|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 9, 2009 7:17:24 GMT -5
OSLO – 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. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peaceI guess McCrystal won't be getting those additional troops in Afghanistan. How can one win the peace prize, yet escalate a war? |
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 9, 2009 7:39:41 GMT -5
Wouldn't most Nobel Peace Prize recipients be somewhat political? Nelson Mandela comes to mind. Also, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Martin Luther King Jr., Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore have one as well. So to say it became political is an understatement.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 9, 2009 8:05:46 GMT -5
The actions in Afghanistan are warranted, and the majority of the world community agrees with it. Nobody out here, right or left, has ever said we don't belong there. Quit whining! ;D Oh! I forgot! Did Bushie get one too?  (using Fran's private emoticon without permission. Sorry!) |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 9, 2009 9:31:41 GMT -5
Congratulations, US President Obama. Wooooo Hooooo!!! Maybe Bush deserves the AWOL award, for his performance both as a soldier and President.  Meanwhile, PC has earned the Borg Smiley award. LOL forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/21467.page |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 9, 2009 9:48:29 GMT -5
I say it has become politial in that the committee who award these prizes are now trying to influence Foreign Policy with a sitting President of the US. BTW. Obama was nominated during his second month in office.  The aforementioned recipients such as Mandela, etc have a long standing history of peaceful work beyond two months. But there is something about Obama isn't their? No need for executive experience to become President. No need to do works of peace to get the Nobel Peace Prize. No wonder liberals believe you do not have to work for things that are important. |
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 9, 2009 10:01:11 GMT -5
Dude, PC, you dont think he's trying to make peace with the world? Trying to reduce the nuclear arms in the world or trying to get out of Iraq? And it's not been two-months, he has a history in Illinois trying to stop violence and gun crime in that state! Come on man.
He's not the first sitting US President to receive the award either, no reason to be scared of them infulencing foreign policy if they did it for 2 of the former sitting US Presidents (Roosevelt and Wilson were sitting when they received theirs').
Roosevelt built up his Navy to show the Japs that we're a force to be reckoned with. Look up the Roosevelt Corollary one day, he implented a plan to help the Caribbean pay debt off. Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and that's how he won the Nobel. So do you think it was more deserving of it than Obama or they both equally deserved it for different reasons?
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 9, 2009 10:08:19 GMT -5
If Obama is to be lauded for fighting local gun violence, every law enforcement officer in this nation should receive the Prize. Don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.
Roosevelt and Wilson did intercede to promote peace. Obama has given a couple pearly speeches.
It is not that I oppose Obama getting the prize. I oppose anyone to receive the prize without concerted, long term effort that reaps real peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize has less validity now that any run of the mill schmuck can now receive it based on words and not deeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by townhalleditor on Oct 9, 2009 10:14:26 GMT -5
The Nobel Peace Prize isn't about deeds, it is about beliefs and acting on those beliefs to foster the well being of the world as a whole.
President Obama engenders those beliefs and promotes multi-lateral peace despite differences.
Beliefs of peace our former President lacked.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 9, 2009 12:16:14 GMT -5
From what the Norwegian Nobel Committee has stated President Obama was given the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
The gun and crime issues in Illinois was simply to show you that he's been a promoter for peace for a long time, not just with the current Middle-East problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 9, 2009 12:59:03 GMT -5
The Nobel Peace Prize isn't about deeds, it is about beliefs and acting on those beliefs to foster the well being of the world as a whole. President Obama engenders those beliefs and promotes multi-lateral peace despite differences. Beliefs of peace our former President lacked. In a nutshell, practically every leader around the world could not stand or trust the Bushwhacker. Imagine, on 9/11 practically every leader in the world offered Bush their support and shortly thereafter, practically every leader in the world could not stand the Bushwhacker.  |
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmeanie on Oct 9, 2009 13:58:37 GMT -5
The peace prize is just one of many of the awards, and as the editor said it isn't always about deeds as much as it is a message in time of turmoil and distrust.
Whether you hate it or not, what can you do? This is done by the world, so you cant go pull up an acorn tape, and you can't say it was the "mob" in Chicago. You guys on the right have to sit there and take notice that people who have been watching America and it's actions in other peoples countries who don't get the honor of hearing American spin on a daily basis like what this man has to say and wants to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 9, 2009 14:17:53 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree with this writer. Obama winning the Nobel Prize might not be what he, or the US needs, at this time. It's based on a promise, and part of that promise probably won't be met within the shorter period of time which people will use to judge his actions. news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500 |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 9, 2009 14:24:31 GMT -5
Is anyone reading what I am saying about the influence of the peace prize on this administration or do I need to write an article on line and have fellow posters post the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 9, 2009 14:51:49 GMT -5
You didn't state what the writer did. You just got bent out of shape because he was given the award. You don't like him, it's what guided you.
On the other hand, I'm more of a moderate, and I see both sides of issues. Don't you wish you could too? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by nick20 on Oct 9, 2009 16:11:24 GMT -5
I think it is too early for Obama to win. he is tbe first sitting president to win the Prize in his first term, Both Wilson and Roosevelt got their prizes in thier second terms, and Carter's was after his presidency..it is an honor though, but also a distraction- but then again, isn;t everything in todays news cycle..?
|
|
