43
   

Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 12:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
You sound just like the Bush administration.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 12:31 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

You sound just like the Bush administration.


What had the Bush administration to do with Germany and GDR in 1971 and the following years?
soozoo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 12:41 pm
The "beer summit" .... that must be what clinched it for Obama!

Oh wait, that didn't go so well, did it?

Carry on ........
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 12:42 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I would say Brandt had done a lot more than just talking also under danger being against the Nazis before he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1938 Brandt was expatriated by Hitler's government. In 1940, after the German occupation of Norway, he was captured, but not identified. Released as a Norwegian, he fled to Sweden. Until 1945 he lived in Stockholm.
After Brandt left Germany, he continued his work against Nazism through international cooperation and frequent visits to various European countries. He had close links with German anti-Nazi forces and for some time also lived in the Berlin underground.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 01:07 pm
I can't see what Obama has done yet to deserve such an award. One news commentator on TV said this morning that the Europeans hated Bush so much that they gave the prize to Obama just for not being Bush, which is like saying that the Americans are so reactionary that they deserve a reward just for not starting another war. There is a lot of truth in that.

Has Obama done what Carter did and continues to do? No, not by a long shot. Perhaps by giving the award prematurely the hope is that the president will act accordingly.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 02:56 pm
@coluber2001,
when a positive thing happens for an american, america should celebrate.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:04 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

when a positive thing happens for an american, america should celebrate.


Perhaps, but when it's done by those Norwegian Vikings?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:06 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Why are you so unpatriotic that you don't like when an US-President gets awarded with the highest peace prize?

How is it patriotism to support the awarding of a prize to someone who hasn't done what he's being rewarded for? The prize is supposed to be recognition for actions which in some tangible way reduced non-peace, i.e. war. The Nobel committee just decided to award the prize to someone whose politics they happened to agree with. The praise they heaped on him for his attitude and style are purely subjective and unprovable, and indicate only that the people on the committee agree with Obama's polical opinions. You shouldn't get this prize unless you have done something to further the cause of peace. It's like they were saying, "We can do anything we please, so we'll just give this prize on the basis of agreeing with someone's politics." It's a total crock.
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
What action do you feel Obama has undertaken so far that would be equivalent to, say, Brandt's dramatic gesture of apology when he genuflected in Warsaw at the monument for the Warsaw uprising?

What historical foreign policy move do you feel Obama has made that would be comparable to Brandt's, at the time still highly controversial, recognition of Germany's Oder-Neisse border?

Brandt did not just get the Nobel Prize in the hope that awarding it to him would create possible positive effects in the future. He got it because he had already made several historical moves that did much to entrench prospects of lasting peace in Europe. What has Obama done, so far, that would merit as definitive a prize as the Nobel Peace Prize should be?

You're trying to make this into some left vs right issue - e.g. when you mock Maporsche by turning traditional Bush/GOP-type talking points about patriotism against him (which is already somewhat misplaced since Maporsche never liked Bush, but whatever). But it's not about that. This thread is full of lefties and liberals who also think the award was premature and unserious.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What had the Bush administration to do with Germany and GDR in 1971 and the following years?

I believe Maporsche was referring to this post of yours when he said you sounded like the Bush administration. The one he was responding to. The one where you wrote, "Why are you so unpatriotic that you don't like when an US-President gets awarded with the highest peace prize?".

He was obviously not referring to your points about Germany and the GDR in 1971 ... and somehow I slightly suspect that you knew that.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:19 pm
The other Nobel Prizes are given to people for what they have done, not for what they think, promise or hope to accomplish. Why should it be different for the Peace Prize?
When in life do we get an award before we accomplish something?
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:22 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:
When in life do we get an award before we accomplish something?


it is sort of the new approach in American schools - giving ribbons/certificates to kids for participating in events - not for completing the event - not for winning - simply for being there - it's the new way
CerealKiller
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:48 pm
What a joke!

Obama has been 8 months in office and has accomplished nothing for world peace. The body count in Afghanistan has kept going up higher each month since he took office. Iran and N.Korea are still moving ahead with nuclear production, etc.. He has softened support for Israel while Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., have increased their threats against them. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations are reconstituting and gaining strength. Obamas message is not one of peace through strength, but just plain weakness indecision and appeasement.

Obama is utterly ineffective at bringing the world closer to peace. It is appeasers like him and like Neville Chaimberlain a generation ago, who by their appeasement LESSEN the chances for peace as the power hungry aggressors on the world stage are encourged and helped by the weakness of people like Obama.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's like they were saying, "We can do anything we please, so we'll just give this prize on the basis of agreeing with someone's politics."

But the Nobel committee can pretty much do exactly that. It's not as if the terms of Nobel's will are terribly precise.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:06 pm
@CerealKiller,
So pissed about this, you decide to come back an post after more than a year of absence?

That's my favorite part about this entire thing Laughing

Watching right-wingers get pissed off about the conference of a mostly meaningless, politically-based award upon someone who they hate and fear.

Cycloptichorn
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:09 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Theres really no reason why the committee couldnt have stated that "We aint giving a Peace Prize this year".


There isn't one, besides perhaps the statutes of Norwegian Nobel Committee, which say that the prize is awarded annually according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will.


and your explanation for the years that one wasn't awarded?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:12 pm
@ehBeth,
Smooch.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Watching right-wingers get pissed off about the conference of a mostly meaningless, politically-based award upon someone who they hate and fear.

Whom. Whom we hate and fear.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:28 pm
@Ticomaya,
Thanks, I've never been good at 'who vs. whom.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 04:31 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
The Nobel committee just decided to award the prize to someone whose politics they happened to agree with. The praise they heaped on him for his attitude and style are purely subjective and unprovable, and indicate only that the people on the committee agree with Obama's polical opinions.

Yup. And it's their money, and they can do what they want with it.

Brandon9000 wrote:
You shouldn't get this prize unless you have done something to further the cause of peace.

Write a letter to the committee. Let's see how much stock they put in your opinion.

Alternately, you can leave a boatload of money to award prizes based on your criteria.

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's like they were saying, "We can do anything we please, so we'll just give this prize on the basis of agreeing with someone's politics." It's a total crock.

...in your opinion.
 

Related Topics

John O'Hara and the Nobel Prize - Question by Miller
I am looking for an ornament. - Discussion by peter jeffrey cobb
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 05:20:12