We should bomb them for waging, as Dick Dastardly puts it “a preemptive peace campaign.”
That is just so at odds with Bush’s and America’s preemptive war doctrine.
Oh wait, Bush is out of office, and Obama defeated the guy that would have continued that Republican nonsense.
Oh well, I guess the nobel committee can be allowed to live, but they’re probably siding with bin Laden against us.
Call for an immediate investigation…
Obama not awarded the Nobel in Economics
No mention of Obama, Bernacke or Geithner :rolleyes:
The joke isn’t that funny, its not intended to be. It is more intended as a gentle prod to remind you that your “survey”, as research, is a bit cursory. If you have some significant research capacity available to you, you might wish to share it, otherwise, your statement lacks any significance beyond the impression you have derived. Which is, of course, wholly legitimate so long as you are aware of its limiitations, and don’t pretend otherwise.
You may well be right, you could just as easily be wrong. That’s all.
People learn to respect our country based on the actions of our President. It’s **exactly **the same as our reputation as a nation, because that’s what reputation is–how people view you based on their knowledge of your past actions.
When respect for the prize is based on respect for the committe that awards it, anything that calls the judgement of that committe into question devalues the prize. If they’d handed the Nobel Prize to a very nice colony of ants, do you think it would have the same value, too, simply because of whom it had been awarded to in the past?
If I were Alfred Nobel, this kind of bullshit would have me spinning in my grave. No, the Peace Prize was not “purely subjective”. No, it was not set up to be “entirely inspirational”. No, it is not supposed to be used to "push world politics."Just like the other prizes, it is supposed to be for work done. Nobel was a practical man, not an etherial feel-good guy. It was set up to be awarded for accomplishment, not for aspiring to accomplish something.
How do I know this? Because that’s what Alfred Nobel said. He didn’t say “Give it for vision”. He didn’t say "Give it to the person who is inspirational. He said it is for the person who
(Emphasis mine)
So yes, the Committee are clueless idiots, but not just for selecting Obama. They are clueless idiots because they have violated the terms of Nobel’s will. I think Alfred should fire them, except he’s dead, so the committee is running wild with no adult to supervise them.
Because according to Alfred Nobel, it’s for the person who during the past year did the most or best work for peace. Not for possible work in the future. Not “pour encourage les autres”. Not for what Obama might do, or because he is infinitely better than his predecessor. Nobel said the prize is for the person who did the best or most work for peace in the past year.
And while I like and respect and voted for Obama, I simply do not believe he is the man or woman who did the most work for peace in 2008. Although I do enjoy watching conservative heads exploding about the award. And I do enjoy watching liberal heads exploding about Democrats like myself who have honest reservations about Obama getting the award.
But mostly, it pisses me off that the Nobel Committee is trying to pass this off as being what the Nobel Peace Prize was established for. On the other hand I find it hilarious that so many people just make up bullshit about what the Award is supposed to be for. The Committee went off the rails a while ago, and they are continuing their idiocy with this year’s award. This is a joke, a sad commentary on how in our TV driven world, appearance has become so much more important than reality
Anyhow, that’s my rant. Nobel said it, I believe it, that settles it.
So in other words, the guy who negotiated the peace treaty with Bulgaria after World War II, having actually done something tangible to bring about peace, is more entitled than, say, Churchill or FDR, whose vision of what the postwar world might be has led to 65 years of peace – the Cold War and the limited conflicts being better than total war IMO.
Obama enunciated what he saw as the steps for progress towards international peace. He took initial steps to implement that vision. The committee’s opinion is, clearly, that those steps deserve the prize. And it was, according to your own perspective, because, succeeding Mr. Bush, those steps were practical ones pushing political behavior towards peace.
You want to argue with Alfred Nobel about who deserved the Peace Prize fifty years ago, that’s up to you. I’m just telling you what the guy who put up the money said it should go for, not what five clueless Norwegians think it should go for.
Moving back to the present, since Nobel said the prize was to be given for what was done for peace in the previous year, what Obama has done as President is immaterial. Only what he did in 2008 counts. So I suppose the “succeeding Mr. Bush” clause applies since Obama won the election in 2008 … however, call me crazy, but I don’t think that succeeding Bush merits the Peace Prize.
You say, however, that the committees opinion is that Obama deserves the prize … gosh, there’s some new information, I wouldn’t have known that without your timely intervention. Anyone else in mystery about that question, gather round and pay attention to Polycarp, he’s got some hot news for you. Despite what you may have heard, the Nobel Committee thinks Obama deserves the Peace Prize. How could I have not noticed?
