Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[lovemonkey]

Wow this is a little too much. From what I've gathered even the people that initially supported him thinks this is bullshit.

[Butterbean]

Oh please.  The only way I would be more frustrated would be if they gave it to George W. lol...This really is getting out of hand

I wonder what extraordinary efforts they're talking about 

[Mars]

maybe usa will become popular again

[Butterbean]

Having been awarded since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize is considered a very astute recognition, but some past nominees and recipients have created controversy. Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, but the nomination was retracted. Other nominees include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Yasser Arafat. Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, as did Henry Kissinger and Mikhail Gorbachev. Due to the practice of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize based on a work in progress, it stands to reason that some recipients may seem like poor choices in hindsight; however, many recipients have been life-long promoters of peace and human rights, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama.



An individual or organization may be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by any qualifying individual, including former recipients, university professors, international leaders, and members of national assemblies. The list of nominees is kept private each year, and though a group or individual may later be referred to as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, this title bears no official merit. Nominees and recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize between 1901 and 1951 are currently compiled into a database. There are those who publicly criticize the Nobel Peace Prize as being politically slanted to the left and failing to recognize true merit, but even with past controversy, the Nobel Peace Prize continues to be an astute recognition that few would decline to accept.

www.wisegeek.com

[lovemonkey]

Having been awarded since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize is considered a very astute recognition, but some past nominees and recipients have created controversy. Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, but the nomination was retracted. Other nominees include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Yasser Arafat. Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, as did Henry Kissinger and Mikhail Gorbachev. Due to the practice of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize based on a work in progress, it stands to reason that some recipients may seem like poor choices in hindsight; however, many recipients have been life-long promoters of peace and human rights, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama.



An individual or organization may be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by any qualifying individual, including former recipients, university professors, international leaders, and members of national assemblies. The list of nominees is kept private each year, and though a group or individual may later be referred to as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, this title bears no official merit. Nominees and recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize between 1901 and 1951 are currently compiled into a database. There are those who publicly criticize the Nobel Peace Prize as being politically slanted to the left and failing to recognize true merit, but even with past controversy, the Nobel Peace Prize continues to be an astute recognition that few would decline to accept.

www.wisegeek.com

I think they should have a rule of waiting at least 10 years after the "good deed" has been done until they hand out the prize.

[George Whorewell]

Terrific-- Obama is in good company! 

[Soul Crusher]

maybe usa will become popular again

[Soul Crusher]

I think they should have a rule of waiting at least 10 years after the "good deed" has been done until they hand out the price.

The only good deed he could do at this point is resign.   

[Tre]

He should be hitten with a stick while he sleeps.

Did you order the Code Red??!!

[ThaRealist]

Did you order the Code Red??!!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

[Hedgehog]

I wonder what extraordinary efforts they're talking about 

I think Obama got the Prize for changing the direction fairly dramatically after George W Bush.


No. I don't think he should have been awarded the Peace Prize.

Shit, he hasn't even been able to close the Guantanamo yet.

Or ended the Iraqi war.

And he's considering sending in even more troops in Afghanistan.

Does that sound like a man that should receive a Peace Prize?

Not IMO.

But there has been change since George W Bush. But hell, anything would've been change considering what a war mongerer that guy was.

So my guess is that the Prize is awarded because of the change in direction.

From a world leader that tried to start war on the whole world to someone who's not.

That seems like you're kinda rewarding someone for NOT stealing. For NOT raping.

You're not rewarding good behavior. You're rewarding "NOT bad behavior".

Which is utterly stupid.

[Soul Crusher]

I think Obama got the Prize for changing the direction fairly dramatically after George W Bush.


No. I don't think he should have been awarded the Peace Prize.

Shit, he hasn't even been able to close the Guantanamo yet.

Or ended the Iraqi war.

And he's considering sending in even more troops in Afghanistan.

Does that sound like a man that should receive a Peace Prize?

Not IMO.

But there has been change since George W Bush. But hell, anything would've been change considering what a war mongerer that guy was.

