hope. The hope that America will stand for its basic values and that America will accept Europe as an equal partner.
That is what the price is for. A prize for a promise not a price for an achievment. Surely Barak Obama will disappoint us from time to time, as America has allways disappointed us from time to time. But, we have to admit that disappointment belongs to love as hope belongs to love.
So the real laureate of this years peace price is not Barak Obama - it is the United States of America which elected him for president and made the world believe that there is hope.
-- chribo
You ignore the content of that PowerPoint presentation. The software app chosen was a little dicey, but the message was clear.
According to this article, it was Keynote, not PowerPoint. Don't know if it's skipping over some older rev or whatever, but I'd heard that it was in Keynote...
You're wrong. That's not past tense; it's future perfect tense, for actions occurring up until some future point in time, as in "I shall have murdered at least 10 people before I turn myself in next year." So the prize is not a mistake, at least not based on that argument.
Yeah, surprising to me to that this happened at this early phase, but it's their right to acknowledge someone who moves in the right direction as far as they are concerned.
For those who haven't seen it, he deserves the Nobel Prize just from his speech reaching out the Muslim World. Most Americans have not seen the whole thing beginning to end. But the world saw it, and you bet your bippy that lots of the Muslim world saw it. It was amazingly awesome.
Absolutely brilliant, strong, and a genuine attempt to promote real peace. I'm proud that we have a leader like that.
Yes, a big change from the bullying, belligerence, and ignorance, from the last 8 years, and probably him winning had some relationship with their dissapproval of his predecessor in terms of a powerful nation doing so much to devalue international cooperation, the UN, and international mutual respect.
At inaugeration he said that the USA... "we are ready to lead once more"...and he seems to be selling it to the world. he's not selling domination and war ***as an end to themselves*** like leaders seemed to do before. Instead he's selling leadership and trying to get along with each other, and then cooperating on zapping the violent extremists of every type. And he even tried to address the rifts between Israel and Palestine, promoting a 2state solution, and explicitly calling out BOTH sides to stuff they did wrong (condemning both sides), and explaining in straightforward language how both side's recent strategies are losing strategies, and laying out a plan for peace.
So, yeah, people who want vocal powerful advocates of peace probably respond well to his speech reaching out the Muslim World and his comments about hoping (eventually) for a world without nuclear weapons.
And btw, the Nobel group has also expanded its role over the years to include promotion of causes that relate to poverty and health, so his domestic healthcare work probably is something they approve of also.
And that's why he got the award. And that's why he deserved it. They want more of that, even if you don't agree with him or think he hasn't delivered yet. They want to make it easier for him to get stuff done by giving him some public kudos at a time he needs it because he's under attack and they want to give him some cred to help him do so.
The US followed their own law for declaring war
You realize that the US has not declared war in almost 70 years, don't you?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
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.
Clever signature text goes here.
Yep, they only once awarded it posthumously, and they'll never do it again. Let this be a lesson, if you want your Nobel prize, don't get shot dead so soon after accomplishing Nobel-worthy things.
You just got troll'd!
The Illinois Governor who won the peace prize is in prison for selling CDLs to people who couldn't drive or speak English and who ultimately killed a fmaily in a fiery death on the highway.
That one wasn't a joke, it was just pathetic.
Mod parent down, as it's main claim is false. The dude did not win the Nobel Peace Prize, and your link to wikipedia is misleading, and even that wikipedia page does not even claim that he won.
He merely was nominated in 2005. You can trivially confirm that in 2005 the Peace Prize went to Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency shared the price in 2005. That's this guy, btw.
You can also find out on that site that the nominations are the result of their requests to thousands of people...."send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year". So, seriously, as News For Nerds, we need to honest about distinguishing between "nomination" (one of thousands of people said yeah him) versus "winning" the Peace Prize. Which he didn't do.
A basic google search would find you this page that lists all the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. And obviously George Ryan is demonstrably not on the list.
Mod parent down.
Simply by applying the standards upheld at Nuremberg.
"...To give a peace prize to the commander-in-chief of a war machine now churning its way through the populations of three countries (Iraq/Af-Pak), with innumerable black ops, lightning raids and drone shots on the side .... to a man who even as we speak is deciding just how he wants to kill even more civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan ... a man who has enthusiastically embraced as "an extraordinary achievement" one of the most heinous and barbaric acts of military aggression since Hitler rolled across the border into Poland ... a man who blusters about leaving "all options on the table," including the use of mass-murdering nuclear weapons, to bully other nations into compliance with American wishes ... to give a peace prize to such a man, while all over the world, there are men and women who have devoted their entire lives to non-violence and reconciliation, many of them suffering imprisonment, torture and ruin for their efforts ... well, like I said, it's beyond words.
