Barack Obama wins Nobel peace prize [Archive]

Nemesis

10-09-2009, 04:22 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm pleasantly surprised.

Your thoughts? Comments?

I like Obama quite a bit, but I think this is very presumptive. He is not even a year into his term in office... how can they reward him for things not yet done. This is like a student getting on the dean's list for promising to get straight A's... silly.

I suspect there will be a lot of butt-hurt far right wingers fuming about this. I can't wait to see what kind of ridiculous rhetoric fox news will vomit up tomorrow that will be slathered around the media ad nauseum. I'm looking forward to more funny buzzwords. :)

True Rune

10-09-2009, 04:23 AM

They're gonna have a field day with this one... I just know it.

jikin

10-09-2009, 04:41 AM

I wake up to the news radio coming on, and this is what woke me up this morning. I thought it was part of my dream. I'm not an Obama hater, but my first thought when I heard this was "Really?". It doesn't seem, to me, that he has done enough to deserve it quite yet.

He is not even a year into his term in office... how can they reward him for things not yet done. This is like a student getting on the dean's list for promising to get straight A's... silly.

^this

I'm expecting this to add some fule to the fire for those who believe that he is the anti-Christ. (yep, they're still around)

LordCorbin

10-09-2009, 05:39 AM

Took Jimmy Carter decades of work, and they nominate Obama 2 weeks into his presidency. Im confused over why the middle-easterners mentioned in the article were voicing opposition. Did any of those people think they had a shot at the prize?

yoginimama

10-09-2009, 05:45 AM

Yeah, wow. I'm proud and humbled--but confused. I do think this is premature.

I think, in this case, the committee is trying to influence future events rather than reward past ones. I think they're hoping this will make everyone see Obama as a peacemaker--and make him see himself that way, thus influencing his actions in the future. I think the committee is trying to create positive synergy.

Which is great--but somewhat of a departure from the past intent of the award, imho.

MaleVolentworld

10-09-2009, 06:40 AM

I thought this was a joke, only because he hasn't been in power long. But I don't care much for the Nobel Peace Prize, didn't Yassa Arafat get it once? lol says everything if it is true.

karenann33

10-09-2009, 06:46 AM

I no longer think much of the nobel peace prize.

nowt

10-09-2009, 06:59 AM

Maybe they'll give Rowlings a Nobel for literature, too.

Mint

10-09-2009, 07:00 AM

I do think this is premature.

Took Jimmy Carter decades of work, and they nominate Obama 2 weeks into his presidency.

It doesn't seem, to me, that he has done enough to deserve it quite yet.

What are they giving it to him for again?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. says

"The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W Bush."

I can see why Beaumont would think this. As much as I regard Obama this seems excessive, and out of proportion with what he has actually done.

demvesalius

10-09-2009, 08:28 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm pleasantly surprised.

Your thoughts? Comments?

He doesn't deserve it.

If he can balance the federal debt, then I'll be impressed. For now, he's no different than Bush.

zibber

10-09-2009, 08:36 AM

Yeah, wow. I'm proud and humbled

You are humbled? How so?

I don't care much for the Nobel Peace Prize, didn't Yassa Arafat get it once? lol says everything if it is true.

Explain this.

Corbu

10-09-2009, 09:15 AM

I fail to share the Nobel Jury's vision and fear the they will suffer the same disappointments that other have.

RBM

10-09-2009, 09:16 AM

I believe this is WAY premature.

Some snippets of reaction at Pulitzer, White House, ... Nobel Peace Prize: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. all)
...
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY: The Nobel Committee has recognised President Obama's "determined commitment to human rights, justice and the promotion of peace in the world, in accordance with the will of founder Albert Nobel". The prize "does justice to your vision of tolerance and dialogue between states, cultures and civilisations".

ALI AKABR JAVANFEKR, AIDE TO IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice to the world order. We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.

SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI: We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel [Peace Prize]. His hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In these hard times people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision, commitment and political will should be supported.

KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER: Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?

TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID: We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable. We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama. We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's peace prize as unjust.

Outgoing International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei expressed delight:

... I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honour. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself. President Obama has provided outstanding leadership on moving towards a world free of nuclear weapons. He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity...

...

This will make little difference to partisan critics or detractors, others with agenda's different from POTUS at the international level, or ... well, anyone, that I can see.

I'm pretty much resigned to call it 'back-slapping'. The significant challenges are yet to be met.

rahdam

10-09-2009, 09:25 AM

I read this thread title and thought this was an honest joke.
Has he done anything worthy of the award?

darynthe

10-09-2009, 09:32 AM

This is not a joke right? Is it? I don't want to look silly ranting if this is just a joke.

If it is not, the joke is the Nobel prize as a whole.

larkin

10-09-2009, 09:41 AM

The first step to resolving conflict is a willingness to talk about your desire to resolve conflict. What you say matters. Presentation matters.

Does it matter as much as what you do? No, but when it comes to conflict resolution, given how precious little we have had from leaders in either thought or deed lately, I'm imagining they felt they would settle.

phej

10-09-2009, 09:42 AM

It's funny, the announcement was made a few hours ago and there's a bunch of stuff in the news talking about transparency for the selection process.

INTJRyan

10-09-2009, 09:53 AM

Congratulations, Mr. President. Amazing what a little respect and humility has done for our rep. Keep it up.

eagleseven

10-09-2009, 10:05 AM

What war has Obama ended? What treaties has Obama negotiated? What threat to world peace has Obama circumvented? What non-proliferation efforts has Obama administered?

Forget actual peacemaking, you can now win the Nobel Prize for giving beautiful speeches on TV.

TheLastMohican

10-09-2009, 10:19 AM

nacht

10-09-2009, 10:31 AM

The head of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjoern Jagland, said outright: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve." That isn't for "pretty speeches," but growing attempts at action which may or may not succeed. He has already started a lot of these items, and treaty negotiations are ongoing.

