Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

What is your take?

 

This is great I am so happy for him

 

they could have waited till the end of the first 4 years.
It is too soon.

I mean I think the man is great, and I realy like Obama, but he is still an American president......

Also I was listening to his speach he made in Berlin, and there he was putting his words in very efective way, to say that he wants peace, but he needs troops for that. His peace will go over war. I don´t think that there is an other possiblety, but I don´t thing that he will find solutions, what the nobel commite had in mind

 

Voted for Obama. Support Obama, but this is the worst thing that could have happened to him at this juncture in his career. He has got to turn this down, push it aside or manage it somehow.

Al Gore's was weak, as well as Yasser Arafat's...and so is this one.

Review the tangible results of those also nominated. Obama hasn't done anything yet to warrant this. No peace in the Middle East. War still in Iraq & Afghanistan, economy still bad, no major environmental changes, etc...etc...

Apparently he won it for nuke disarmament and his "outreach" to the Muslim world. Really? Since when does "outreach" qualify for a Nobel Prize, never mind the fact that there has been no nuke disarmament.


This was an effort by the European community to show their support for Obama....which as we all know, isn't necessarily the best endorsement in the opinion of a lot of the American people.

Obama is quickly working his way to a one-term presidency....which I am not happy about.

 

Ridiculous. I think that you're taking Republican talking points a bit too seriously. Why is overwhelming popularly abroad in the global era and winning this award bad for Obama? What's really absurd is that less than a week ago people were claiming that the world had gotten a close look at the President and rejected him because he couldn't deliver the Olympics to the U.S. It also seems to me that you're either ignoring or underestimating the damage that Bush did to American's reputation around the world. FYI:

Nobel Peace Prize Myths, Explained

(AP) An award that generates as much interest as the Nobel Peace Prize is bound to be surrounded by myths. Geir Lundestad, secretary of the secretive committee that awards the prize, outlines for The Associated Press some of the most common misunderstandings:

- Myth: The awards committee announces a shortlist of candidates.

The committee does not release the names of any candidates and keeps records sealed for 50 years.

- Myth: A campaign for a particular candidate can sway the awards committee.

A campaign could have the exact opposite effect on the fiercely independent committee, which does not want to appear influenced by public pressure.

- Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute.

The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.

Read excerpts of President Obama's Peace Prize citation

- Myth: Anyone can nominate a person or group for the Peace Prize.

No, although Nobel statutes on who can nominate were slightly broadened in 2003. They now include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

- Myth: The prize can be revoked if a laureate does not live up to the standards of the peace prize.

There are no provisions for revoking the prize.

- Myth: The prize can be awarded posthumously.

The prize was award posthumously only once - in 1961, to former U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammerskjold, after he was killed in a plane crash in Africa. The rules were amended in 1974 to prohibit posthumous prizes.

- Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/09/world/main5373407.shtml

Pay close attention to the part in bold. I think that many people are discounting the profound difference in the way that the Obama administration and the Bush administration pursue foreign policy. From stating unequivocally that the U.S. is not at war with Islam in his Cairo speech to ending the needless antagonism with Russia with the European missile defense shield, the administration has made clear its goal to return the US to a responsible position of leadership in the world community. It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would be convinced that this is negative for the President and the country as whole, and I think that the xenophobic kneejerk reaction to the news is indicative of how poor the state of political discourse is in the country at present.

 

Personally I feel very saddened by this award. Whilst I am generally supportive of Obama, I don't see what he has done to deserve it. Perhaps it would be better not to award the prize rather than undermine its value and credibility by awarding it to a promising but wholly unproven and as yet undeserving individual.
It is way too premature and will rasie expectation. Also, this will put him more under the microscope. Remember last week's SNL skit, "What has Obama done since election???"

Obama would do his reputation the world of good by refusing it at this stage.

 

I keep hearing both here and other places that Obama has not done much in his first 9 MONTHS in office. The truth is he has accomplished A LOT http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
I am willing to bet that those who go around saying he does not deserve the Nobel prize and/or he has not done much could not name even a handful of accomplishments on this very significant list. The man has done an extraordinary amount in his SHORT time in office and will accomplish a great deal more. People need to stop getting their impressions of Obama from Saturday Night Live.

 

Loki-Thanx for the link. I will be honest and say I could not name more than a few on that list. But still I don't see how it merits the Nobel peace prize. Can someone convince me why President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? If speeches with good intentions alone brought about positive changes in the world we would be living in a safe and conflict free environment by now.
I believe there were more deserving candidates at this time such as Morgan Tsvangirai, who has made some extremely personal sacrifices in the name of peace and justice for Zimbabwean citizens. Obama will hopefully have his day to prove he merits this prize, but Tsvangirai has already done more and deserves recognition in a global scale. I think Tsvangirai deserved it more for his prolonged struggle in bringing about peace in his country.

 

If you want to argue that there are other deserving candidates, that would be a reasonable debate, but those who say he has not done much are simply UNIFORMED/WILLFULLY BLIND.

As far as if Obama is deserving, well we have to take the Nobel folks at their word:
"They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."

 

Well that has not so much to do with european comunity. Eurpean people are not realy invloved in the choice of the nominies. And this nomination realy came as a surpise to evrybody



I don´t think it was a good choise in respect of Obamas personalty... it will make things harder to him...

 

Indeed.