So my guess is that the Prize is awarded because of the change in direction.

From a world leader that tried to start war on the whole world to someone who's not.

That seems like you're kinda rewarding someone for NOT stealing. For NOT raping.

You're not rewarding good behavior. You're rewarding "NOT bad behavior".

Which is utterly stupid.

He's only been there for 9 months and is already on a downward trajectory.  For his own sake, the best thing he could do is reject this award. 

[George Whorewell]

Hedge- out of curiosity. Do you think the US is justified in invading Afghanistan?

I'm just asking because while I don't agree with the Iraq war, it is clear we have won and the world is a lot better off without Saddam. However, I can understand how one could consider Iraq as an unnecessary/unjust war.

However, Afghanistan is non negotiable proposition IMO and must be won no matter how long it takes. If we let those responsible for 911 walk, the US might as well disband the entire country and let Bin Laden become president.

[Wiggs]

Wiggs, all jokes aside, what has Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize??

I love Obama but he hasn't done jackshit for a Nobel.  I'm as shocked as everyone else.

[Colossus_500]

I wonder what extraordinary efforts they're talking about 

Wonderful speeches, of course! 

[Hedgehog]

He's only been there for 9 months and is already on a downward trajectory.  For his own sake, the best thing he could do is reject this award. 

You just can't do that.

But I bet you he will be very low key about it.

Obama is many things. But stupid isn't one of those.

My guess the Nobel Peace Prize, if anything, will give USA some power in international talks the next few years.

USA has been winning a lot of those awards recently.

[Soul Crusher]

Hedge- out of curiosity. Do you think the US is justified in invading Afghanistan?

I'm just asking because while I don't agree with the Iraq war, it is clear we have won and the world is a lot better off without Saddam. However, I can understand how one could consider Iraq as an unnecessary/unjust war.

However, Afghanistan is non negotiable proposition IMO and must be won no matter how long it takes. If we let those responsible for 911 walk, the US might as well disband the entire country and let Bin Laden become president.

The only difference between Obama & Osama is BS. 

    

[240 is Back]

LOL... now the republicans have to minimize how important the noobel prize is....look for that  this will speak top moderate voters in a major way.

[Soul Crusher]

LOL... now the republicans have to minimize how important the noobel prize is....look for that  this will speak top moderate voters in a major way.

No, my GF is probably the least political person I know and she thought this was utter garbage. 

This has everything to do with liberal white guilt. 

[Hedgehog]

Hedge- out of curiosity. Do you think the US is justified in invading Afghanistan?

I'm just asking because while I don't agree with the Iraq war, it is clear we have won and the world is a lot better off without Saddam. However, I can understand how one could consider Iraq as an unnecessary/unjust war.

However, Afghanistan is non negotiable proposition IMO and must be won no matter how long it takes. If we let those responsible for 911 walk, the US might as well disband the entire country and let Bin Laden become president.

I don't think USA is justified in overtaking Afghanistan.

But I do think that USA is justified in going after terrorists in Afghanistan in most way USA sees necessary, as long as there aren't any civilian casualities.

Of course there will be some civilian casualties anyways, but you get my point I think.

I think that if one or two are killed by accident, then that cannot stop an operation by the USA to get those responsible.

But destroying whole villages or genocidal shit... No.

It seems like USA somewhere along the way has gotten sidetracked though.

Now it seems like it's more about defeating the Taliban and seizing control over a specific region than to actually hunt down Bin-Laden and Al-Qaida leadership.

Look, I don't like the Talibans or the war lords of the region anymore than anyone else.

But I see so many wrongs done up in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan eg, any war lord won't be hassled by the USA as long as they are anti-Talibans. They can be the biggest war criminals in the history. And the locals see these war lords get a free pass by the Americans, how the hell are these locals not going to hate the US and then later on back the Talibans?

It's damn complicated.

I read somewhere that soldiers thought that when they came to Vietnam, things were so totally different from what their officers said things were like in WWII.

The gooks were a completely different breed. They would never budge. It was a war that never could be won.

And now USA, once again totally supreme in firepower, fights a war in a distant part of the world.

This time, the climate is even more extreme. Cold, dry, warm.

And against soldiers who are driven by a cause we cannot fathom. A rage we haven't seen.

In Afghanistan, USA may be truly lost IMO.

But do USA have a "right" to go after Al-Qaida there? Yes. I think so.

Is that why they are there now though?

I don't think so.

Wouldn't a special op team of say 500-1 000 soldiers be able to search and destroy for Bin-Laden just as efficient?

I am no military expert.

Just asking.

[garebear]

I don't think USA is justified in overtaking Afghanistan.

But I do think that USA is justified in going after terrorists in Afghanistan in most way USA sees necessary, as long as there aren't any civilian casualities.

Of course there will be some civilian casualties anyways, but you get my point I think.

I think that if one or two are killed by accident, then that cannot stop an operation by the USA to get those responsible.

But destroying whole villages or genocidal shit... No.

It seems like USA somewhere along the way has gotten sidetracked though.

Now it seems like it's more about defeating the Taliban and seizing control over a specific region than to actually hunt down Bin-Laden and Al-Qaida leadership.

Look, I don't like the Talibans or the war lords of the region anymore than anyone else.

But I see so many wrongs done up in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan eg, any war lord won't be hassled by the USA as long as they are anti-Talibans. They can be the biggest war criminals in the history. And the locals see these war lords get a free pass by the Americans, how the hell are these locals not going to hate the US and then later on back the Talibans?

It's damn complicated.

I read somewhere that soldiers thought that when they came to Vietnam, things were so totally different from what their officers said things were like in WWII.

The gooks were a completely different breed. They would never budge. It was a war that never could be won.

And now USA, once again totally supreme in firepower, fights a war in a distant part of the world.

This time, the climate is even more extreme. Cold, dry, warm.

And against soldiers who are driven by a cause we cannot fathom. A rage we haven't seen.

In Afghanistan, USA may be truly lost IMO.

But do USA have a "right" to go after Al-Qaida there? Yes. I think so.

Is that why they are there now though?

I don't think so.

Wouldn't a special op team of say 500-1 000 soldiers be able to search and destroy for Bin-Laden just as efficient?

I am no military expert.

Just asking.

The Taliban were the ruling government at the time of the attacks and refused to deal with the US. You can't have it both ways.

You should read Ghost Wars if you think that a special ops team is capable of capturing or killing Al Qaeda members while the Taliban are in control. It's been tried before.

[lovemonkey]

Hedge- out of curiosity. Do you think the US is justified in invading Afghanistan?

I'm just asking because while I don't agree with the Iraq war, it is clear we have won and the world is a lot better off without Saddam. However, I can understand how one could consider Iraq as an unnecessary/unjust war.

However, Afghanistan is non negotiable proposition IMO and must be won no matter how long it takes. If we let those responsible for 911 walk, the US might as well disband the entire country and let Bin Laden become president.

No, don't you realize that the more time the US spends chasing this ghost called Bin Laden the more the terrorists have gained?

The terrorists have already won by country miles. All they needed was a couple of religious extremists and a handful of carpet knives and they single handedly changed the global political scene for a long time to come.

Every time you think it's a hassle to go through airport security checks, they've won. Every time billions of tax dollars are spent on extra homeland security, they've won. Every time 9/11 has been used for cheap political purposes, they've won. Every time the US starts a war because of this, they've won.

Honestly, the best thing would have been if everyone just forgot about 9/11.

[AE]

...This has everything to do with liberal white guilt. 

As opposed to the rocket science views of conservative white trash.

[garebear]

LMAO!!! Let the meltdowns begin...I love this shit!  I can hear Glenn Beck, Hannity, Savage, Levin and Limbaugh now.

Ha ha ha! One of my first thoughts was the meltdowns that were going to be on Getbig.

Let the fun begin!

[Soul Crusher]

As opposed to the rocket science views of conservative white trash.