Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by jumbo747jet, Oct 9, 2009.
This is just my opinion but what has he done? Think its a bit of a shame when u look at past winners such as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and the Dalai Lama.
I'm going to watch this thread with interest (and from cover!)
I think I can hear Trannity crying.
"The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples"."
BBC NEWS | Europe | Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Highly premature, but whatever.
Actually, this is like a Grammy/Oscar/other pop culture bullshit award - all style and no substance. :no:
An excellent choice by the selection committee.
Gordon Brown statesman of the year and now this imposition. Everthing is up for sale now. An honourable man would decline and say to the sychophants, come back in 4 years and see what I have done to deserve such an accolade. It devalues the award to hand it just to the powerful.
Here's the full text of the announcement from the Nobel Committee:
This is bizarre. I was not convinced that the story was for real until I found other reports that confirm it. I mean, I voted for the guy, but I can't see what he has done to merit this award. Sure, judged by comparison with his immediate predecessor, his record in international politics may seem outstanding, but by that standard, the Obama family dog could win the Nobel Peace Prize.
He may have won this year....but my time will come!
I got a "honorable mention" for my macaroni pictures of animals.
I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Bush Jr. hears the news this morning.
I thought it was goin to Hickboy this year??? :tongue:
(sorry Hicks, hehehe)
getting an award that Yasser Arafat has won for "making peace", is hardly anything to crow about anymore.
also, how do you get a "peace prize" when you have just sent thousands more troops into an existing war zone, and 240 US troops have been killed there, and 1800 afghan civilians since you took office?
obviously Afghanistan was inherited, and i am not blaming him for that obviously, but perhaps you should get the peace prize for ending a war, not continuing it?
also, his policy and action on Darfur, has been woefully lacking and he has done zilch on congo.
he has talked about wanting a nuclear free world and has spoken about middle east peace...
how does making speeches about these things, but not actually accomplishing them yet, get you a peace prize?
I will take a great deal of flak for agreeing with what you have said; but as they say in Najaf: 'A lot of sand hitting the eyes can be less painful than a grain of sand stored in the throat.'
Anyway, since I am lazy, I will just show the copy of text I left in the Politics section on this matter:
Idiotic to say the least.
The nominations were made in February, less than a month after Obama had been sworn in (11 days). Not even 3 months after he had been elected. There was no proof at that time that he'd be able to do anything. It has been less than a year since his election, less than 9 months since he officially became President. Far too premature to have done something such as this. If Obama were half the man that all the crowers claim he is, he'd have had the decency to decline it-which would have elevated him to an even higher star status.
In 1966, 1967, 1955, 1956, 1948 1939-1943. 1932, 1928, 1923, 1924 nobody won-a similar thing could have been done here.
Other sitting Presidents who won-Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Founded The League Of Nations (predecessor of sorts to The United Nations) as part of The Treaty of Versailles. He won in 1919, late in his Presidential tenure.
Theodore Roosevelt-drew up the Japanese-Russian peace treaty of 1905. It was 1906; but at least he had something of a proven track record, having taken the reins from McKinley after the former was assassinated in 1901, and the treaty seemed to be holding.
To bestow so great an honor so early in the Presidency and with claims of the great and extraordinary things he has done is a way to both diminish the value which it has always held and to place a pressure so great on Obama that he will be fully screwed and skewered if he doesn't get Afghanistan and Iran and North Korea into peaceful harmony within their borders. While his efforts-which will hopefully be ongoing for a long while are good thus far, it slaps the faces of others who have fought far longer and harder.
So congratulations on an honor which may prove to be disastrous.
I find it hard to understand anyone disagreeing with this choice.
Oh, I love it when that happens:
Maybe his speech in Cairo offered some glimmer of hope. It was, in my estimation quite the little masterpiece.
After the comments made by the committee last year, this is their way of making up for it and at the same time a vote of confidence. It is a constructive move on their behalf.
With our image being shredded by the blunders of the Bush admin. I don't care that it seems a bit premature.
Just an opinion.
Simple, having a 'vision' of no nuclear weapons is hardly the same thing as consigning them to history! There are a great many people who have done much more than Barack Obama and whose aspirations on that front are indentical,,myself included and yet haven't been given anything like a Nobel Prize.The decision is utterly beyond me!!
That sounds a very reasonable assertion!!
As much as i LOOOOOOOOOVE Obama, I don`t think he deserved it, at least not this year!
I think I can hear Bono crying, again
The reason they gave is true, no doubt about that, he does take effort. But maybe a bit too soon to get a Nobel Prize... There are others at the moment who earn it more... But yeah, the reason they gave is good.