Even Obama’s staunchest opponents admit that he deserves a significant amount of credit for the Arab Spring, and that’s certainly good justification for the Nobel Prize. I’m not sure I can think of any living individual who’d be a better choice for that (remember, the prize can’t be posthumous).
But that’s an argument for giving him the prize now, not two years ago. I agree that giving him the prize in 2009 was silly at best.
How did you figure, sports fan? (Here’s me assuming the Arabs were responsible for the ‘Arab’ spring)
I must agree. I don’t consider it a slight on Obama to recognize that he wasn’t involved. At least in this sense; whether or not he should have been is different political question, but not at issue. In fact, I don’t see much of any outside power being involved whatsoever, except to mouth empty generalities.
By awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was saying that Barack Obama, simply by being the President of the United States, merited the highest honor that could be bestowed upon him, yet because the highest honor that could be bestowed upon him cannot be merited, the President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Or in the press release:
The chosen one he is.
Really? I’d give more credit to WikiLeaks than Obama. They’re the ones that revealed the weakness of Tusnia’s president’s position - all the US government has done is try to shut Wikileaks down and use not-quite-torture on Manning.
IMO, there’s a general consensus in Norway that it was the Nobel Committee’s chairman Thorbjørn Jagland who was the driver behind the committee awarding the Peace Price to Obama. Jagland is a Labor party politician who is well known for numerous political gaffes, both as prime minister and later. The choice of Obama was generally debated¹ and not particularly lauded here either, although it sorta fits in with the change in policy from the Nobel Committee of awarding the price to political activists working for a “worthy cause” rather than people and/or organizations working directly towards creating peace². Interestingly, there’s currently a debate of whether or not future Nobel committee members should be chosen from less directly political positions, probably partly caused by Jagland’s antics as a committee chairman
¹ From the Wikipedia article:
² Just look at thelist of Peace Price laureates and the rationales for the awarding. Laureates directly linked to creating peace have been outnumbered by “worthy” political activists the last 5-10 years.
The West played zero role in the beginning of the Arab Spring, unless Obama personally put Bouazizi on fire. I cant even imagine how that thought crossed your mind, let alone that of Obama’s opponents. The height of ridiculousness is reached with saying that his participation in the Arab Spring backs his Nobel Prize (if a Nobel Prize was to be awarded, shouldnt that go first to the people actually behind the Arab Spring, some Arab dude with an unpronouncable name? Well, at least Obama might qualify for that).
Not in the beginning, but it has helped.
If you imagine the outcome in Libya without the assistance: there’s no way the rebels would have defeated Libya’s army. Other arab countries would see that even assembling a virtual army is not enough to remove a dictator, and would be discouraged.
Not to dismiss the US contribution to the effort but the Libya support was chiefly a Cameron-Sarkozy-driven effort who pulled the US and other NATO countries in. Obama took the right steps in offering diplomatic support to the rebels in Egypt, Libya, Syria etc - which may seem like a no-brainer but given our long-time support of Mubarak and on-again-off-again relationship with Assad and Gadaffi still required some consideration - but he was hardly the leader of that particular movement.
I was responding to the point “The West played zero role…”, so I was including the UK and France. And anyway, from a US POV, being pulled in to help is still helping.
(But to be clear: I don’t think US involvement would be worthy of a NPP, even if it had all happened in advance)
I don’t think that anyone’s pointed out yet that there’s no such thing as “the Nobel Committee.” The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the prizes in physics, chemistry, and economics (not really a Nobel prize, but still…); the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awards the prize in physiology or medicine; and the Swedish Academy awards the prize in literature.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which has five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are usually politicians, roughly representing the political makeup of the parliament that appoints them. Expecting them to be “above politics” is like expecting ducks to be “above swimming.”
Wrong. The members should roughly represent a cross-section of the political makeup of Norway. The current Norwegian Nobel Committee consists of two Labor Party members, one member of the Socialist Party, one Conservative and one from the Progress Party (far right, the US fraction they’re most similar to is probably the Tea Party movement). i.e. two from the right and three from the left.
That doesn’t look like the makeup of the current Norwegan government (Labor, Socialist and Center party) to me.
Equating Bush and Obama in this respect shows a DISTINCT lack of awareness of history.
As to the main question, I remember that news articles and posts from Dopers around 2007 indicated that, with the exception of Bush lapdog Tony Blair, most Europeans at the time had an almost physical revulsion toward Bush. He had destabilized the Middle East with a totally phony, based-on-a-pack-of-lies-about-WMDs with a different-rationale-every-week-as-needed, war with Iraq. The Europeans are a lot closer physically to the Middle East than we are, they saw Bush as an idiot bull staggering drunkenly through a china shop. Bush also destabilized the American economy with his Republican willingness to let Wall Street do whatever the fuck it likes, and that endangered THEIR economies.
Not being Americans, they had no way to directly influence the American vote, which increased the intensity of their revulsion toward Bush. So when some of them thought they HAD some small way of influencing Bush’s successor, e.g., the Nobel Peace Prize, they used it.
It WAS all about Bush, and a bad choice if you are thinking purely in terms of the official criteria for the Prize, but maybe inevitable given what had gone before (the lunacy of the Bush Presidency).
Yeah, but the difference is Obama wins. 
You lost me there.
Michelle Bachmann thinks Obama was responsible for the Arab Spring. Like I said, his staunchest opponents acknowledge it.
And no, he’s not the proximate cause: The single person most worthy of being honored for it is the guy who immolated himself. But he’s not eligible for a Nobel Prize, since the one rule for the Nobel Prizes that is actually followed is that they can’t be posthumous. But Obama deserves at least some credit for not foolishly quashing or usurping the movements, as many presidents would have done.
The Nobel Prize is only awarded to a living person[sup]1[/sup]. From the statements of the head of the committee which awarded the Peace Prize in 2009 I conclude the committee was certain that we racist gun-loving 'Murricans would shoot our negro President at the first opportunity. The committee did not expect Obama to be alive in October 2010 when the next award would be announced. Thankfully, they were wrong. My point being that by October 2010 is was possible Obama could have accoimplished something worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Possible, but pretty unlikely.
IMNAAHO they were also wrong to give the award to Obama even up to today. There were and are plenty of other people who contributed more to peace that a newly-elected US President, in charge of two wars. The Nobel Peace Prize ought to be for more than just not being George W. Bush - unless they want to give it to 6,999,999,999 people.
[sup]1[/sup] There are provisions to make the award to someone who died after the award was announced. There is also the case of the 2011 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, died just a few days before the announcement, but the Nobel Committee was not aware of his passing. I suppose his estate gets the prize money.
I’ve got him in the SDMB Death Pool, but your opinion is damn weird.
And you are supposed to capitalize “Negro”.