[YOUTUBE]ooqkvd8JPfU[/YOUTUBE]

 

Michael Moore LTR

Dear President Obama,

How outstanding that you've been recognized today as a man of peace. Your swift, early pronouncements -- you will close Guantanamo, you will bring the troops home from Iraq, you want a nuclear weapon-free world, you admitted to the Iranians that we overthrew their democratically-elected president in 1953, you made that great speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, you've eliminated that useless term "The War on Terror," you've put an end to torture -- these have all made us and the rest of the world feel a bit more safe considering the disaster of the past eight years. In eight months you have done an about face and taken this country in a much more sane direction.

But...

The irony that you have been awarded this prize on the 2nd day of the ninth year of our War in Afghanistan is not lost on anyone. You are truly at a crossroads now. You can listen to the generals and expand the war (only to result in a far-too-predictable defeat) or you can declare Bush's Wars over, and bring all the troops home. Now. That's what a true man of peace would do.

There is nothing wrong with you doing what the last guy failed to do -- capture the man or men responsible for the mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11. BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH TANKS AND TROOPS. You are pursuing a criminal, not an army. You do not use a stick of dynamite to get rid of a mouse.

The Taliban is another matter. That is a problem for the people of Afghanistan to resolve -- just as we did in 1776, the French did in 1789, the Cubans did in 1959, the Nicaraguans did in 1979 and the people of East Berlin did in 1989. One thing is certain through all revolutions by people who wish to be free -- they ultimately have to bring about that freedom themselves. Others can be supportive, but freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else's Humvee.

You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don't, you'll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

 

[YOUTUBE]GMJuEOaF84o[/YOUTUBE]

 

President Obama did not campaign for this award it was bestowed upon him, so whether you agree he has done enough to warrant such a prestigious award or not is moot. And someone suggested giving it back, that would be cowering to the loud mouth wing nut pundits, please not gonna happen. What should matter is that other countries in the world think he is deserving and we as Americans should be proud that it is our President, the President of the United States that won it.

Those on the right who have taken the stance to be against the United States at all costs because they are against a Democratic President and are no longer in power, well, They can F-off!!:smt071

 

Rush Limbaugh's ammo.

 

It would've been so called ammo if he hadn't won either, they would be saying the world rejects Obama for the 2nd time, remember the whole Olympicgate??? When dealing with the wingnuts common sense goes out the window, so Obama can't win for losing with those wackjobs. And believe me, he aint thinking about Rush or his followers, they aren't part of his constituency.

 

Not the European community, as in the average "man/woman on the street". Yes, of course, they are not on the nominatioon commitee. However, the Nobel Prize committe is European in its construction.

 

The myths that you posted are incredibly irrelevant, so I'll deal with what you've commented on:

Pay close attention to the part in bold. I think that many people are discounting the profound difference in the way that the Obama administration and the Bush administration pursue foreign policy

LOL! Profound? You mean as in no more war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the closing of Gitmo, torture investigations, nuclear disarmamment, universal healthcare, peace in the Middle East?...or profound in the sense that says you should talk to your enemies and engage in diplomacy? Wow, what a novel concept. Despite the idiot railings of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Every administration talks to their enemies, even if they claim not to - it's done through backchannels as Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis, Reagan during the Cold War, Clinton and Pakistan, etc...etc...

From stating unequivocally that the U.S. is not at war with Islam in his Cairo speech

As did the last administration state repeatedly...however, the radical Islamic terrorists think that they are in a war. So, it really doesn't matter what you say to the Middle East. Furthermore, the moderates are not interested in oppossing the radicals. Iran, Syia, etc. turn a blind eye to the radicals in their midst and allow them to do the dirty work, so they'll have plausible deniability. You should really consider picking up the preeminent book on the Middle East - that traces the entire political/social/economic threads that run through this isssue. "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Freidman.

to ending the needless antagonism with Russia with the European missile defense shield,

This issue has not been resolved and although Putin is no longer officially president, he is working behind the scenes and the antagonism is still there.


What's really absurd is that less than a week ago people were claiming that the world had gotten a close look at the President and rejected him because he couldn't deliver the Olympics to the U.S.

Yes, that was absurd then, and the award is, now.


Why is overwhelming popularly abroad in the global era and winning this award bad for Obama?

Lots of people are "popular" abroad...what has been done, though? Perhaps we should nominate Brittney Spears, she's popular globally.

It also seems to me that you're either ignoring or underestimating the damage that Bush did to American's reputation around the world.

No, well aware of the damage of the Bush administration. It would have been ridiculous for Bush to be nominated/win as well. Actually, they should have created a special category for him, a "Fucked the World up Royally" award.

This is a tired argument about "reputation". News flash, the U.S. has never really been "loved" by the rest of the world.

Feared, respected, needed - yes.

But this idea that everyone was in love with U.S. before Bush is absolutely ridiculous. There are still many people, countries, etc. who are just as mad at the U.S. then as they are now. The Nobel Prize is should not be awarded for improving a "reputation".

And of course, Obama himself has said that he doesn't feel that he's done anything to deserve this, but will accept it on behalf of American ideals, a call to action, etc...

I guess, that's going to best possible way to manage this. I hope Obama gets a second term, although I'm starting to feel that this won't happen.

 

At least they're not giving it to Dick Cheney.:smt023

 

I turned on Fox News Channel just as soon as I heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Fox & Friends were on, and the reactions were "huh? How did he win?"

I also heard right-wing talk, the reactions were the same. I listened to Hannity's reax, more like his complaints. He was all over the place with his views.

Personally, congrats to the President for winning the award, but I don't see how he won since he almost did nothing that was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.