But it's good to see that the spirit of arms merchant Alfred Nobel -- purveyor and profiteer of death and destruction -- is being honored so perfectly with today's award..."
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1856-well-nobel-was-the-inventor-of-dynamite-after-all.html
"Almost no one will acknowledge the single, fundamental truth about Barack Obama, the truth of greatest and most terrifying consequence:
Barack Obama is a war criminal.
Many facts overwhelmingly and conclusively compel this judgment, and no other. Not because I say so, but because an honest application of the relevant language of international law, as well as of the Nuremberg Principles, necessitates the conclusion."
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/10/depraved-obscene-absurdities.html
Oh! My Surprise! "WAR IS PEACE!"
Barack Obama just used his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to reiterate his threats against Iran.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Building-a-World-that-Gives-Life-to-the-Promise-of-Our-Founding-Documents/
That's change you can deceive in.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The Solomon Islands appears as one of those names. Trouble is the Solomon Islands deny they gave any such support.
Afghanistan is on the list. This being shortly after America had invaded the only "government" Afghanistan had was the puppet one the US government had installed there. How does that qualify?
Then there is complete basket cases like Angola and Eritreya.
How is it you haven't realised that the Bush administration played you like a chump? Are you being willfully stupid?
This was never a list of governments that supported the invasion of Iraq. This was a list of 30 countries the US government considered it had enough power over to make them say whatever was demanded of them.
His name is a killing sound.... ...but he has never ridden the worm!
TAKE HIS WATER, NOW!
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Do you have evidence for any of your three assertions? Or like so many people here are you just happy to make s**t up?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I agree with you. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a little bit right of center, and I voted for McCain (although I'm not a Republican). I'm willing to give Obama a fair shake for what he does while in office, and if he does wonderful things over the next few years, then give the man a truckload of awards. But really, let's wait and see what he does first.
Of course, now the Nobel Peace Prize folks have shot their wad, so what will they do in a few years if Obama really does bring us world peace?
All told, this was really their way of giving G.W. Bush negative-one Nobel Peace Prizes. They should have just *said* that (and maybe "fined" Bush a million dollars or whatever the prize is now, just for grins), instead of further misusing the actual prize.
There is no past tense in the passage you cited. It is in the future perfect.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Don't forget Poland!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
There are those that don't understand how truly nice this is. Somehow, an early negative reaction tried to steal the glory from the announcement, and was good doing it. Seems they don't want the ideals expressed. Or they think it's too early for such a prize.
Yet the wounds caused by Bush are deep. There's a way to go in the healing process. And there's peace to be had, if people can drop their shoulders and embrace, instead of holding themselves in the exaggerated fear campaign and propaganda from Cheney and Rove. Reaching out is a new way to feel in the US.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
For ending Saddam Hussein's rule.
Didn't have to look it up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A lot more than Arafat did before he got his. Arafat made strong efforts towards peace after he got the award as distinct from being pretty well nothing but a warlord prior to that. After a while it could sort of be argued that he might have deserved it if you ignored his past.
Think of it as an encouragement award. Also the world has stopped hating the US government almost overnight. Hillary in the same place would have got it, McCain too if he could keep the loonies out of his administration and calm world leaders down. I agree with your opinion that not much has been done, but think of the prize as "the best hope for peace NOW" instead of an award for a lifetime.
"A peace prize, really? Screw the people who actually promote peace and settle conflict"
One billion refugees from the Yangzee and Ganges basins will be WW3 in the making. Curbing sea level rise and conserving the hymalayian glaciers is the most efficient way to PREVENT future conflict.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
--Quote
October 9, 2009
Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on October 9, 2009 08:31 AM
So Obama joins Woodrow Wilson in the pantheon of American presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize (Wilson won it in 1919). I learned this morning that nominations for the prize had to be in by Feb. 20, about one month after Obama was inaugurated. That means that the prize went for his rhetoric during the campaign, not anything he could have actually accomplished. As I recall, his two most memorable foreign policy pronouncements during the campaign were 1) advocating that the U.S. bomb Pakistan; and 2) escalating the war in Afghanistan. He did order the murder of some people in Pakistan by bombardment shortly after taking office. I’m still surprised, though, that he won the prize after killing so few people. Usually, one must be a major league murderer like a Wilson or a Teddy Roosevelt to win such a prize.
--End Quote
What had the s.o.b. done by Feb. 2009? Show up for work.
The prize is a fraud, a political ploy!
Maybe it happened long before, I just have not noticed.
Winning it??? seems more political than anything else, gotta hand it to the monies/people/politicians behind the nobel prize yeah let's nominate him --what 18 days after his inauguration-- oh well the prize kinda lost it's grandeur a long time ago.