I, on the other hand, think that the Committee deserves the Clueless Idiots prize for unbridled arrogance and chronic stupidity, as well as the “Unable to Read a Will” prize. Yes, they can give the prize to Pol Pot, or anyone they like … but that doesn’t make it right. It just proves that they have forgotten what the prize was instituted for, which was to reward achievement, not to encourage dreams, aspirations, and vision. Lots of people have those, but all too few are able to translate those dreams into reality. That’s why we give prizes for realizing dreams, not for dreaming them …
That you would give due consideration if he won it in the future. I double doubt that.
There have been reasonable arguments made that via his election ,the world breathed a sigh of relief and became a little bit safer. Maybe a lot safer. I am sure North Korea, Iran ,Syria and a few other countries Bush did not like are feeling better.
It was my attempt to convince you that their position was in accord with the will’s stated intention – as explicated by none other than you yourself, viz, that Obama had taken actions that in their opinion had contributed the most to the quest for peace. Obviously, my effort to do so failed.
Where do the arrogant and stupid remarks come from? Apparently they disagree with you on his making the world a bit safer. There are several people here who have argued that with success. Calling names does not buttress your argument at all. I doubt the Nobel committee is full of idiots.
This is “the rest of the world” throwing the US a timid bone. Sure, the rest of the world thought rightly Bush was an asshole, but now, they don’t know WTF Obama will do.
The Rest Of The World (TROTW) is skittish as shit. They want Obama to get in line with TROTW social and monetary policies, but are scared shitless that we have lost the balls to bail them out of any jams.
You will hear a lot of hypocritical bullshit from TROTW in the next couple years.
I don’t care if they disagree with me. However, they disagree with Alfred Nobel’s very plain, simple, and clear instructions in his will.
Does that make them idiots? I don’t know. I took that tack rather than assuming they read and understood the will and are deliberately ignoring it, which would be much, much worse. You are attacking me for giving them the benefit of the doubt, for assuming that they are fools rather than knaves.
Forgive me if I’ve missed this above, but the wife told me that a few days ago, she read or heard on the news that originally, three Committee members were against giving it to Obama but that the chairman lobbied them and eventually swung them around. Sounds like it may not have been quite as “unanimous” as they’ve been portraying.
Sorry, Sam, but unless you can cast some light on the crucial issue here, the central question upon which all others depend…namely, the correct interpretation of Alfred Nobel’s will… anything you say will simply be a needless distraction.
I read that as well. However, I also read that one of the Committee said that this was not uncommon, that in general there is no agreement on the first ballot or discussion or however they do it. Then they discuss it for a while, and finally come to an agreement. Whether any, some, or all of that is true I don’t know. I just regret that the chairman was able to bring them around, if that is the case.
Why? Because (as is evidenced by the anger, passion, and divisiveness it has engendered both here on the board and elsewhere) it is not doing what a “Peace Prize” should do, which is to bring people together. Rather than raising the esteem of Obama and the Peace Prize around the planet, it has led to laughter and scorn and anger about Obama, and about the Peace Prize itself. Obama does not need that laughter, the cartoons, the derision, the outrage, nor does the Peace Prize, nor does the world. It does not help any of us.
If nothing else, I would hope that this would lead the Committee to reconsider their misdirected use of the Prize as some kind of accolade for “vision”, as a goad to encourage a powerful man with few accomplishments (as yet, although I suspect he will have many) in the Peace arena to do the right thing. If (as many suggest) that was their intention, it has backfired badly. Obama himself said he didn’t deserve it … and he was right.
But he accepted it anyhow, and for many people, that is hypocrisy. That’s why people are laughing at Obama, because the man for whom the Peace Prize is supposed to be some kind of moral compass leading America out of the darkness is accepting a prize he himself admits he doesn’t deserve.
I see this as a tragedy of the classical Greek variety, where a good, decent man is brought low by hubris. He could have gained so much by simply turning the Prize down. He could have used it as the occasion to give one of the most powerful speeches of his life, about the need for Peace, about how he would work for it until he deserved the Prize. He could have pulled the world towards Peace in a way that no prize ever could do.
Instead, his hubris got the best of him, and made both him and the Prize the butt of jokes and anger and derision and political cartoons around the planet.
And that is indeed a tragedy.
Says who? You? Where do you get this stuff about the whole world laughing and sneering? You are, some others, but the whole world? You keep doing this, presenting us with undeniable facts without anything behind it but your insistence that it is so. You could spend an afternoon reading laudatory comments from around the world, the best being Sarkozy’s (IMHO). They get it, its not about what he’s done, its about what he represents.
What makes you think refusing is such a great idea? Why wouldn’t that be taken as the height of self-righteous piety? Since clearly so many people don’t agree with you, why should we think you’re right about that? How the hell would you know?