Think of this as the Nobel Committee attempting to give him additional leverage on the international stage to complete the vision he has put forth for the international stage. There have been indications that they want to put pressure on him to accomplish this vision, and remind him to the extent to which the world is watching. The Peace Prize is also the only prize that tends to be awarded "in real time," rather than decades later, but this is not a new development and has always been the case.

Obama himself as said "I accept this award as a call to action."

Some of the things they cited are also not new to his presidency, and are things Obama has been working on for a very long time (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Should they have waited? Perhaps, but talking about how he hasn't "earned" it is misguided, since that isn't about what the Committee was trying to accomplish.

darynthe

10-09-2009, 10:35 AM

Ok so it is legit! I just read and it is funny Hamas and Talibans call it premature, just as conservatives and neutrals. LOL Those two groups having the same opinion on something it is hilarious!!! Even Obama accepted it as token for "call to action." Guess he couldn't reject it without looking mean.

I feel embarrassed for him and for the Nobel committee. I hate it when I feel emphaty embarrassment.

eagleseven

10-09-2009, 10:40 AM

The headline hurts...

"Obama first US President to win Nobel since Carter"

eagleseven added to this post, 1 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Ok so it is legit! I just read and it is funny Hamas and Talibans call it premature, just as conservatives and neutrals. LOL Those two groups having the same opinion on something it is hilarious!!! Even Obama accepted it as token for "call to action." Guess he couldn't reject it without looking mean.

I feel embarrassed for him and for the Nobel committee. I hate it when I feel emphaty embarrassment.

Considering that US Troops are massacring the Taliban under Obama's orders as we speak, I can understand why they would disagree with this award...

knick4life

10-09-2009, 10:42 AM

The guardian article is a bit slim on details in comparison to other reports like the AP's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I was going to point out what nacht did: that the Committee's goal was to mold future events.

There's a strong impulse in me to find this premature. After all, our common conception of a prize is a reward for prior achievement. Yet, the Committee's logic for awarding it so soon, even if I disagree with it, has a rational basis.

eagleseven

10-09-2009, 10:44 AM

AaronSheffield

10-09-2009, 10:46 AM

...this is very presumptive. He is not even a year into his term in office... how can they reward him for things not yet done. This is like a student getting on the dean's list for promising to get straight A's... silly.

While I disagree with many of Obama's policies regarding the fundamental nature and duties of government, I do like the guy; I think that, despite the fact that he and I have very fundamental differences in our world views, he is earnestly working to bring about a future that he sincerely believes is better for everyone and I can respect that. However, I completely agree with Nemesis on this.

The Nobel Prizes are not supposed to be "calls for action", they are supposed to be awards for concrete achievements. The average man working on an assembly line in Detroit doesn't get a raise or a promotion for having good intentions and I don't think that Obama should get awards and accolades merely for his good intentions.

hubcap

10-09-2009, 10:49 AM

I'm finding it difficult to put into words how ridiculous this seems.

But, I also thought it was ridiculous when the terrorist Yassar Arafat was given the award.

It seems the entire concept of a Nobel Peace Prize has become ridiculous.

nacht

10-09-2009, 10:52 AM

In which case, the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer an achievement award, but rather a political tool.

Political tools have no prestige.

It has always been a political tool (see the time around World War II), and it has frequently been given to people who were "in process" rather than for past accomplishments (it was given to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for his work to create the league of nations, which in hindsight was a fiasco at best). None of this is in any way new.

yoginimama

10-09-2009, 11:05 AM

You are humbled? How so?

I think all Americans should feel great humility that the committee saw fit to honor a sitting President in this way. An honor to any citizen amounts to an honor to the nation, but especially in his case since he's governing it at the moment.

It has always been a political tool (see the time around World War II), and it has frequently been given to people who were "in process" rather than for past accomplishments (it was given to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for his work to create the league of nations, which in hindsight was a fiasco at best). None of this is in any way new.

Oh! I was not aware of that. In that case, let 'er rip :)

larkin

10-09-2009, 11:09 AM

The man is still in the first year of his presidency. Granted, he's putting a lot of focus on diplomacy, but there has not been enough time yet to see the long term results of his work. This Peace Prize has an uncomfortably good chance of turning into a joke with what he does in the next three to seven years.

I think this is a pretty good summation of a lot of the reaction, and on the surface it's hard to disagree. Let me reframe the question, though: who on the international stage has very much to show in the way peace promotion and conflict resolution in the past few years? There's been nothing but failure. Who has been even willing to say they want to seriously resolve conflict?

So what's the joke lately, the prize for peace? Or the lack of people who pursue it?

Again, I also think it's premature, but not unreasonable. It's a choice to make out of a lot of bad ones.

themuzicman

10-09-2009, 11:15 AM

This, more than anything else, exposes the "Nobel Peace Prize" committee as nothing more than political hacks with money, and destroys what little credibility this group had left after the last two decades.

Obama was two weeks into his presidency when the nomination was made. He had barely moved into the Oval office, and hadn't done anything.

It's pure idiocy.

SeaCzar

10-09-2009, 11:16 AM

I am no fan of Obama, and I agree with others who stated that this is premature and silly. However, if this leads to Obama having more leverage with other nations in trying to bring about peace and stability, so be it. This had better be the case, or the Nobel committee and the prize itself will be looked at as a farce.

LordCorbin

10-09-2009, 11:35 AM

: who on the international stage has very much to show in the way peace promotion and conflict resolution in the past few years? There's been nothing but failure. Who has been even willing to say they want to seriously resolve conflict?

I think this is an important point. Hopefully a few years down the line the award committee will be vindicated in their choice by his actions. In any case this is not the first time that there has been controversy over the selection made by the committee.

