Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[soup]

All people who had a 1000x time more obvious reason (god) to turn it down, didn't. Mother Theresa, i'm sure, collected her prize no hesitation.

I'm sure she used the money for good cause

+ they cancelled the festivities , no need to explain why. =)

[PaulOakenfold]

obama your peace prize was great, but hitler's nobel peace prize was teh best ever

[Reaver]

Turning down a Nobel Prize? You're joking right...?

Of course it would have been good for ANY nobel prize recipient to turn it down and say, "i did it for the greater good", "I want no recognition" blah blah blah. But why are people expecting him specifically to turn it down, i mean come on now.

Oh what were you expecting Mandela to turn down the peace prize in '94? What about Mother Theresa? Why didn't she turn it down in the name of promoting saintly virtues? Why didn't Tutu do the same thing as well then? What about the Dalai Llama?

All people who had a 1000x time more obvious reason (god) to turn it down, didn't. Mother Theresa, i'm sure, collected her prize no hesitation.

I fully expect the Conservatives in the House to propose a new resolution on the floor forcing Obama to hand-over his nobel prize.

Why would any of those people turn the award down? They actually DID something to earn the prize, this isn't the situation with Obama. He said what he PLANS to achieve but he hasn't accomplished most of those things. I think the bigger issue is that the award was given way too prematurely, if he accomplished even the majority of what he wanted to accomplish already then by all means, but he's been in office for what, 9 months? I think most people agree that awards should be given based on what you've accomplished, not what you say you'll accomplish.


He said he's going to close Guantanamo Bay --It's currently still open.

He was awarded a peace prize, he's currently a war president --he'll soon have to decide if he's going to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Health care

etc.

[paradise!]

Why would any of those people turn the award down? They actually DID something to earn the prize, this isn't the situation with Obama. He said what he PLANS to achieve but he hasn't accomplished most of those things. I think the bigger issue is that the award was given way too prematurely, if he accomplished even the majority of what he wanted to accomplish already then by all means, but he's been in office for what, 9 months? I think most people agree that awards should be given based on what you've accomplished, not what you say you'll accomplish.


He said he's going to close Guantanamo Bay --It's currently still open.

He was awarded a peace prize, he's currently a war president --he'll soon have to decide if he's going to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Health care

etc.

Currently, Gitmo is in the process of being closed. Deadlines for it's complete cessation have been set to january. Don't take the Micheal Steele type arguement by saying "oh hey reconstruction jobs for the olympics are in 7 years. Jobs will not be created UNTIL that day." No, as we speak, the U.S. is negotiating with other countries about where to place them. The numbers in Gitmo are shrinking, simply because it's foreseeable closure. President Bush KNEW of the terrible reputation Gitmo carried, but still kept it open. President Obama saw this, and is shutting it down.

Obama has been open to peace talks more than any other recent president. He has strongly urged, and continues to urge for mideast peace talks. I mean come on trying to get Netanyahu and Abbas to peacefully discuss is no easy task my friend. 2 Opposites living as neighbors, it's hilarious. His urgency has come to fruition, Netanyahu has already told us exactly WHAT he is prepared to negotiate, and what is off the table. The same thing for Abbas.

Netanyahu is not prepared to discuss freezing expansion of jewish settlements. BUT, is prepared to discuss other inhibitory factors of peace in the middle east. This is just one example. It hasn't even been a year yet, and we've already seen progress.

Another example, did you NOT see the French's reaction when Obama was in Strasbourg? Google that shit, the French are waving American flags. Obama has, in less than one year, so changed the american foreign policy that other nations are waving our fucking flags. Does that not speak to you about his policy changes?

Unless Reaver you believe Obama is somehow tricking most UN nations. Why do you think Sarcozy is so eager to meet about diplomatic relations between the two? Why do you think Merkel is eager to discuss germany's role in afghanistan and discuss it's future? Let me tell you, BECAUSE Obama has laid out a plan of OPEN discussion of world problems, and through that plan they each have allowed more channels for discussion. An example of this, so far, (like i said it's only been 9 months maximum) is the worlds role in Afghanistan as well as fighting Terrorism.

