HERBIE1 Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 This is an article from Time magazine. It speaks of a guy who was nominated by Congress for this prize, but obviously did not win. Seems to me that someone who does more than simply talk deserves the recognition vs a guy who talks a good game but has yet to do a damn thing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500/print From the article: Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, whom the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former Army medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress. (See an interactive guide to Obama's first 100 days as President.) Sometimes the words come first. Sometimes it's better to let actions speak for themselves.
46Young Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Maybe next year Ahmenijad will win the prize for building a nuclear bomb so his country will be safe. Said GOP Rep Gresham Barrett, who is currently running for Governor of SC: "I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran." I found this article amusing: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/flashpoint/2009/10/trashing-america-nobel-peace-p.html
DwayneEMTP Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Interesting debate I think... Based on this from Wiki, the award should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize Based on this description, can anyone name a possible list of accomplishments that would have made him worthy? To those that believe it's a sham...What do you believe would be the motivation for these countries to embarrass themselves in front of the world and cheapen the perceived value of the award? Why would they do it? Could they have been coerced? How and by whom? I truly have no opinion on the award, as I'm not very political. On it's face it looks like bullshit, but sometimes things are not as they appear on their face..book by it's cover and all that. Pretty cool to see this debate, on such an inflammatory subject continue with good manners. have a great day all. Dwayne
Just Plain Ruff Posted October 10, 2009 Author Posted October 10, 2009 Interesting debate I think... Based on this from Wiki, the award should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize Based on this description, can anyone name a possible list of accomplishments that would have made him worthy? To those that believe it's a sham...What do you believe would be the motivation for these countries to embarrass themselves in front of the world and cheapen the perceived value of the award? Why would they do it? Could they have been coerced? How and by whom? I truly have no opinion on the award, as I'm not very political. On it's face it looks like bullshit, but sometimes things are not as they appear on their face..book by it's cover and all that. Pretty cool to see this debate, on such an inflammatory subject continue with good manners. have a great day all. Dwayne Dwayne, 've been thinking about this for the past day or so. What was the underlying reason that Obama actually got this award. If it indeed was given for his vision of a safer and less nuclear world, a vision of peace that I feel is attainable but probably not for many years. Did giving the award to Obama cheapen the prize, Yes I believe somewhat it did. Do I agree with their giving it to him? Absolutely not. But let's look deeper into this. Over the past 9 years and for several years before that, we were involved in wars that were devastating to the countries involved. Serbia, Croatia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Serbia and Croatia might be a stretch but we supplied troops to the UN so yes we were involved. We had administrations that bombed or attacked various areas in Iraq, remember the no-fly zones??? Clinton bombed the no fly zones and some strategic areas in Iraq. We helped the Kuwaiti's throw out Saddam. We helped rebuild Kuwait. The world see's us as just as bad as the Iraqi's. Not a good thing. Fast forward many years and we have a president who has "reached out" (I use that term loosely) and given speeches and rhetoric that sounds really good and has turned some heads out there. This has gained some notice of the powers that be in the Nobel arena. Has he done anything yet? NOPE. Will he succeed in doing what he has set out to do? remains to be seen but we do have countries that have not talked to each other in many years talking. The Nobel prize people are taking this rhetoric and counting on Obama to deliver. I personally think that this will hurt him in the long run if he does not make good on his promises to the US and the world. I don't think this is just cronyism or posturing by the Nobel prizer's but they are making a deposit that Obama is going to have to pay back. I think that in the end, the aims of Obama will not happen and this will be the rallying cry for the Republicans to use in 2012. They are going to use this as ammo to work to get him out of office. They can say "Yes he got the peace prize but he did not bring peace" and that will be Obama's Downfall. There will be other accompanying circumstances like a budget deficit of 3-5 trillion of which we won't be able to pay but that's for a different discussion. Obama has some big plans to fulfill and the Nobel prize is just the catalyst to force him and the democratically controlled congress to make these plans a reality. Really, they control the white house, and congress and they have the ability to get this done but of course, re-election will play heavily on the minds of congress. If they see that the decisions they make in congress will make them un-electable then they are not going to go for these changes. It's a catch-22 Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Those are just my random thoughts on this issue.
DwayneEMTP Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 But then again, the IAFF supported Obama for president... Perhaps if firemen get to be called heros simply because they 'say so', then perhaps Obama gets to be the 'deliverer of peace' simply because he says so as well..? I think I see a pattern here... Dwayne
Dustdevil Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 To those that believe it's a sham...What do you believe would be the motivation for these countries to embarrass themselves in front of the world and cheapen the perceived value of the award? Why would they do it? Affirmative Action? A desire to slap the Bush Administration? Possibly even a conspiracy to hurt Obama himself by slapping the entire rest of the world across the face, creating the international resentment of him that we are suddenly seeing in the wake of this award? People worldwide who were excited about Obama before are now saying "WTF?" and taking offence at this award.
cosgrojo Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 While, like Dwayne, I am very a-political in nature, I do take a certain amount of perverse pleasure watching and listening to people rancor about. I believe that this point has been skirted around during this discussion... and I'll try to explain my perception. It appears to me that this prize is being awarded to Obama for being a World-wide "symbol" for peace. During his campaign he was lauded as a symbol for "change," and with that for peace as well. He has become an international symbol for these concepts. We all understand that there are many instances of symbols being over hyped, and no one has a better hype-machine behind them than the first African-American President in US history. Obama has a chance to be far more powerful as a symbol than he does as an actual catalyst for change through his policies and regulations. Symbols are powerful, people mobilize around them and then they become catalysts themselves. My guess is that the Nobel people want to use this symbolism... to hitch their wagons to this world-wide phenomena of "Change" and "Hope" and "Peace." So we may ask ourselves... what has he done to deserve it? And it is a fair question... but who is a more unifying figure in our world today than Obama? Do the other 209 people on the list of nominees have the same name recognition to get entire nations to stand up and take notice? Nope... in my opinion... it's all about symbolism. For the record... I vote for the guy who built the schools in Afghanistan for Girls. 1
46Young Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Affirmative Action? A desire to slap the Bush Administration? Possibly even a conspiracy to hurt Obama himself by slapping the entire rest of the world across the face, creating the international resentment of him that we are suddenly seeing in the wake of this award? People worldwide who were excited about Obama before are now saying "WTF?" and taking offence at this award. I read this on another forum today: The true culprits are the members of the Nobel Prize committee, Obama will get the attention for accepting an award that most do not see him as worthy of. I rather he acknowledge this fact, and say, "I reject this award on the reason that I feel many others deserve this award for their lives work for peace, I am just beginning." In my opinion such action of valor will gain him much more favor with many people worldwide and put the Nobel Peace prize committee to shame, and they will think twice next time they hand a free gift to a non-deserving person.
Spock Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 It would be quite unusual for anyone to turn down a Nobel Prize. Perhaps this reflects the low regard the American Government has had by the rest of the world over the last eight years. Live long and prosper. Spock
Recommended Posts