NoOne

10-09-2009, 11:42 AM

Why is there any surprise? Civilizations are built on standards and destoryed without them. I don't see a change in direction here.

AaronSheffield

10-09-2009, 12:00 PM

It has always been a political tool (see the time around World War II), and it has frequently been given to people who were "in process" rather than for past accomplishments (it was given to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for his work to create the league of nations, which in hindsight was a fiasco at best). None of this is in any way new.

The fact that it's not new doesn't make it good or right.

Also, while the League of Nations did prove to be largely ineffective (pretty much just like the UN has proven to be largely ineffective), it was at the very least a concrete accomplishment. The League of Nations actually existed. Wilson's Prize came after ending a war, not while fighting two wars and seriously considering sending an additional 40,000 troops into Afghanistan.

Holiman

10-09-2009, 12:04 PM

It honestly peeves me off.

We are still in a war in Afghanistan.

We are still in a war in Iraq.

We are threatening a war with Iran.

and they gave our president a peace prize ???

IMHO we elected him to undue prez bush's failures, and bring our troops home.

timetraveler

10-09-2009, 12:10 PM

What did he to do earn this? I don't agree with giving him a prize because he's Black.

timetraveler added to this post, 6 minutes and 57 seconds later...

I think this is an important point. Hopefully a few years down the line the award committee will be vindicated in their choice by his actions. In any case this is not the first time that there has been controversy over the selection made by the committee.

What do you expect Obama to do? He doesn't have as much power as you seem to think.
Obama cannot change the world, the world can change Obama.

KEM10

10-09-2009, 12:22 PM

In which case, the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer an achievement award, but rather a political tool.

That is actually the reason they didn't give the prize to Gandhi, he was too involved in the politics of India while "fighting" the British.

LordCorbin

10-09-2009, 12:23 PM

I don't agree with giving him a prize because he's Black.

What do you expect Obama to do? He doesn't have as much power as you seem to think.
Obama cannot change the world, the world can change Obama.

Do you really think they gave him the prize because "he's Black"?

Im not expecting him to do anything, nor did I give any indication of what I think are the limits of his power or ability. My point was that I hope he does something positive for the world, in general, to merit his getting the award and vindicate the choice of the committee that selected him as the prize recipient.

themuzicman

10-09-2009, 12:43 PM

They didn't give it to him because he is black. They gave it to him because he represents their agenda, and wanted to give him a political (and financial) boost.

Valiyn

10-09-2009, 12:50 PM

I've seen alot of people react very negatively to this and not just on this forum. Seems like it causes more separation of die-hard obama supporters and others like independents then giving Obama the tools he needs to make peace happen (but the statistics arn't out for that verification yet). They should have waited until he has actually accomplished what he said he would, not because he is "someone other then Bush, black, inspiring, whatever".

jikin

10-09-2009, 12:53 PM

larkin

10-09-2009, 01:03 PM

It will be 50 years before they release the names of the other nominees, so not all of us will be around to see who he beat out. A handful of the 250 are known.
Greg Mortenson was known to be one person on the list, and was seen as one of the favorites. A simple wikipedia search shows that he seems more credentialed for a "peace prize". To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Perhaps he'll win next year, or maybe they'll hand it out to some other person who really hasn't done much more than pep talks.

I love Greg Mortenson, and am the last person to take potshots of the work of any NGO. It's obviously important, and he wrote a good book. The Central Asia Institute, like thousands of small-scale NGOs across the world, does great work. But not sure you can compare that to re-opening the peace process between Israel and Palestine, for example. Even if progress hasn't been made yet, although that's debatable.

I'm not saying Obama deserved it; maybe they should have waited. But I do think the criticism is overheated. It's not an unreasonable selection.

EarthBound

10-09-2009, 01:45 PM

This is not the Nobel Prize.
This is the Nobel Peace Prize.

It is rarely given, but isn't important.
The Nobel Prize winners have usually contributed something incredible to the human race.
Nobel Peace Prize winners have nearly all been politicians and/or celebrities.
The fact that it riles people like this is the core reason they're even named similarly.

The award was given much too early, however, for them to safely uphold this "prestige."
There is a titanic opportunity for failure ahead if he ends up making things worse.

Imagine if Bush was given the prize 2 weeks in-
People were very hopeful for him as well.
They had no idea what his presidency would be like.
The prize would have become a Novel Peace Prize, not a Nobel Peace Prize.

Hope alone wont solve the worlds problems, though I'd like them to, for America's sake.
He has just been sensationalized before his election, and that already fading sensation is continuing despite the award. He declared himself a man of change and people expected exactly that. (Though we can argue that in a population plagued by rampant stupidity they didn't know any better. It isn't like a president will do and say anything to get elected, right? *Motions to past 5+ presidents.*)

Those of you who may be active in artistic communities may remember the deluge of Obama-Inspired art.
These same people are now seeing a lot of those same artists beginning to feel let down and disappointed.
See Fig. 01 below:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Fig. 01

This kind of sentiment can be expected from the art community so dominated by F-types.

For clarification and stating my biases, I am not affiliated with any party, nor do I have any support for a party. (Ideally I'd like to see the parties dissolved. They are mixing the original issues of states' rights vs strong federal government with social issues which is dangerous to the continuance of the country.)

aqua9air

10-09-2009, 03:10 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pretty Funny

¨Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.

Good grief.¨

INTJRyan

10-09-2009, 03:21 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pssst. You don't have to be President to get the award. Mr. Obama was an international figure for a lot longer than two weeks, and the award recognizes future aspirations as well. But hey, keep booing the POTUS for winning. It's like cheering when we lost the Olympics.
Petty and ignorant.

Mader

10-09-2009, 03:30 PM

I learned of this when I woke up this morning. Been working this over in my mind for quite a while.