You’ve read, I trust, all of that about how the reputation of the US has gone up since his election? Perhaps that is transitory, perhaps it is superficial, but it exists, it is there. Whereas your scenario of worldwide mockery and derision may only exist in the confines of your skull.
Can you prove any of this? I mean, outside of absolutely crucial British pundit, Whats-her-face? You brought her up half a dozen times, tell me the truth: had you ever even heard of her before you found out she agrees with you?
Anybody else in the world offering solemn pronouncements about the crucial importance of Alfred Nobel’s will? Anybody else care about that, outside of you?
I can point you to the cartoons if you are unable to google. I assure you that a) the majority of them are not flattering, b) they are in newspapers from around the world, and c) there are lots of them. A google search of “Obama peace prize cartoon” brings up over a million hits, and even discounting it to 10% of that, it’s a lot … and I find only a few cartoons yet that approve of him getting the prize. Even the cartoon in the Guardian, a dedicatedly left-wing British paper, is laughing at him. El Pais in Spain shows a black dove of peace … not good news. The Huffington Post held an online poll, which found that 40% of the people disagreed with the award … and the HuffPo is a long ways from a conservative site. Of course, the reaction in the Muslim world was largely negative, because he is bombing Pakistan and at war in Afghanistan and occupying Iraq, and for some twisted reason those stupid Muslims don’t see war and bombs as being all that peaceful … a mystery that perhaps you could elucidate for them. There’s an interesting look at the LA Times (a fairly liberal paper) weighing the question here. There’s cartoons on the subject from around the world here, read’m and weep.
I could go on and on, but I’m tired of doing your googling for you. There are lots and lots of people around the world who are laughing about and/or outraged about Obama getting the Prize. Headlines in papers both in the US and outside of it overwhelmingly report a “mixed reaction”, saying some people approve and some people don’t, and (just as on this board) there is a lot of disagreement about the award. Voice of America is typical of the lot, it says “Obama Peace Prize Award Elicits Praise, Criticism”. I don’t see that as a good thing, even if Sarkozy thinks it is tres magnifique. I think a peace prize should unite people … but YMMV.
Is the whole world laughing? No, of course not, that’s your fantasy, I didn’t say that. Just as it is your fantasy that there is some kind of worldwide approbation for the award … but while you are congratulating yourself, the laughter is occurring around the world, as is the outrage. What, is your claim that the only people objecting are Republicans and terrorists?
Yes, the reputation of America went up after he was elected, and deservedly so. I was happy that it did, I voted for him … but since that uptick in approval has nothing to do with the Peace Prize, I’m not sure why you bring it up.
Finally, am I the only one talking about Nobel’s will? I don’t know, nor do I care in the least. Unlike you, I don’t form my opinion based on what “anybody else” is saying. I look at the situation and judge for myself. My judgement is that the Committee is not following Nobel’s instructions, not by a long, long way … and neither you nor anyone else seems disposed to touch that issue at all.
See, the question is, does he deserve the Peace Prize? And the only way I know of to do that, as with any prize, is to look at the rules of the contest. These are laid out only one place, in Nobel’s will. Now you can claim that we should ignore Nobel’s wishes … but you are not doing that, oh, no. Instead of having the nerve to discuss that question at all, you are trying to get that same idea in by a side door, which is by questioning whether anyone agrees with me. What does that have to do with the issue in question?
So here’s a novel idea for you. How about you just think about the issues yourself and ignore whether Sarkozy agrees with you or not, or whether someone agrees with me or not? Do you think the Committee should roundly ignore the wishes of the man who invented the Peace Prize and put up the money, as (by their own admission) they have done? They said they gave Obama the award because he has “given [the world’s] people hope for a better future”. Do you see anything in Nobel’s will about how it is a prize for giving people hope?
So, is nobody going to answer my question?
Shot From Guns, the problem is there’s no way to answer your question, even in theory. It is possible that Yasser Arafat would have given up the leadership of the PLO and signed up to be a suicide bomber if he had not gotten the Peace Prize. It’s also possible that it made no difference at all.
Similarly, it is possible that Kissinger would have gone to work for the PLO after 1973, except he got the Peace Prize and decided not to do that.
How do you propose to tell the difference? There is an insurmountable difficulty. Life has no “control group” that would enable us to compare outcomes in a “what if” sense.
It varies -
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.
I don’t see any conspicuous success in use of the Nobel Peace Prize to bring about any long-lasting or major change.
I frankly don’t know for sure if the Prize Committee is as star-struck by the Most Holy and Blessed Obama as some on the SDMB seem to be, or if they think a shiny medal and a million bucks is enough to affect his foreign policy decisions, if any. Possibly a mix of both.
Regards,
Shodan