Obama Nobel Peace Prize???? What??

[godofthegrove]

Does anyone else think it's totally stupid and rigged to give Obama the Nobel??? The US is still in Iraq and still fighting the Taliban in Afghanastan.....

[FuzzHugger]

I think yes and no.

I assume they gave it to him based on how he inspired many people around the world, got people to volunteer in their communities...his speeches in foreign countries in an attempt to ease tensions and reach out to our "enemies."

At the same time: "the US is still in Iraq and still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan." Gooooood point.
It makes me sick that we're a country that is perpetually at war, that our economy basically depends on it, that bankers control the country, and own both parties. And that this has not changed.

Okay, I just pulled up the news, and there's the Nobel Committe's explanation of why they gave it:
"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."


Overall, I have this feeling--what's bad about something that will serve as a reminder of promised change and hope? What's bad about something that might help to hold him to his words? End our involvement in Afghanistan, put all your inspirational rhetoric to work...or return the prize to the committee.

[less_cunning]

[godofthegrove]

There are a lot more people who have done much more and were more hands on in the pursuit of peace...the other thing not mentioned by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee was that Obama was in office for less than two weeks at the time of nominations......

[metalmariachi]

He was nominated a few weeks after he took office.

Judging by the last few times it’s been awarded; The Nobel Pease Prize has all the viability and meaning as being runner up on American Idol.

MM

[godofthegrove]

[Gunner Recall]

*Deep breath*

Somebody else on another forum managed to sum up my views on the subject and I don't think I can put it any more succinctly.

"i'm sorry that the PNAC shitsticks aren't in control of our foreign policy anymore.
it's a tough pill to swallow, i know.

this was the first election that turned me into a single issue voter. the fact that Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are all now on the lecture circuit made my vote for Obama worth it.
fuck those assholes.
I had low expectations of Obama, but he's still ahead of the curve as far as diplomacy, medical research, human rights, rendition and green energy is concerned.
I got bonuses on all that in exchange for the PNAC eradication.
YMMV."

"(PNAC)Project for the New American Century.
The people that were in control of Bush's foreign policy.
Obama is not Bush, nor an advocate for his foreign policy standards.
Obama fired all those people once he entered office, including all those mentioned in my previous post.
He fired them because they represent imperialist tendencies across the world, including (but not limited to) Guantanamo, extreme rendition acts, secret prisons, executive branch-sponsored torture programs, unilateralism in regards to foreign relations, continued occupation of Iraq (based on compromised intelligence and outright lies for aggressive policy in the region), and stalemates against hostile regimes.
The award was based on counter-acting recent international policies that employed all previously mentioned activity.

so yeah - he was given the award based on 'not being Bush.'
that's not to be something taken cynically.
it's a reversal of damaging behavior on the international stage."

It's easy to pin it on "do nothing" Obama or attempts to secure fundng by currying American favor, but on a grander scale I think the award was a stride foward for American primacy.
Whether or not he deserved it is irrelevent. It grants an amount of legitamacy to the nation on the international scale.
Anything that restores some of the international clout we've squandered is good for America in my book.

I see it as an award for removing the foreign policy influence of the likes of Wolfowitz/Rumsfield/Kristol and the hold over lackeys who remained in power when Obama took office.
Were there others more deserving? Probably. But as an American, I'm can't help but be supportive of something which should help to bolster our nation on the world stage.

[bigchiefbc]

I had low expectations of Obama, but he's still ahead of the curve as far as diplomacy, medical research,human rights, rendition and green energy is concerned.

ummmm

sorry to break it to Obama supporters, but he has largely continued the Bush administration's stance on human rights. Which is to say, awful. Please please please click on this link.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/obama- ... efinitely/

[Seizurema]

1) Do nothing
2) Win Nobel Peace Prize
3) ???
4) Profit.