One: This is, of course, an honor for the President and for the country.

Two: In America, we associate awards with results. The winner of the spelling bee wins the award. The Miss America pageant has an award for the winner, but they do have an award for Miss Congeniality, too. We are unfamilar with winning the 'gold medal' for thoughts. So, there will be lots of opposition.

In fact, when the President spoke today to accept this Nobel Peace Prize, he seemed to understand that he was not winning the award for his accomplishments. He was clearly suprised and seemed honored and modest. His comments were not the typical tele-prompter type. Clearly the Peace Prize was awarded for other purposes. President Obama obviously can't turn this award down, but I don't think this will help his cause - the bad guys don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, having been polite about this: maybe next year Sean Penn can get the award!

Cincinnatus

10-09-2009, 03:47 PM

You know what? Good for him, and I mean that genuinely.

Now, I must get back to keeping a family business on track and figuring out how to eke out a living.

Prunesquallor

10-09-2009, 05:05 PM

It kind of points to the low standards people have for that country...I mean, he's a good guy, mostly, and he's trying, but it might have seemed more credible had they waited a bit. The right is having a field day.
I hope he earns it.

timetraveler

10-09-2009, 05:11 PM

Do you really think they gave him the prize because "he's Black"?

Im not expecting him to do anything, nor did I give any indication of what I think are the limits of his power or ability. My point was that I hope he does something positive for the world, in general, to merit his getting the award and vindicate the choice of the committee that selected him as the prize recipient.

What else is special about Barack Obama? Did they give the prize to Bill Clinton? George Bush? Why is Barack Obama any different than these others? He hasn't done anything in his first year in office which makes him stand out as being the peace President at least that I'm aware of. If he has done stuff behind the scenes then I'll be corrected at some point in the future but as he looks right now, it looks like he hasn't changed anything and the only change I see in the Presidency is the color of his skin.

INTJRyan

10-09-2009, 05:53 PM

What else is special about Barack Obama? Did they give the prize to Bill Clinton? George Bush? Why is Barack Obama any different than these others? He hasn't done anything in his first year in office which makes him stand out as being the peace President at least that I'm aware of. If he has done stuff behind the scenes then I'll be corrected at some point in the future but as he looks right now, it looks like he hasn't changed anything and the only change I see in the Presidency is the color of his skin.

Jimmy Carter surrenders.

Dialock

10-09-2009, 06:40 PM

Please read up on Alfred Nobel's Will.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am most interested in "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Which is in the first paragraph I linked.

Now, I'm no wordsmith so I had to put the words "conferred definition" into Google. The definition makes me think of action. Well talking is an action so why the fuss about Obama getting $1.4 mill and a shiny medal?

RBM

10-09-2009, 06:59 PM

I believe this is WAY premature.

Some snippets of reaction at Pulitzer, White House, ... Nobel Peace Prize: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. all)
...

...

This will make little difference to partisan critics or detractors, others with agenda's different from POTUS at the international level, or ... well, anyone, that I can see.

I'm pretty much resigned to call it 'back-slapping'. The significant challenges are yet to be met.

The head of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjoern Jagland, said outright: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve." That isn't for "pretty speeches," but growing attempts at action which may or may not succeed. He has already started a lot of these items, and treaty negotiations are ongoing.

Think of this as the Nobel Committee attempting to give him additional leverage on the international stage to complete the vision he has put forth for the international stage. There have been indications that they want to put pressure on him to accomplish this vision, and remind him to the extent to which the world is watching. The Peace Prize is also the only prize that tends to be awarded "in real time," rather than decades later, but this is not a new development and has always been the case.

Obama himself as said "I accept this award as a call to action."

Some of the things they cited are also not new to his presidency, and are things Obama has been working on for a very long time (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Should they have waited? Perhaps, but talking about how he hasn't "earned" it is misguided, since that isn't about what the Committee was trying to accomplish.

Wellll ! In that case I'll retract my comment of 'premature' ....

... BUT... I'll emphasize (bold; italics; all caps; underline) BACKSLAPPING !!!!!

Slacker

10-09-2009, 08:03 PM

The "he hasn't done anything" went through my mind, too. Aren't politicians usually required to commit a few crimes against humanity, like Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, Rabin, Arafat?

larkin

10-09-2009, 08:09 PM

unfortunately, most peacemakers also have blood on their hands.

Pandemonium

10-09-2009, 08:33 PM

He won the Nobel peace prize because he makes people feel good about killing civilians, unlike George Bush.

Corbu

10-09-2009, 11:29 PM

darynthe

10-09-2009, 11:40 PM

After thinking about this most of the day I have come to the following: I hope and pray that Mr. Obama actually earns this award soon because it is being earned with the lives and blood of American Armed Service Members on foreign soils. As we speak men and women of the United States and other countries are being put in harms way. This accolade comes with a steep cost on all sides of the conflicts, to bandy about the rightness/wrongness of the award does a great disservice to those same men and women who did not choose to go into harms way but did so anyways on behalf of their respective countries.

If you start thinking, I mean really thinking there are many possible causes of this prize and many bad consequences for the US:

a) Obama now that he has accepted the prize will lose face if he sends troops to Afganistan or anywhere else. Wasn't he supposed to send 40000 men over there? Well guess what, he can't now or he will look like a jerk. He is practically obligated to retire US forces in the middle East. And if he looks bad he will also make US look bad in this particular case.

b) Everybody is talking all over the world how he didn't deserve it. They are now really dissecting his results and actions. Even old winners are saying he shouldn't have got it (Ex. Lech Wallesa). He is not looking good. Did the commetee plan this? This prize is really a political weapon!

c) Either way, the prize is an effort to manipulate Obama like a puppet. Are these people pro-Iranian?

d) It may also be said that he was lobbying for the Olympic games and got this as consolation prize. But his heart was on the Olympics. Hilarious.