[Mattey]

No reaver, he's a war president. u r such a moran.

Who cares that he inherited two terrible wars from the worst president evar. He's still a war president.

[kthx]

rofl, you act like he is stopping the war, hes just moving troops from one war to the other. People are ignorant.

[PaulOakenfold]

stupid nobel people. do your research!

[D1st0rt]

goddamn euros can't do anything right

[Mattey]

rofl, you act like he is stopping the war, hes just moving troops from one war to the other. People are ignorant.

Yeah, he's moving troops from one un-winnable war to another.

Regardless, the award was given simply for the change in tone. Negotiation is no longer an option used to extend the time between locating a map and aiming a missile.

Because the United States is arguably the most important nation (in Kthx's simple mind it no doubt is the most important nation) this is a huge step towards maintaining peace. If Gore (another Nobel winner) was elected president like he should have been, the world's biggest military wouldn't be engaged in a war in Iraq right now. We might be in Afghanistan, but there is no way we would be mired in two quagmires right now.

Basically, Obama got the award for not being Bush. The way I see it, it's a gold-star given to America for not being retarded enough to elect McCain (who would have continued Gitmo and condoning torture.)

[Mattey]

By the way, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush should all be charged for war crimes for instigating a war with Iraq that was based on manufactured false evidence.

I realize it is another conversation, and I also realize it will never happen, but the war in Iraq will be recorded as one of the main events that led to the fall of the American empire.

[genocidal]

All wars are winnable - some just have very high prices.

[Mattey]

Afghanistan and Iraq are un-winnable because the goal isn't occupation. The goal is to change ideology, you can't win that by killing as many soldiers as civilians.

And because we use modern warfare techniques (targeted bombs in heavily populated area) collateral damage is inevitable. Changing ideology amongst a population is hard enough when you aren't killing innocents.

If the goal was to kill them and take over their land, it would be winnable with a heavy cost. As is, the goal is so nebulous, that it is un-winnable.

Edit: How do you win a war with no clear goals? What is the end-zone we must reach to have won a war in Iraq? Is there one?

[genocidal]

The goal of those wars isn't to change ideology, it's to eradicate enemies. That is always possible, but like I said very costly. It would probably require hundreds of thousands of troops combing through the entire country and killing with impunity in order to stamp out terror cells/prospective terror cells. Even then, you may still need to just kill them all to make sure. Or perhaps cripple them and then set up a Marshall Plan-type deal to ensure there are no hard feelings. Like I said, very high price - in money and human lives.

Only fake wars like War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and to an extent the War on Terror are unwinnable because you can't end something that always, and probably necessarily, persists.

[Mattey]

The goal of those wars isn't to change ideology, it's to eradicate enemies. That is always possible, but like I said very costly. It would probably require hundreds of thousands of troops combing through the entire country and killing with impunity in order to stamp out terror cells/prospective terror cells. Even then, you may still need to just kill them all to make sure. Or perhaps cripple them and then set up a Marshall Plan-type deal to ensure there are no hard feelings. Like I said, very high price - in money and human lives.

The very act of trying to stamp out every terror-cell creates more terror cells. Killing with impunity creates more people with anti-american sentiment. How do you not see this?

[Squeezer]

The very act of trying to stamp out every terror-cell creates more terror cells. Killing with impunity creates more people with anti-american sentiment. How do you not see this?

He does, which is why he'll probably agree that both wars are fruitless.

All that he's saying is that there are ways to bomb an ideology out of existence, or at least to a point where people will choose the alternative rather than being murdered. See Germany, who still fought bitterly for Nazism, while Russians and Americans were crossing the Rhine together and then a couple of years later when they were eager to accept greenbacks from General Marshall so they didn't starve. If you own your enemy and their only means of getting resources, you can control their tendencies.