[Gunner Recall]

ummmm

sorry to break it to Obama supporters, but he has largely continued the Bush administration's stance on human rights. Which is to say, awful. Please please please click on this link.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/obama- ... efinitely/

I hardly consider myself an Obama supporter, though I do applaud what he has done to dismantle the effects PNAC/wolfie had on American foreign policy.

Sitting Presidents never give back power, it's the nature of the executive branch. It is the legislature that needs to keep them in check.
As the artcle in the link mentions, he's using authority granted to him by Congress (unlike Mr. Bush, who overstepped his authority in many cases).
He isn't bypassing Congress, because Congress has effectively given him a free pass, which was a grave mistake.

I can't say I agree with those policies, but it still places him ahead of the previous administration (I know, the bar was set low)
If you have beef with those powers, write your local congressmen. Let's get a few changes made.

[bigchiefbc]

I hardly consider myself an Obama supporter, though I do applaud what he has done to dismantle the effects PNAC/wolfie had on American foreign policy.

Sitting Presidents never give back power, it's the nature of the executive branch. It is the legislature that needs to keep them in check.
As the artcle in the link mentions, he's using authority granted to him by Congress (unlike Mr. Bush, who overstepped his authority in many cases).
He isn't bypassing Congress, because Congress has effectively given him a free pass, which was a grave mistake.

Sorry, that's bs. If Congress gave him a power to do something that is morally wrong and unconstitutional (and it is, regardless of what our parrot-like supreme court says), then I expect him to not only give up that power willingly, but to excoriate Congress for attempting to grant it in the first place. Anything else and you're just as much to blame.

I can't say I agree with those policies, but it still places him ahead of the previous administration (I know, the bar was set low)
If you have beef with those powers, write your local congressmen. Let's get a few changes made.

Believe me, I have, many times. Rep. Kennedy's office is pretty sick of hearing from me at this point. And I'm going to continue to bug the shit out of them for the rest of time I live in his district. Civil liberties are the one area I refuse to compromise on, and I refuse to shut up about.

[Gunner Recall]

I agree with you dude (the italics were quotes from somebody else), I don't like this detention business.
But presenting both sides is needed sometimes...the hive mind mentality here can get VERY scary.

Still, nobody every became president by not wanting power...they are by their very nature power hungry beasts.
I don't think you'll find many (if any) examples of a president relinquishing power...perhaps Washington and Nixon (though Nixon would have been removed anyway).
An ideal leader would censor his own power if it reached levels that were deemed injust...but someone who would limit their own power could never possibly rise to the office of the presidency.

[bigchiefbc]

I agree with you dude (the italics were quotes from somebody else), I don't like this detention business.
But presenting both sides is needed sometimes...the hive mind mentality here can get VERY scary.

Still, nobody every became president by not wanting power...they are by their very nature power hungry beasts.
I don't think you'll find many (if any) examples of a president relinquishing power...perhaps Washington and Nixon (though Nixon would have been removed anyway).
An ideal leader would censor his own power if it reached levels that were deemed injust...but someone who would limit their own power could never possibly rise to the office of the presidency.

No hard feelings man. Civil liberties is my hot-button. I'm basically a single-issue voter. So I feel the need to remind people that no politicians from either party give a flying fuck about your rights. I hear ya about the hive mentality, but it happens everywhere. I'm stuck in this left-libertarian neverland where I find myself fighting againt the groupthink when talking with both liberals and libertarians. It's all good

[Gunner Recall]

ILF. Come for the fuzz, stay for the hugs
(just don't drink the kool-aid)

[less_cunning]

i may be wrong, but i don't think Bill Kristol worked a day in teh Bush White House.

Obamas Defense Secretary Robert Gates was both Defense Secretary and and director of the CIA in the Bush White House. Obama has done absolutely nothing to reverse teh foreign policy of the Bush Administration, he wants to INCREASE the United States engagement in Afghanistan, Israel will probably preemptively strike against Iran in a few months, fulfilling the Lebanon proxy war of 2006, & he has been completely ineffectual domestic policy-wise et cetera...

these are going to be four very dark years.