;)
just my --->.02 now there is some change
FragHARD or don't frag at all
I just read a comment on FoxNews about how Obama doesn't deserve the Peace Prize because of an involvement with two wars.
Um, hmm.
Did that commentator forget that it was BUSH Jr. who started those wars, not Obama?
The Corporate owned news media employees travel around in a bubble cut off from the world.
Anyone who would put Doctors without Borders on a list of those undeserving of a Peace Price has been brainwashed into such right wing extremist freak they are incapable of speaking on any subject as without spewing right wing talking points over and over
Actually, I think the OP meant that Tina Fey was near declaring war on Russia. :) This is especially true since many among the left-leaning crowd on Slashdot have a propensity for getting the two confused.
He who has no
Perhaps this is all a clever scheme by the EU: give Obama an award which he obviously does NOT deserve yet, to make sure he works extra hard to EARN it. Guilt trip him into earning it.
Pretty smart move if you look at this another way.
I still think that it was given to him bogusly.
Well I certainly hope this news story doesn't start an incendiary flamewar!
How do you win the peace prize if you invade another country. I would think a political prisoner or someone struggling against oppression would win a "peace prize".. not someone who authorizes billions of $$$ to invade another country so oil corporations and contractors get rich.. That's why they put him in there, because they knew the public would not stand for anyone like Bush again to invade more countries with their tax dollars, plus the economy was going to shit, so they needed someone to distract everybody from the real deal. A marketing technique that worked. A business plan. Obama was the perfect candidate. Right before all the shit hit the fan. The best idea yet!
But also, at least Obama is a man that deserves respect, his more nuanced approach on international politics leaves with less ammo all the guys around the world that used and abused the fact that the USA under Bush was ruled by mad militaristic coward oilmen driving and Express train to fascist hell. More than Obama, the prize goes for the tenuos mayority of american people that want peace and a change; this is a obvious way to strengten the hand of the americans that think that is better to use the taxpayers money providing health care to the american citizens than using it to blow up houses or cities or to put even more puppet regimes around the world.
That means a lot for the rest of the world, because even if we like it or not, America still is the most influential and powerful country in the planet.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Agree, the best ting he an do is to refuse the prize and ask if he can pick it up in 4 to 8 years, that if of course if they still think he deserves it then. That would perhaps get the selection process back on its true track and stop downgrading its value.
Your reasoning for why he deserves the Peace Prize seems to be, "Because many people in the world like and trust him," right?
Trust may be the most important factor in promoting peace.
Focusing in on the "fraternity between nations" part of the definition? With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
Yes.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Yes.
Which basically means, any time we have any national leader who is broadly well-liked, we should give him the prize?
Y... Whoah, wait... What??? Oh, I'm sorry. For a second, I thought you were trying to make a rational argument. Now I see you're just prone to pointless hyperbole. My apologies...
Now that it's pretty clear that no intelligent person can justify Obama's winning a Nobel - there are two points we can take away with reasonable assurance : 1 - The PR reverse that Obama suffered with the Olympics 2016 pitch has been offset by some extent 2 - The Nobel Prize decisions can be influenced. It is possible Obama would not have won the Peace prize if his pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago was successful.
Since nobody in the top 200 posts seems to have posted it:
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
WTF is wrong with you people!?!? Are you so blinded that you cannot see what a significant change this is? Thit alone is worth the Nobel prize!!! A BLACK MAN has become PRESIDENT of one of the most racist counties there has ever been! The FIRST BLACK MAN to become ruler in ANY G8 country! Mr. Obama could screw up the politics for the next 8 years and that would still be a significant change in the world!
Wake up people! It's later than you think!
Peace out!
Let's face it: Obama won the prize simply because he is not a member of the same American political party as Bush is.
He was nominated for this in FEBRUARY. He held the presidency for less than a month when he was nominated. IIRC for most of that month he was dealing with the economic meltdown.
He does not deserve this prize. Even the FRENCH are chiding him for being so damn apologist.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Half to Barack Obama for demonstrating the leadership to advocate diplomacy as a means of settling and avoiding international conflict.
And half to the American People, for having the guts to choose to try for peace even though we were inundated by the claims of the powerful in both American politics and American media that only those eager for war could protect us from war.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Reagan end the Cold war, a decades long conflict between two power who would likely end the world if they opened fire on one another. No Peace Prize. A parade of people get the Peace Prize for "bringing peace to the Middle East". (After all that trouble you'd think one would have left it there.) Now Obama get the Peace Prize effectively for showing up to work 8 months in a row.
I know people who have done less. I think they lean left if it's needed. I've got to let the committee know because their time must be soon if it isn't already upon us.
Taleban offered a hotel for OBL. Before that it was SUdan.
You believe in fairy-tales. If you buy the official 911 story, then yje US should have attacked Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
I think they should have invaded Israel - as the home of "Al-Qaeda".