ETA: e)Dangerous presidents/dictators will see him now as a weakened figure. Just see what the iranian president said. Already trying to get leverage with it.

Nameless

10-09-2009, 11:56 PM

I think this is bullshit, but before anybody pulls out some idiotic counter like I'm racist or a republican (I actually am neither, well maybe I don't need to say that but on other places with fewer INTJs, people go for low blows/stupid counters), I just see this as another result of his celebrity.

If you start thinking, I mean really thinking there are many possible causes of this prize and many bad consequences for the US:

a) Obama now that he has accepted the prize will lose face if he sends troops to Afganistan or anywhere else. Wasn't he supposed to send 40000 men over there? Well guess what, he can't now or he will look like a jerk. He is practically obligated to retire US forces in the middle East. And if he looks bad he will also make US look bad in this particular case.

b) Everybody is talking all over the world how he didn't deserve it. They are now really dissecting his results and actions. Even old winners are saying he shouldn't have got it (Ex. Lech Wallesa). He is not looking good. Did the commetee plan this? This prize is really a political weapon!

c) Either way, the prize is an effort to manipulate Obama like a puppet. Are these people pro-Iranian?

d) It may also be said that he was lobbying for the Olympic games and got this as consolation prize. But his heart was on the Olympics. Hilarious.

Political weapon. Oh, that is so ingenious. But it is still a prize and prizes should not be given out if not deserved!

I was the recipient of an award in high school that I did not deserve and feel pissed and disappointed that I could get away with such a low standard. Is competence really so low that I can hold back and still win an award (yes, I did this, partly on purpose and partly on anxiety)? Obama doesn't feel this way probably, but rewards feel best when they are earned. Otherwise, they feel like some kind of joke or insult.

Causa Mortis

10-10-2009, 02:55 AM

It was a joke after they gave it to Arafat in 94. Not exactly a serious award, other than the cash.

I voted for Obama and support his presidency generally, but this was not very credible.

SuperBenjamin

10-10-2009, 03:08 AM

This got to be a joke! That rat won a nobel PEACE price? i thought the title was a joke!

Waging an endless war in Afghanistan, destabilizing Pakistan and assaulting American tax payers....... soon you will hear about US invading Iran. He is already using the same media tactic Bush did b4 he invaded Iraq. This is really insane!

Pandemonium

10-10-2009, 04:30 AM

zibber

10-10-2009, 05:26 AM

Pssst. You don't have to be President to get the award. Mr. Obama was an international figure for a lot longer than two weeks, and the award recognizes future aspirations as well. But hey, keep booing the POTUS for winning. It's like cheering when we lost the Olympics.
Petty and ignorant.

Yeah, it's petty. Forget about Guantanamo Bay, all the secret prisons, two ongoing unilateral invasions (illegal according to international law), virtually unconditional support for the apartheid regime in Israel (exemplified by the suppression of the Goldstone report), the appointment of all flavors of lobbyists to government positions, support of commercial "health care" "insurance" companies and so on.

Critical thinking is petty. Closing your eyes and chanting "HOPE & CHANGE!" over and over is going to save the planet.

I think all Americans should feel great humility that the committee saw fit to honor a sitting President in this way. An honor to any citizen amounts to an honor to the nation, but especially in his case since he's governing it at the moment.

Agree to disagree :laugh:

Loco Luko

10-10-2009, 05:43 AM

No one really seems to have mentioned anyone else who could have been a real contender? For me Morgan Tsvangarie(sp?) is truly incredible and if theres any justice will be recognised for it in the future, but obama seems to have spread real hope and optimism throughout the world.

Pandemonium

10-10-2009, 05:55 AM

Loco Luko

10-10-2009, 06:05 AM

Only by the skill of his tongue and the charm of his smile. His actions are a hidden deficit.

Granted there hasn't been a huge lot of substance behind his charms so far, but its still early days.

Who do you think is a credible prize winner?

Pandemonium

10-10-2009, 06:14 AM

Granted there hasn't been a huge lot of substance behind his charms so far, but its still early days.

Who do you think is a credible prize winner?

Noam Chomsky XD

I have not been paying attention to the awards process this round. I would not know who nominated would be a credible prize winner. I remember now that Al Gore won the prize. I think the credibility of the nobel institute requires some questioning.

larkin

10-10-2009, 06:53 AM

Tsvingarai is a reasonable choice, but I don't think he would have/could have won because he is part of the coalition government of Zimbabwe. It would be difficult to imply that his opposition to Mugabe was sufficient grounds for the Nobel Peace Prize when he's now power sharing with his opponent.

I think Sarkozy was in the running and wold have been reasonable. He flew to Israel and worked for an end to the war in Gaza, and is one of the few considered credible by both Israelis and Palestinians.

That said, the irony of the decision being criticized in the U.S. by many who have no interest in peace shouldn't be lost on anyone - these are people who consider the pursuit of conflict resolution and international cooperation goals that are political by default.

Prunesquallor

10-10-2009, 08:04 AM

After thinking about this most of the day I have come to the following: I hope and pray that Mr. Obama actually earns this award soon because it is being earned with the lives and blood of American Armed Service Members on foreign soils. As we speak men and women of the United States and other countries are being put in harms way. This accolade comes with a steep cost on all sides of the conflicts, to bandy about the rightness/wrongness of the award does a great disservice to those same men and women who did not choose to go into harms way but did so anyways on behalf of their respective countries.

They chose to join the army, did they not?
The 100 000+ Iraqui citizens who've been killed, however...
But yeah, I hope he earns it.

Tsvingarai is a reasonable choice, but I don't think he would have/could have won because he is part of the coalition government of Zimbabwe. It would be difficult to imply that his opposition to Mugabe was sufficient grounds for the Nobel Peace Prize when he's now power sharing with his opponent.

