Off-topic: Barack Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

[Joe Vancil]

Barack Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do you think?  Appropriate?  Premature?  Inappropriate?  It's Barak Obama, so you just have to oppose him?

Let's hear your thoughts!

[jemagee]

Al Gore won it while having nothing to do with actually establishing world peace...

The interesting thing is that if the news reports were correct President Obama was president for 11 days before the nominations had been in...so it's more of a question fo what he did as a senator / candidate or were they just trying to get in on all the Obama hype?

[SPURSX3]

Frankly I think Obama is doing well for only being in office a few months.  I think he has gone out of his way to change the image of the United States to the world and still has a good way to go.  I like seeing get this prize, however, IMO I also think this may be a way to get the pres to cut back on troops that are deployed.  Seems like a troop surge right after winning a prize for peace would be a tough decision to make.  Just my opinion on that though.

[SPURSX3]

Al Gore won it while having nothing to do with actually establishing world peace...

The interesting thing is that if the news reports were correct President Obama was president for 11 days before the nominations had been in...so it's more of a question fo what he did as a senator / candidate or were they just trying to get in on all the Obama hype?

I had not read that.  Wow...they made this decision that far back???

[westkoast]

Quick?  Yes.  Pre-mature?  I don't know.  Reason I say that is if he sends 40,000 more troops to Afganistan than it doesn't look good.  If he does then I would say 'Yes that was pre-mature'

 People said he only got into office in Feb but his campaign to change our image around the world started before that when he made his address to the international community apologizing for some of our wrong doings and extending a branch to the Muslim community.  Not sure if the last 4 Presidents we have had did that.   They stated part of the reason was he actually reached out to the muslim world.  I do think that is very important.  While many in this country might disagree I've always felt like entire nations are stereotyped because of the actions of few.  Most Iranian people I know do not share the views the leadership in their home country has for example.  Neither do their family members who live over there.

Though I do have to wonder is this more of the international communities way of giving him incentive to continue on this path and guilt him into keeping us out of future military conflicts at the same time?

Al Gore won it while having nothing to do with actually establishing world peace...

The interesting thing is that if the news reports were correct President Obama was president for 11 days before the nominations had been in...so it's more of a question fo what he did as a senator / candidate or were they just trying to get in on all the Obama hype?

I believe that as a Senator he worked in a committee that handled nuclear issues in the middle east (specifically Iran).  He also pushed, as a senator, of a banning of nuclear weapons.

[jemagee]

I had not read that.  Wow...they made this decision that far back???

That's what they said on the news this morning - that the nominations were due that far back - not sure why it takes so long - or maybe the submitted names are due it was like good morning america in the background so I may have missed a nuance or they may have mis-stated it...but it seems that 11 days nto his presidency he wasn't qualified for the award.

Then again I don't think what Al Gore did qualifies for the nobel peace prize either - maybe some other prize - but not peace.

IMO I also think this may be a way to get the pres to cut back on troops that are deployed

Possibly - but a different point - I doubt the voters on the prize considered it.

Counter Argument is that - now he has more pressure not to cut back because by leaving these areas the US makes it more likely for internal violence to escalate even more...he now has an obligation to maintain or increase US efforts to establish 'peace' in the two countries we are stuck in right now.

[Joe Vancil]

I find this choice shocking, because I don't really think that Obama's efforts have yet yielded the fruit that I'd expect from a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  Make no mistake - I think he has planted the seed.  I think a lot of folks have.  But the winner - at this stage?  And nominated two weeks into his presidency?

There's no question in my mind - as loyal Americans, we should be proud of the honor for our leader.  However, for him to win with as few of concrete examples of success as he has, I just can't help but wonder if it's just we're that desperately short of peace-makers, or if the award is premature.

I like the optimism that Obama has brought back to America - in that view, I find him very much like Reagan.  And I think that's good work.  But I look at the Nobel Peace Prize as being something for someone who has prevented wars, or negotiated peace treaties that end wars, or foster world-wide understanding.  With us still fighting in Iraq, still fighting in Afghanistan, still having Guantanamo, still in conflict with North Korea and Iran over nuclear weaponry, and really, only the tone of our words has changed, is *THAT* what the Nobel Peace Prize was created for?


My vote:  Premature.

[Reality]

Frankly I think Obama is doing well for only being in office a few months.  I think he has gone out of his way to change the image of the United States to the world and still has a good way to go.  I like seeing get this prize, however, IMO I also think this may be a way to get the pres to cut back on troops that are deployed.  Seems like a troop surge right after winning a prize for peace would be a tough decision to make.  Just my opinion on that though.