Well here's another clue for you all. The Walrus was Paul.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2086-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Breaking-News-Algerian-daily-confirms-Mossad-training-camps-for-alQaida?cid=email-this-article
http://www.ennaharonline.com/en/news/943.html
Just begin your day, each morning, with the admonition: "Everything you know is wrong."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Obama was sworn in on January 20th and Nomination had to be submitted by February 1. He sure did a lot in 11 days!
Lets continues to degrade a once significant award with idiotic recipients who have not earned it, Obama, Carter, Arafat, Gore...
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Peace is clearly getting easier to 'do'. Al Gore had to invent the internet!
It's amazing how ridiculous the Obama gravy train is. Now you don't actually have to do anything to win an award. I use to respect the concept of the Nobel Peace Prize. Not anymore. Who's done more for world peace? Who's a bigger symbol of peace? Obama or Gandhi? Geee.. that's a tough one.. oh wait, I guess for the committee, it is a tough one.
Even fanboyz have to draw a line.. come on... For things we hope and pray he's about to do??
Anyone who suggests that the United States controls puppet governments has no clue what they're talking about. The United States has had their hands in regime changes, but many of those leaders have acted in direct opposition to American wishes.
People claimed for years that the United States had direct control over Iraq and Saddam because they helped place in power. Perhaps you don't pay any attention to Congress, where they routinely discuss how they want nothing to do with long-term nation building and control. It was a key point in approving troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the citizens of those countries would have complete control in determining their future destiny.
The Afghani government was formed by the Northern Alliance, which existed for years before we went into Afghanistan. They held democratic elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
That is a list of 39 nations that actually deployed troops. There were other nations that offered logistical support, naval ships, etc. but did not deploy ground troops.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Poland actually deployed troops.
How were they not part of the coalition?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
no comment
Am I the only one getting up an advertisement for Sarah Palin's new book next to this article?
It sounds like he was indeed shocked, and I don't envy the awkwardness this places him under:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Building-a-World-that-Gives-Life-to-the-Promise-of-Our-Founding-Documents/
Is killing an answer to killing? Seems as though some analysis is needed. Violence in response to violence brings more violence.
A gross insult to people who actually deserved the award. This guy went from a nothing to the president of the United States and has DELIVERED nothing but scripted speeches. People who actually did things for years or lifetimes were passed over because the "potential" is there that this guy MIGHT deliver something. Another group pandering to Hollywood. My disgust has reached a new level.
I am sure they have been debunked. SO what about you use Google?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And pretty much all the main points have been answered to the agreement of most scientists and politicians (who have to make the hard choices).
There is a point where you have to take all the evidence available and make a decision about your course of action, otherwise you will be overwhelmed by the events while you continue the unproductive questioning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Bush and his cronies wrecked so badly the international stand of the US in the world that the Nobel committee is thanking the US, by means of its President, for deciding to come back to the arena of international diplomacy.
You forget that in recent years most people around the world rated the US as one of the greatest threats to international peace. You USians may not like the indictment, but should keep it in mind when judging the warm welcome Obama has received abroad.
This Nobel Prize is the equivalent to an international sigh of relief.
Many say that Obama was awarded this for not being Bush, this has a great grain of truth.
What I find distasteful is how during Bush presidency so many people equated disagreeing with their President to something akin to treason, but now it seems those same people snipe at Obama at every single opportunity, even if it is not his fucking fault.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And baring your ass, I can't imagine where did you pull those stances from.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Proof of this is that routinely parties from all the political spectre complain about bias from the BBC.
Also if you understood how it works and how punctilious they are about this, you would know better.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People in the US will be paying 50% of their income soon in health insurance, many will go bankrupt.
That is unsustainable, but clearly Maths is something that don't grace the brains of most people fighting to keep the status quo.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The content may be rather passionate, but that doesn't make it a troll.
Nobel prizes are supposed to be awarded for actual demonstrable achievements, not what might the candidate MIGHT accomplish some day...!
Hell! Where's my Nobel Prize? After all I might do something astounding some day...
Will they give out a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?
Most likely it was the Palestinians.
If the "Lockerbie Bomber" appeal would have continued the likelihood of him been acquited is quite substantial (if the evidence was flimsy the Scottish courts would have not allowed the appeal to continue).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Of course there are rights amongst nations, and most importantly obligations.
That is what treaties are all about.
Some countries may be strong enough to ignore them, that does not mean they were not signed, or that they were not legally enforceable, somebody may still come back to the US and try that one against the war mongers of the Bush years.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think that is enough without being undiplomatic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the amount of comments and interest probes it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He has not done anything yet.
He called Kanye West a jackass, didn't he?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Whoooosh!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno