33 replies to this topic

[Doki]

He is the only one who should have gotten it.

Edited by Nabi, 09 October 2009 - 03:50 AM.

[GeorgeWolff]

Not sure what he's done to warrant the prize - unless we call it the Nobel Appeasement Prize.

The voting was in FEBRUARY - he had been President 11 (ELEVEN) days at the time. Then fix was in.

Edited by GeorgeWolff, 09 October 2009 - 01:30 PM.

[hobglobin]

GeorgeWolff, on Oct 9 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

Not sure what he's done to warrant the prize - unless we call it the Nobel Appeasement Prize.

The voting was in FEBRUARY - he had been President 11 (ELEVEN) days at the time. Then fix was in.

Most of the laureates were and are controversial (and not only the peace prize laureates), because it's always a political statement, which is of course the ultimate ambition of this prize. Wikipedia quotes: "the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.""

Anyway the nominations have to be done until first of February and then the selection process starts, and this needs some time especially as the committee tries to make an unanimous vote.

[GeorgeWolff]

Controversial? Perhaps if you'd tell me what Obama had accomplished to be nominated OR selected, it would hep me understand the "contrvewry".

[hobglobin]

Actually (and luckily) I'm not belonging to the committee, read their statement about it...

Wikipedia writes: "Jagland [secretary general] said he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. He added: "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do." Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, as well as the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, as well as Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals."

If one likes it or find it sufficient or not is a matter of opinion....

[HomeBrew]

hobglobin, on Oct 10 2009, 05:51 AM, said:

..."the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work...

[casandra]

HomeBrew, on Oct 10 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

hobglobin, on Oct 10 2009, 05:51 AM, said:

..."the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work...

Why couldn't it be a work in progress, then? If we take a look at the roster of past winners (and nominees), had they really fulfilled all the criteria set up by the Norwegian Nobel Committees? He didn't lobby for this "honour"....he was humbled and just as surprised as most of us, I guess...and now the pressure is on....who knows the machinations behind this award (being given to him i.e.) but isn't peace worth it..or at least the hope for lasting peace? Besides, he's the most powerful and popular man in the planet right now, he should at least give it his best shot......(and shouldn't we at least wish him good luck...poor guy...)

[Doki]

can it be given to same person twice?

I can't think of anyone else for next year.

[toejam]

casey, thing is, the world is not based on good intentions.

in that case, let's put an example, what if any member of this forum has the best intention to solve the problem they're working on for the greater good of humankind? ie, find a cure for cancer, solve the famine problem in africa, save the penguins, go to antartica for whatever the reason is.

should any of those be awarded the prize? imo no. but you're right to some extent, it was not like he nominated himself to get the award. and since the economy of the us is based on war it will be difficult for Obama to have a whole happy country (world?) with him.

someone really important either really loves him or really hates him, that's my perception.

[hobglobin]

toejam, on Oct 11 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

casey, thing is, the world is not based on good intentions.

in that case, let's put an example, what if any member of this forum has the best intention to solve the problem they're working on for the greater good of humankind? ie, find a cure for cancer, solve the famine problem in africa, save the penguins, go to antartica for whatever the reason is.

should any of those be awarded the prize? imo no. but you're right to some extent, it was not like he nominated himself to get the award. and since the economy of the us is based on war it will be difficult for Obama to have a whole happy country (world?) with him.

someone really important either really loves him or really hates him, that's my perception.

But here you compare apples and oranges...politics are completely different from science...
And the prize is also meant to support processes that just began or are high-risk jobs with incalculable results....and therefore not all processes and/or laureates were successful. For example 1994, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin were laureates, look what has happened to the peace process there until now...it's as violent and hopeless as always.
Sometimes more or less hopeless cases are supported, i.e. people that will never have a chance to accomplish their good and high aims. Such as Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma (1991) or Dalai Lama (1989)....perhaps Obama will also one of those, but hopefully not.

[toejam]

yeah, in politics it's all about sweet talk.

[leelee]

From what I have heard, they have taken into account the work he has done for foreign relations in his 15 or so years as a congressman. So I don't think the decision was based only on his work as president.

I for one am quite happy for it to have gone to him

[eberthella]

Foreign relations - his seven years (not 15 - '97-'04) in the Illinois legislature? Can you tell us of his foreign relations accomplishments during that period in a state legisalture? But you're right - it MUST have been that as he was a week in the white house when nominated. It sure couldn't have been his one term in the US Senate, the last 2 years of which were running for President. The majority of his votes while active were "here".

You make that up or was it someone else's fiction?

In fact - his major accomplishment was the same as the last few American's winning the peace prize - he wasn't Bush. Per Gunnar Berge - chair of the comm. choosing Carter - this is a"kick in the leg to George Bush." Like Bush or not, this is a politicized award and it's hard to think of a better proof than Obama's selection. He may indeed (and I hope he does) earn it on his own accomplishments, but this time - it's obvious that he's not Bush.

Edited by eberthella, 12 October 2009 - 03:53 AM.

[toejam]

now the poll is almost 50/50

does anyone know if the the Nobel prize has ever been revoked? if I'm not mistaken once done there's no turning back.

[HomeBrew]

Obama could decline to accept it, but I don't think it's ever been revoked...