+1.
Remember the last 6 months of Hiltler-Bush-Chaney?  On the verge of utter depression.  Lets not forget Bushies promise to his oilmen to raise it to $80 a barrel if elected.  He did it, and oh don't you miss those $5 a gallon days and record smashing profits by OilCos?

Joe, the choice of "I must vote against Obama just because I'm a Repub is so approapro.
Faux News actually debating Will Ferells YouTube and trying to discredit it.  One of their attractive blonde anchor clones literally saying "My grandfather was a health insurance executive and he didn't have a zoo with white tigers."  

[jemagee]

Oh god - I hope he's nothing like Reagan.

[Joe Vancil]

he now has an obligation to maintain or increase US efforts to establish 'peace' in the two countries we are stuck in right now.

jem,

I picked out this part of your quote, because I really want to address this.  I personally believe that we - the American people as a whole - were obligated to establishing real peace in these countries the moment we went into them.  I'm a believer in the "you broke it, you bought it" policy.  We're obligated with our military, with our industry, and even with our tax dollars.

I believe that as Americans, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi and Afghani people, from the very moment we went in to either.  And that's why I am AGAINST pulling out of either country until true self-governance and peace are established in them.

[jemagee]

Joe - it's obvious that you and I view the world, and the US government in it very differently - in general i try to avoid political discussions cause they make me angry - because we no longer live in a country where people listen to the other side - we live in a country of i'm right you're wrong and nothing you can say will change my mind - we live in a country where the extremes of BOTH parties run the message - i know a third party has no chance of success in this country, our democratic system leads to a two party system and I think both parties are woefully broken.

I don't disagree with what you said in principle - however I disagree with the fact that we are there in the first place - that we as a country have any right to tell anyone else how to run their nation...it's hubris, it's ego, it's pure self centeredness to say 'we can do it better than you can' - and history tells us OVER AND OVER that the US has no clue how to 'conquer' a country and then set up a democratic system that will last - the US leaves and it falls apart again - so either we stay there forever - or more and more people die until the nation finallybuckles under the pressure of needless deaths (ala Vietnam)

I belive that starting a war is a great way for a president to distract his citizenry from acknowledging the problems in our nation that are constantly ignored...i believe the wars in iraq and afghanistan were political sleight of hand using young americans as the distraction...i believe that the country over reacted to an event and allowed a rather unintelligent president to make decisions that will screw this country for decades, partially to distract the citizenry and partially to line the pockets of various companies and help out the oil companies.

I believe the 'war' against terrorism will accomplish as much as the decades long 'war' against drugs (another phony war perpetrated by a president to distract its citizenry while at the same time straining race relations even more - but then again Reagan was a guy who made it ok to hate again right?

I know you won't agree with msot of what I said here - and that's fine - but I wanted to answer your points - but I can't get into it with you - it angers me too much to see how broken our nation is and that so few people care or even admit it.

[westkoast]

he now has an obligation to maintain or increase US efforts to establish 'peace' in the two countries we are stuck in right now.

jem,

I picked out this part of your quote, because I really want to address this.  I personally believe that we - the American people as a whole - were obligated to establishing real peace in these countries the moment we went into them.  I'm a believer in the "you broke it, you bought it" policy.  We're obligated with our military, with our industry, and even with our tax dollars.

I believe that as Americans, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi and Afghani people, from the very moment we went in to either.  And that's why I am AGAINST pulling out of either country until true self-governance and peace are established in them.

This is not really directed at you Joe but just a general question that popped into my head after reading your statement....

There are people on the right who have said similar things.  Part of policy in those countries was we were going to help rebuild them using money, military, and some private industry (IE oil industry consultants)......

How come the right seems to think the government cannot do anything right in our own country but believes we can rebuild entire nations abroad?

Also, you guys forget that Obama did work on nuclear policy as a Senator and his reaching out to the Muslim community (which was stated as part of the reason he won) took place BEFORE February.  His Berlin speech that reached out to them and spoke of a different approach to US foreign policy was in 2008.

[Joe Vancil]

Oh god - I hope he's nothing like Reagan.

jem,

That sounds vaguely reminiscent of the "I'm a Republican, and therefore have to side against him." answer included to the question above.  Even Obama himself referred to Reagan as a president who had a mandate from the masses for his actions, and has quoted Reagan several times.  My own statement on this board was that Obama represented a return to the optimism that Reagan brought to the country, and that Obama was a worthy successor to the legacy of Reagan.  His foreign speeches have been compared to those of Reagan, where he addressed the masses and tried to rally them rather than aiming the message to the governmental leadership.  He's come across as a strong American presence on the international stage - something we've not had since Reagan.

I'm a believer in strong, decisive leadership, which is why I've been against Clinton and Bush Jr. - and why I'm currently still in the "Obama's doing a good job" camp, even though in general, I disagree with many of his political philosophies.  Obama has given the country direction - as did Reagan, as did Kennedy, as did FDR, as did Lincoln.  Like every one of his predecessors, he's going to make some mistakes.  And I'm okay with that.  I just want us as one nation again.  And statments like yours are part of why we aren't.

I guess my philsophy is "I'm not as much worried about where we're going as long as we're all going together on it."

[jemagee]

I guess my philsophy is "I'm not as much worried about where we're going as long as we're all going together on it

Maybe you should talk to the leaders of your party then...

And in my mind reagan was one of the worst presidents in my lifetime (born in 72) until Bush 2 got to office.

Maybe it's telling that the 2 presidents the republicans loved the most I despise the most.

This country doesn't do ANYTHING together - people disagree with the opposing party  just because it's the opposing party...our country is united under nothing...and honestly - who cares - we aren't supposed to b e- DISSENT is an essential part of democracy - DISSENT is what this country was founded on - the right to disagree...i wonder why it's not ok to disagree any more -

Oh right 'you're either with us or against us' - now i remember

right up there with 'evil empire' in terms of more harm than good in my opinion

Ok  have to stop now - getting really angry

[Joe Vancil]

Joe - it's obvious that you and I view the world, and the US government in it very differently - in general i try to avoid political discussions cause they make me angry - because we no longer live in a country where people listen to the other side - we live in a country of i'm right you're wrong and nothing you can say will change my mind - we live in a country where the extremes of BOTH parties run the message - i know a third party has no chance of success in this country, our democratic system leads to a two party system and I think both parties are woefully broken.

And, of what you've just said, I agree with all of it with the following exception:  I don't avoid political discussions, because I regard them as part of civic duty, and while they may make me mad, it's a productive kind of mad.

I don't disagree with what you said in principle - however I disagree with the fact that we are there in the first place - that we as a country have any right to tell anyone else how to run their nation...it's hubris, it's ego, it's pure self centeredness to say 'we can do it better than you can' - and history tells us OVER AND OVER that the US has no clue how to 'conquer' a country and then set up a democratic system that will last - the US leaves and it falls apart again - so either we stay there forever - or more and more people die until the nation finallybuckles under the pressure of needless deaths (ala Vietnam)

And I consider myself one of those who supported both wars, not because we can run their country better than they can, but because, in the case of Afghanistan, our enemies were being shielded by them, and in the case of Iraq, we were told of imminent nuclear and biological weapons.  And my estimation of the situation now is that we were still correct to go into Afghanistan, and as for Iraq, I WANT THE HEADS OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO LIED TO US ABOUT THE SITUATION.  If we don't make them accountable, then we're as guilty as they are.

However, because we went in to both - in accordance with our own laws, mind you - we are obligated as a matter of principal to see that the situation for the average citizen in the street is to the level of safety and security that is 1) superior to what they had before we went in, and 2) at minimum, equal to what we would accept for ourselves.  I believe that the decision to go to any war is an obligation to those two ideals, and is a collective stain on the image of the American people if we don't live up to that.

I belive that starting a war is a great way for a president to distract his citizenry from acknowledging the problems in our nation that are constantly ignored...i believe the wars in iraq and afghanistan were political sleight of hand using young americans as the distraction...i believe that the country over reacted to an event and allowed a rather unintelligent president to make decisions that will screw this country for decades, partially to distract the citizenry and partially to line the pockets of various companies and help out the oil companies.

I don't entirely agree OR disagree.  There's a lot of truth in what you've just said.

I believe the 'war' against terrorism will accomplish as much as the decades long 'war' against drugs (another phony war perpetrated by a president to distract its citizenry while at the same time straining race relations even more - but then again Reagan was a guy who made it ok to hate again right?

...and here's where we completely part ways.

I know you won't agree with msot of what I said here - and that's fine - but I wanted to answer your points - but I can't get into it with you - it angers me too much to see how broken our nation is and that so few people care or even admit it.

I agree with more than you think.  But I still believe in the HOPE that is the America I was taught about - the one that is nobler than it is acting, more united than divided.  Yes, it is a dream, but it's a worthwhile dream, and one that should be worked toward.  America is a work in progress, not a completed masterpiece, and those who believe it is - or ever was - are kidding themselves.