Five Ways Obama Can Redeem His Nobel Prize

I should like to call your attention to this article that appeared in Salon Magazine by Juan Cole. A link is here:
Nobel Peace Prize - Salon.com

I thoroughly agree with this blog. It is short and sweet.

I could have quoted it but the link will provide you with the ideas. If you know anybody who knows someone in The White House, perhaps you can push for some implementation of any one of these excellent suggestions.

Sorry, but unimpressed. But this is not the forum for this discussion.

You are likely right that some other forum would be more suitable.

Even if the discussion is moved to another site, I still would like to know what it takes to impress you. The point of my reference to this blog by Juan Cole was to get people to be more aware that there is an irony, if not a living contradiction, in Obama getting a peace prize and delivering a speech on Just War theory. He tells us that "there is evil in the world" as if we did not know that. [I am under the impression that war is the very opposite of peace.]

Are "military solutions" really solutions?

What has Barak Obama done really to make peace?

Does anyone here believe he merits a Peace prize?

"Peace" is a concept that should be dear to those concerned with Ethics, for this reason:

Aristotle held that Political Philosophy is Social Ethics. In keeping with that - any good political analysis should have a place for peace, should define it, and show how ethical persons, in their social interactions, would behave peacefully.

At least that's how I look at it.

I would like to hear the views of other readers on this issue.

I just joined this group and must say it's refreshing to find a political discussion group as grown up and civil as you folks.

I think the Salon's ideas of the steps necessary to promote peace are sound. However, the Salon saddles the entire responsibility for accomplishing these steps on Mr. Obama. If there is any "irony" in all this, it is in any assumption that Obama or any other president has such power as to be able to create peace by decree. That, I submit is vastly unrealistic and simple-minded thinking.

This is a democracy. The president is the servant of the people. Does anyone here really believe the people are so disposed presently as to be ready to support the president in his efforts to accomplish those five steps? I doubt it. They seem too uncertain, too confused, and too resentful - too unready for peace. No prize winners, we.

Did Obama deserve the prize? According to the rules, it is to be awarded "to the person who will have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. Obama, one commentator put it: " has yet to achieve any major breakthroughs on the many international efforts he has undertaken: drawing down U.S. involvement in Iraq and beefing it up in Afghanistan, reaching peace in the Middle East, forcing Iran to forgo its nuclear program, resetting relations with Russia, improving diplomacy with the Muslim world and reducing the world's supply of nuclear arms." OK, not a lot has been finished, but much has had a good start. Is that not the best, most promising work for fraternity between the nations? (In considering your answer, please recall our former president's qualifications for the prize.)

There has been no discussion, because this topic does not belong here. It belongs on,
News and World Events

I just joined this discussion and must say it's refreshing to find a political discussion group as grown up and civil as you folks.

I think the Salon's ideas of the steps necessary to promote peace are sound. However, the Salon saddles the entire responsibility for accomplishing these steps on Mr. Obama. If there is any "irony" in all this, it is in any assumption that Obama or any other president has such power as to be able to create peace by decree. That, I submit is vastly unrealistic and simple-minded thinking.

This is a democracy. The president is the servant of the people. Does anyone here really believe the people are so disposed presently as to be ready to support the president in his efforts to accomplish those five steps? I doubt it. They seem too uncertain, too confused, and too resentful - too unready for peace. No prize winners, we.

Did Obama deserve the prize? According to the rules, it is to be awarded "to the person who will have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. Obama, one commentator put it: " has yet to achieve any major breakthroughs on the many international efforts he has undertaken: drawing down U.S. involvement in Iraq and beefing it up in Afghanistan, reaching peace in the Middle East, forcing Iran to forgo its nuclear program, resetting relations with Russia, improving diplomacy with the Muslim world and reducing the world's supply of nuclear arms." OK, not a lot has been finished, but much has had a good start. Is that not the best, most promising work for fraternity between the nations? (In considering your answer, please recall our former president's qualifications for the prize.)

Welcome to our Forums !


"Defense" and "Aggression" are two sides of the same coin: often what A calls defense, B calls aggression. Both are true viewpoints.

"

Oh, I don't know about that. Germany invaded Belgium and Holland in 1940. Belgium and Holland did not invade Germany.

I just joined this discussion and must say it's refreshing to find a political discussion group as grown up and civil as you folks.

I think the Salon's ideas of the steps necessary to promote peace are sound. However, the Salon saddles the entire responsibility for accomplishing these steps on Mr. Obama. If there is any "irony" in all this, it is in any assumption that Obama or any other president has such power as to be able to create peace by decree. That, I submit is vastly unrealistic and simple-minded thinking.

This is a democracy. The president is the servant of the people. Does anyone here really believe the people are so disposed presently as to be ready to support the president in his efforts to accomplish those five steps? I doubt it. They seem too uncertain, too confused, and too resentful - too unready for peace. No prize winners, we.

American Presidents before Obama had the power to start wars and convince the population to jump on-board by decree. There's no reason why the reverse cannot be true. It won't happen, I know, but the power is there if a President chooses to use it.

Hi josh:

I spoke of the power to bring peace, not to start war. But I do agree with you on the war thing. People are easy to scare and hard to pacify..

Regardless what the Nobel committee says awarding the prize to Obama was a tactical move intended to influence his future actions. (Well, that's what I think anyway.) There's an opportunity cost to awarding the prize this way. Some other more worthy person does not get the prize. It's worth taking a little time to become aware of those who were favored to receive the award such as Sima Samar and Hu Jia. One of these people could have gotten the global recognition that they deserved and with this global recognition comes a great deal of support that can lead to further change through that person.

So I guess my point is that the question is not whether Obama can redeem the prize but whether the Nobel committee can redeem itself...and I'd have to say "No". The deed is done. Obama walked off the stage with a peace prize after making a speech about how necessary and justified his war is. It is Orwellian to say the least.

Hi josh:

I spoke of the power to bring peace, not to start war. But I do agree with you on the war thing. People are easy to scare and hard to pacify..

There's a tendency, I believe, for some of us to think that a political leader can and should direct every action and every word to the achievement of peace -- almost like one of those sign-carrying citizens on the street corner. It's not that easy. The route to peace has many detours. To judge a leader's ultimate direction, we must look at all he does and says, at the context of his every action and word, and at the influence of his other duties and aims.

I've tried to do more of that and, on that basis, continue to share the Nobel Committee's admiration of Obama's peace efforts.

But maybe you're right. Maybe there is someone more deserving of the prize. You mention Sima Sumar and Hu Jia. (The nominations are kept secret, but Hu Jia is known to have been a nominee.) Those two people certainly deserve international recognition for their work in human rights, but I doubt that's what the peace prize if for..

Who would have been a better choice? French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been mentioned. How about him, or does someone have a better choice? If so, please explain why he or she is more deserving.

------ Post added 12-15-2009 at 05:09 PM ----------
How about the nuclear bomb? It has kept us from a large war for nearly 70 years. That is why Strategic Air Command had the motto, "Peace is our business".