I think Sarkozy was in the running and wold have been reasonable. He flew to Israel and worked for an end to the war in Gaza, and is one of the few considered credible by both Israelis and Palestinians.

That said, the irony of the decision being criticized in the U.S. by many who have no interest in peace shouldn't be lost on anyone - these are people who consider the pursuit of conflict resolution and international cooperation goals that are political by default.

I don't know that power sharing is necessarily a bad thing, on his part. It seemed like one of those attempts at something resembling a peaceful resolution given the insanity and intractability of his opponent, maybe even the best option - working with him, rather than fighting him, given the possibility of collateral damage.

There's definately a lot of hypocrisy coming out in Obama's opponents, though It's kind of funny, except that it's so..ugh.

Solus

10-10-2009, 08:24 AM

I think Sarkozy was in the running and wold have been reasonable. He flew to Israel and worked for an end to the war in Gaza, and is one of the few considered credible by both Israelis and Palestinians.

I think the way he handled the riots as the interior minister has taken him out of the running for a Nobel forever.

LaoTzu

10-10-2009, 09:33 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your thoughts? Comments?

I was a bit surprised too.
But the prize isn't necessarily about DEEDS, but it can be about bringing the FEEL of peace. (not the best description...but you get it I'm sure).

I was wondering about it, and It has more to do with how he has presented not only America to the world; but how he has engaged the world into thinking about the future and what role every person has in making peace a reality. Platitudes sure, but you can't just MAKE peace... you have to plant the idea in the minds of as many people as possible...

Obama has given many speeches throughout the last year and a half with a GLOBAL audience. He's planted the seed off peace and possibility in the minds of BILLIONS around the world. And he's one of the most believable politicians I think the US has ever known. He seems to really want peace; rather than just saying what he's paid to say. He's genuine. (you can argue the reality...but this is truly the perception without question. He is only hated in his own country, and that's only because the right have lost their ball and want it back)

Again, you can argue about deeds, but perception can be just as valuable.

Besides, he should thank GWB for the award as much as himself. Under GWB the world seemed a dark, bleak landscape with murderers around every corner waiting to pounce on you.
The only way out being a plume of napalm on the villages of brown people... Pat Buchanan would probably have won the peace prize too... in comparison.

Slacker

10-10-2009, 09:54 AM

It was a joke after they gave it to Arafat in 94. Not exactly a serious award, other than the cash.

I disagree. It was a joke long before that. At least, since they gave it to Kissinger in 76. Arafat and Rabin were just the retelling of an old joke.

I voted for Obama, too. I can see that he's fighting an uphill battle to bring health care, Iraq and Afghanistan to a satisfactory conclusion. I don't blame him for failing or for scaling back. If he succeeded, he might deserve a prize. It's called reelection. But I wish he'd had the integrity to reject this Nobel prize simply for not having accomplished anything yet. Sure, it would be embarrassing for the committee, but that would have been their problem. Based on his accomplishments so far, I think Time's man of the year was fair.

larkin

10-10-2009, 12:48 PM

At least, a more interesting discussion.

I don't know that power sharing is necessarily a bad thing, on his part. It seemed like one of those attempts at something resembling a peaceful resolution given the insanity and intractability of his opponent, maybe even the best option - working with him, rather than fighting him, given the possibility of collateral damage.

Agreed, I think he's actually inspirational and his decision was probably the only way the country could move forward. I only meant the power-sharing compromised his acceptance of the prize logistically. That seems difficult while he's part of Mugabe's government.

I think the way he handled the riots as the interior minister has taken him out of the running for a Nobel forever.

Maybe. I'm not saying he would have been the perfect choice. (Sarkozy has also been in office only a little over two years, and also has "nothing to show for it" - it's not like he stopped the war in Gaza.) I think that's something to remember if one really were to try to choose a candidate - they often have an ugly history, they often have blood on their hands, or at least, times when people would claim they weren't promoting peace at all, and maybe were actively promoting conflict. So in some ways it's easier to give the award to someone with relatively little history on the international stage.

I disagree. It was a joke long before that. At least, since they gave it to Kissinger in 76. Arafat and Rabin were just the retelling of an old joke.

Yeah, that said, I also think Kissinger and Arafat were a bridge too far. Peace promotion/conflict resolution doesn't have a whole lot of great candidates to choose from. Thanks in part to the sincere efforts from some quarters to make it politically unpalatable in the U.S. I'm sure the same is true elsewhere.

Again, you can argue about deeds, but perception can be just as valuable. [...] Besides, he should thank GWB for the award as much as himself. [...] Pat Buchanan would probably have won the peace prize too... in comparison.

Definitely. Like it or not, this is about how low the bar for conflict resolution has been set in the past ten years, about the complete lack of interest there's been in the U.S. in even basic diplomacy. Pretty speeches don't amount to much, true, and maybe aren't worth a Nobel. But they're better than ugly, threatening speeches that are utterly dismissive to the rest of the world.

But I wish he'd had the integrity to reject this Nobel prize simply for not having accomplished anything yet. Sure, it would be embarrassing for the committee, but that would have been their problem. Based on his accomplishments so far, I think Time's man of the year was fair.

That seems a bit extreme, not to mention politically unfeasible. And for what? I wish they had waited. I also wish Al Pacino had won an Oscar for Dog Day Afternoon instead of Scent of a Woman. Hope he lives up to it (if that counts as an effort to "manipulate" Obama, making me possibly pro-Iranian, so be it.)

Ray9

10-10-2009, 07:33 PM

If Obama had any class at all he would refuse to accept the award ala George C. Scott. This is unlikely to happen because unlike Scott who was all class Obama lacks not only the intelligence but the courage to act in a selfless manner. This prize is more than just a brazen attempt at influence peddling, it is a moral degradation of the United States by envious forces that would like to see it brought to its knees. Obama will not decline the award because he lacks the class to do so.

The Forsaken

10-11-2009, 05:20 AM

They should have voted for nobody and Obama shouldn't have accepted it. "Advancing interests" or whatever the hell his stated reason was for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize was bs. Unless the whole world is retarded, that reason doesn't fly.

nowt

10-11-2009, 06:06 AM

Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.
--Cyril Connolly

combustor

10-11-2009, 06:10 AM

Really? Are we questioning the One? There isn't an award on earth we mortals could bestow that he wouldn't deserve! Repent; any opposition will surely be silenced. (Please forward this to flag.whitehouse.gov so I can be on the "friends" list)

larkin

10-11-2009, 06:56 AM

Usual informed commentary, in the last couple. This was quoted from the state department, taking the pragmatist's view as always: "Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, whatever the reason, rather than shoes."

nowt

10-11-2009, 07:05 AM

As long as there's 'a sense of momentum', all has improved.

larkin

10-11-2009, 07:21 AM

As long as there's 'a sense of momentum', all has improved.

Of course not. But right now, there's very little to be pleased about, so you take what you can get.

nowt

10-11-2009, 07:39 AM

larkin

10-11-2009, 07:54 AM

The committee may have given Obama the prize that he have troops fully withdrawn by his second year, and not later third/early fourth; as a western institution, they may also have given it to him for not yet withdrawing.

It would've been nice to have had him decline it, tho.

Yes, seems people object for three reasons:

1.) It's premature. (Which I agree with.)
2.) He hasn't done enough to end the wars/ human rights violations. (Understandable, but think that overestimates what's possible given the political climate in the U.S.)
3.) People who dislike Obama and think the prize promotes, well, the pursuit of peace, which is a direction that they think "weakens the United States." Often these people cloak their arguments by saying it's premature.

If you are annoyed because of reason three you'll criticize him for not returning it, one more reason to do so. If you're annoyed because of reasons one or two, what good does returning it do? As the committee states, the award is intended to be leverage for accomplishing goals.

nowt

10-11-2009, 08:17 AM

Honest humility might create more leverage than the prize itself. Or not.

LaoTzu

10-11-2009, 08:52 AM

I don't think Obama came out and said "YaY ME!! I R Teh Pwnter Of Joo!!"... did he?

OSLO, Norway - President Barack Obama said Friday he was surprised and humbled to win the Nobel Peace Prize and would accept it as a "call to action" to work with other nations to solve the problems of the 21st century.

Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

The president will donate the entire $1.4 million prize to charity, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, but hasn't decided yet which organizations will share the windfall. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Pretty much it was described as it was intended. To give Obama a push on those things he promised to deliver on. And Obama has not indicated that he has any illusions about WHY he won the award either. He knows why he got it...He doesn't need slack jawed yokels telling him he doesn't 'deserve' it...

The Right just can't give the guy even a little space. They are now what LimpBlech would have called "the lunatic fringe".

jm123

10-11-2009, 07:01 PM

The Right just can't give the guy even a little space. They are now what LimpBlech would have called "the lunatic fringe".

This is not a right or left thing. It is about an award that represents accomplishments. He was nominated after being in office for 11 days,

11 freaking days!!!

February 1 was the deadline for nominees. How anyone could say this was not an award for being the first president after Bush, and possibly because he was our first black president I do not know. I think it is an insult to him and our country and I feel it was extremely wrong for him to accept it. I understand he may not have realized that he was nominated after only 11 days in office. However, now he knows this, and should rescind his acceptance.

alrightgame

10-11-2009, 08:17 PM

He doesn't deserve it.

If he can balance the federal debt, then I'll be impressed. For now, he's no different than Bush.

This is in no way in hell his fucking job to do. Go see what the job of the presidency to do, because you are severely confused.

Profit

10-11-2009, 09:14 PM

T
February 1 was the deadline for nominees. How anyone could say this was not an award for being the first president after Bush,

Perhaps this is also an award to US voters. We did elect a guy who said he wanted to talk to people as opposed to singing Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.

Vincent601

10-12-2009, 12:50 AM

I was a bit surprised =)

JCrow

10-12-2009, 10:01 AM

Thank God(just a figure of speech) for the rational minds of INTJs on this forum. You people(funnier figure of speech) get how ridiculous the deification of Obama is. Someone said above he was nominated after 11 days in office.....Wow, just wow.

I remember when he won the election my roommates jumped up and high-fived. Then looked at me, at which point i said, "I'm happy he won, but he hasn't done anything yet... seems premature to celebrate."

Nobel Prize seems REALLY premature.

ambrosia

10-12-2009, 10:42 AM

I voted for him and i still think its a bit premature. Giving good speeches= noble prize?? /boggle

Prunesquallor

10-12-2009, 10:52 AM

I love how he's always "black" even though he's a halfie. yeah...

INTJRyan

10-12-2009, 12:58 PM

Yeah, it's petty. Forget about Guantanamo Bay, all the secret prisons, two ongoing unilateral invasions (illegal according to international law), virtually unconditional support for the apartheid regime in Israel (exemplified by the suppression of the Goldstone report), the appointment of all flavors of lobbyists to government positions, support of commercial "health care" "insurance" companies and so on.

Critical thinking is petty. Closing your eyes and chanting "HOPE & CHANGE!" over and over is going to save the planet.

What the hell are you talking about?

Evangelist

10-12-2009, 01:31 PM

Well the last big name black guy who got it, got shot a few months later. I guess he gets the prize for being president for nine months without mucking up the Whitehouse with a funeral.

rahdam

10-12-2009, 01:38 PM

I love how he's always "black" even though he's a halfie. yeah...

