18
   

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2015 03:01 pm
@ehBeth,
Of course there were other contenders. Of course there were other deserving contenders. Nominations also often include a few not so likely contenders or perennial contenders. Now we are simply getting into a difference of opinion on who was the best candidate. We can disagree with the Nobel Committee.

Obama certainly seems to have won on hope of what he would do and not based on past events other than his stated view of how he would deal with the world. I can only guess the Nobel Committee saw it as a drastic change in US policy that was worthy of note.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2015 04:18 pm
the answer is yes

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/06/FT_15.06.23.Obama_.Western.Europe2.png

if the question were however " fulfill my promise" however I would point out that the nobel was clearly a political prize and after listening to so many politicians say good words and hoping that they meant something only to be disappointed almost every time I never came to the conclusion that Obama had promise as a global leader on anything, so I never was convinced that he could be a leader on peace.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 03:07 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Clearly the committee thought that Obama's change of how the US was going to act in the world was significant. You can argue that you don't think it was significant. I asked who specifically you thought had done more that year.

Quote:
You can't give it to someone who hasn't come anywhere near fulfilling the criteria on the grounds that there are no good contenders.
Why can't they? Did you read the criteria? If there is only one contender, would they not be the best and have done the most for that year? As such they would meet the criteria even if they did next to nothing. The award is granted based on that year and who is best and did the most. It has nothing to do with how they compare to previous years.

It is my impression that you give the award to someone who has done (already) something big to further the cause of peace, and not someone who says he will. At least, that's what I think ought to be done. I feel certain that someone, somewhere in the world had actually done something significant for peace, which Obama had not. In the improbable case that no one anywhere in the world had done much of anything to promote peace, it would seem better just not to give it than to give it to someone who had done essentially nothing.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 05:03 am
@Brandon9000,
Fair enough, but now he has. I agree it was wrong in 2009, but do you think his latest breakthroughs redeem the award? The war hawks here and abroad have been loudly advocating strikes against Iran for several years now. You can define "peace" in several ways, but in terms of preventing war, this Iran deal is probably the biggest negotiated deal I've seen in a long time.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 05:54 am
@engineer,
It was a silly award in 2009 but it's been redeemed. Especially in light of the contrast between Bush and Iraq and Obama and Iran.
I imagine the Middle East would be a lot calmer if Bush had led a global coalition to curb Saddam's development of WMDs and not invaded.

It's also important to note that removing economic sanctions and opening Iran to tourism will bring it into the world economy and will help stabilize the Middle East.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 07:47 am
@panzade,
Maybe the rest of the World was rewarding America for not letting Sarah Palin anywhere near the button. That has to be worth a dozen peace prizes.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 07:50 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Maybe the rest of the World was rewarding America for not letting Sarah Palin anywhere near the button. That has to be worth a dozen peace prizes.


Rich, for people who put Tony Bair in top of the flow chart.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 08:00 am
@hawkeye10,
No comparison, Blair is not stupid. Palin has to be the stupidest politician on the planet.

Before Bush was elected and Blair thought the "special relationship" was something worth having, he did a lot of good. Peace in Northern Ireland, extra funding for the NHS, introduction of working benefits, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 08:09 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Now we are simply getting into a difference of opinion on who was the best candidate.


I think it's more than that.

I feel that the entire prize was devalued by giving it to Obama in 2009 when he had done nothing to deserve it . I don't think he was in a place to be a candidate, let alone the recipient.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 08:10 am
@engineer,
Now would have been a good time to nominate Obama.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 10:58 am
@ehBeth,
Agreed. But since he's already got one, look for a Kerry nomination this time around.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:20 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Agreed. But since he's already got one, look for a Kerry nomination this time around.

God help us, that would be embarrassing. Maybe the hillary campaign will see about getting one for her BEFORE she sets her ass in the POTUS chair.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 11:26 am
@engineer,
Maybe a team of people who were involved in the Iran deal. Only Kerry? no.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:27 pm
Should Obama or Kerry deserve more credit for easing tensions with Iran and Cuba? I would argue it is Kerry. Both of these actions could have taken place earlier in Obama's tenure. Why didn't they? Because we had a different Secretary of State, one of the world's least diplomatic people to hold such a role, Hillary Clinton. Once someone with the understanding of diplomacy and international politics (Kerry) replaced her, progress is seen in many fronts. If it were Obama's wish to do so, and he and his staff were capable, it would have happened earlier, but it didn't. The precedent for this is Henry Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize, which he certainly did more to earn than did Richard Nixon.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 12:38 pm
@ehBeth,
It's always a team but the leader is going to get the credit. I think it will be Kerry and his Iranian counterpart.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 02:45 pm
@engineer,
A peace prize for the Ali Khamenei. Shocked Shocked
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 03:20 pm
@RABEL222,
I was thinking Mohammad Javad Zarif.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 05:29 pm
@Banana Breath,
good post
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 06:11 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Fair enough, but now he has. I agree it was wrong in 2009, but do you think his latest breakthroughs redeem the award? The war hawks here and abroad have been loudly advocating strikes against Iran for several years now. You can define "peace" in several ways, but in terms of preventing war, this Iran deal is probably the biggest negotiated deal I've seen in a long time.

Agreed, but I'm not sure it rises to Nobel Prize status.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2015 09:21 pm
You need to be stupid or a terrorist to win the Nobel Peace Prize .

Quote:
Jimmy Carter’s 2002 Nobel Peace Prize—awarded for the “decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development”—had from the start wrought controversy that was exacerbated further by politically-tinted statements offered by the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee (seconded and affirmed by Gunnar Staalsett, another member of the 5-member, secretive Nobel Committee).

Wangari Maathai, 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, created controversy by appearing to lend credibility to the theory that HIV was invented by white scientists to destroy black people but later apologized for giving the illusion of being a conspiracy theorist.

Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on raising public awareness of Global Warming. There has been some contention on whether the work was related to the stated purpose of the prize or not. In addition, there is much controversy surrounding his work in the area of Global Warming and, in fact, even controversy over whether Global Warming poses a real threat to mankind. Recently a UK High Court judge decreed that the government could only send a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” to every school if it was accompanied by guidelines to point out “nine scientific errors” and to counter his “one-sided views”. In his film, Al Gore called on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. In August 2006, Gore’s electricity bills revealed that in one month he burned through 22,619 kilowatts – more than twice what the average family uses in an entire year.

Rigoberta Menchú won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. There has been some evidence pointing to her as a fraud in her purported autobiography of her life in Guatemala in the late 1950s, portrayed in her 1987 book I, Rigoberta Menchu—where some facts regarding her family history and circumstances were specifically altered by her to supposedly better propagandize her leftist-leanings (brought to light through exposé by anthropologist David Stoll’s researches).

Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his work on the Vietnam Peace Accords, despite having instituted the secret 1969–1975 campaign of bombing against infiltraiting NVA in Cambodia, the alleged U.S. involvement in Operation Condor—a mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay—as well as the death of French nationals under the Chilean junta. He also supported the invasion of Cyprus resulting in approximately 1/3 of the island being occupied by foreign troops for 33 years. Some peace activists go so far as to suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize has become irrelevant due to Kissinger being a laureate.

Rabin won the prize jointly with Shimon Peres and Yasser Araft in 1994. Rabin, while in the Israeli military, had ordered the expulsion of Arabs, from areas captured by Israel during the 1948 War. He had also been responsible for the aggressive Israeli crackdown of the First Intifada while Defense Minister. Rabin also continued to authorise the construction of settlements in the occupied territories despite the peace agreement.

Shimon Peres was awarded the prize jointly with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat . Peres was responsible for developing Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and was later blamed for the Qana Massacre. The Qana Massacre occurred in 1996 when the Israeli military shelled a villiage of 800 Lebanese civilians who had gone there to escape the fighting. 106 were killed and around 116 others injured. Four Fijian United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon soldiers were also seriously injured.

Arafat won the 1994 prize along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Arafat was regarded by critics as a terrorist leader for many years. He is widely regarded by scholars as the father of modern terrorism . Kåre Kristiansen, a Norwegian member of the Nobel Committee, resigned in 1994 in protest at the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, whom he labeled a “terrorist”.

Cordell Hull was awarded the Nobel Prize in Peace in 1945 in recognition of his efforts for peace and understanding in the Western Hemisphere, his trade agreements, and his work to establish the United Nations. In 1939, the ship SS St Louis sailed out of Hamburg into the Atlantic Ocean carrying over 950 Jewish refugees, mostly wealthy, seeking asylum from Nazi persecution just before World War II. Roosevelt showed modest willingness to allow the ship in, but Hull, his Secretary of State threaten to withhold their support of Roosevelt in the 1940 Presidential election if this occurred. Roosevelt denied entry to the ship. The ship was forced to return to Germany and many of the passengers ultimately ended up dying in Concentration Camps.

Menachem Begin (6th Prime Minister of Israel) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for his contributions to the successful closure to the Camp David Accords in the same year (the award was jointly given to Begin and Anwar Sadat). Unfortunately, Begin had also previously been head of the militant Zionist group Irgun, which is often regarded as a terrorist organization and had been responsible for the King David Hotel bombing in 1946.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 03:39:50