This has very little to do with Obama per say, and very much to do with an artificial distinction that is prevalent in America.

Nordenstorm

10-12-2009, 01:46 PM

I believe this is a Norwegian strategy of putting pressure on Obama. In Europe, especially in Scandinavia many think he isn't doing enough against the climate change.
(Not that we don't like him. Adoring him is sort of a non-question.)
Giving him this prize will put up our (the foreigners =P) expectations on Obama. If he isn't sufficiently accommodating in the top-meeting in Copenhagen, we will all get even more frustrated with him. Which probably would hurt his foreign politics.
If the Norwegian Nobel-comity wanted to award Obama I believe they would have waited a couple of years, like they usually do, to be able to tell if a persons work Really made a difference.
It would perhaps be wiser to give him the prize in 2.5 years, before the election. Which probably would give him a boast. (most Scandinavians think it's vital he gets reselected)

Prunesquallor

10-12-2009, 02:44 PM

This has very little to do with Obama per say, and very much to do with an artificial distinction that is prevalent in America.

I know that.
It's still funny. In a sick sort of way.

alrightgame

10-12-2009, 10:55 PM

How many peace prizes are given out each year? If one, who is going to give one to CERN? Oh good grief.

Edited: for stupidity, thanks below.

Nikita

10-13-2009, 03:26 AM

Well, community organizers who become media darlings wagging a silver tongue so effective Hitler would have bent over and wagged his bottom in the air for it, do deserve recognition such as this, in addition to control over troops with absolutely no experience directing anything more than the emotions of a mindless crowd of pathetic sheep. It's hardly surprising and a laughable comment on the state of reason in this world.

IrishGuy

10-13-2009, 04:28 AM

Well, this reflects poorly upon the Nobel committee but does not really reflect on Obama much at all. I think he did the right thing by at least donating the prize money.

Soulless

10-13-2009, 06:16 AM

this whole thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy... does he deserve it? probably not yet. but it will work.

Nikita

10-14-2009, 12:31 AM

Well, this reflects poorly upon the Nobel committee but does not really reflect on Obama much at all. I think he did the right thing by at least donating the prize money.

He accepted it.

this whole thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy... does he deserve it? probably not yet. but it will work.

Prove it.

TheLastMohican

10-14-2009, 10:22 AM

He accepted it.

He made no pretense of entitlement, however. I think he handled the situation perfectly.

Ytterbium

10-14-2009, 12:16 PM

this whole thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy... does he deserve it? probably not yet. but it will work.
Indeed now he has to prove it. :)

Tristan

10-15-2009, 02:09 PM

I agree with Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. In truth, few to none have done more this year to spread world peace, and that's a fact regardless of any sarcasm. Think about it: There was no overall progress made towards world peace this year. No noteworthy figures have contributed to the spread of peace this year. No newsworthy events have given rise to new names and faces in the cause of peace this year. The world is the same old shit as last year.Thus, we may as well award this prize to the promiser, which is the sitting US President.

It's a bullshit prize, anyway. When I view the list of historical recipients, and try to imagine what the world would have been like without them, I get a feeling of longing.

jm123

10-15-2009, 05:47 PM

nacht

10-15-2009, 10:53 PM

"On November 18, 1948, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that "there was no suitable living candidate". "

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That was very notably because there was someone they regretted not having given it to while he lived. It was the closest thing they could do to awarding it posthumously.

123456789

10-16-2009, 05:48 AM

I agree with Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. In truth, few to none have done more this year to spread world peace, and that's a fact regardless of any sarcasm. Think about it: There was no overall progress made towards world peace this year. No noteworthy figures have contributed to the spread of peace this year. No newsworthy events have given rise to new names and faces in the cause of peace this year. The world is the same old shit as last year.Thus, we may as well award this prize to the promiser, which is the sitting US President.

I seem to recall quite a bit of media coverage in August 2008, when French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated peace between Russia and Georgia.

jm123

10-16-2009, 09:46 AM

That was very notably because there was someone they regretted not having given it to while he lived. It was the closest thing they could do to awarding it posthumously.

Correct, however I meant that as a sound bite. They have actually not awarded the peace prize 19 times, since it's inception.

Also, the awards intent, is for accomplishments in the previous year. So this years award, is actually for Obama's 2008 achievements.

Tristan

10-16-2009, 10:31 AM

I seem to recall quite a bit of media coverage in August 2008, when French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated peace between Russia and Georgia.I did not know about that at all! (being a shut-in Ameritard)

So this years award, is actually for Obama's 2008 achievements.
That sort of cinches the irony doesn't it?

Warrior

10-16-2009, 03:55 PM

Well, this reflects poorly upon the Nobel committee but does not really reflect on Obama much at all. I think he did the right thing by at least donating the prize money.

Personally, I think it is inappropriate for a sitting president to accept monetary awards outside of what may be legally consider campaign contributions. I think he should have declined the award.

this whole thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy... does he deserve it? probably not yet. but it will work.

What will work????

I agree with Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. In truth, few to none have done more this year to spread world peace, and that's a fact regardless of any sarcasm. Think about it: There was no overall progress made towards world peace this year. No noteworthy figures have contributed to the spread of peace this year. No newsworthy events have given rise to new names and faces in the cause of peace this year. The world is the same old shit as last year.Thus, we may as well award this prize to the promiser, which is the sitting US President.

The promiser??? What? I promise world peace. Why didn't I win? I think the point is to award accomplishments, not promises.

Correct, however I meant that as a sound bite. They have actually not awarded the peace prize 19 times, since it's inception.

Also, the awards intent, is for accomplishments in the previous year. So this years award, is actually for Obama's 2008 achievements.

What were the 2008 accomplishments???

I think not awarding the prize again would have been the best course, especially with a strongly worded statement to the effect of "we have a lot of talk, but no one is doing anything".