Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

nobelpeaceprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 218 posts

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#171

Post by gaius »

felixc wrote: post #167
gaius wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war. You have to choose and then play by those rules. Inventing new terms ("enemy combatants") isn't going to convince anybody but the most gullible. The term is "unlawful combatant" and has the meaning of someone on the battlefield out of uniform. In the case of spies, they can be summarily executed perfectly legally - i.e. withou…

Certainly the Geneva Convention doesn't have legal force in this case, but I like to think that one can aspire to high standards of behaviour without the threat of legal sanction. In other words, do we obey Geneva Convention rules because we're forced to, or because it's right?

Well, I agree, we are supposed to be the "good guys".

But in response to "there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war" - those guidelines, by their own definition, carry no legal weight in this context. Since the Taliban fighters are not uniformed members of the Army of a Geneva Convention signatory, they aren't actually "prisoners of war" for a start...

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#172

Post by jacquesm »

thismat wrote: post #138
jacquesm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like he had a whole lot of choice there, the missile shield was one of the biggest and stupidest mistakes of GWB (outside of invading Iraq and squandering the world wide ocean of goodwill the US could tap from after 9/11). Recipe for getting a nobel prize: Undo your predecessors stupidity. We should be getting to parity first, then we should improve beyond where we were roughly 9 years ago, then some time ne…

Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?

Because they do nothing to remove any threat that we are currently experiencing, cost an enormous amount of money, lead to strife within the EU, put money in to the pockets of US defense contractors that could be spent better in more constructive ways and that are based on the flawed principle of the 100% kill rate, which means that when the time comes to deploy you simply overwhelm them.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#173

Post by jacquesm »

patio11 wrote: post #58
AndrewDucker wrote: post #24

So, basically he gets an award for not being George Bush?

This makes him the second American president to get a Peace Prize for not being George Bush, which the head of the Nobel Committee actually admitted to reporters when Carter got the award. I stopped caring about their opinion on anything after that. But the chairman of the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee said bluntly that the award was meant to slam Bush's policy on Iraq. "With the position Carter has taken...(th…

If I would have been in Carters shoes (which clearly I'm not), I would have returned the award with the next postal delivery. It almost turns into a negative prize, you get it for no achieving something bad instead of achieving good.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#174

Post by unalone »

lrm242 wrote: post #147
unalone wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, basically you think the Nobel Peace Prize gives Obama the right to achieve his entire political agenda without any form of opposition? Right.... No, but it gives him a certain authority. When the right is going batshit insane like it is now, I'd like anything to help counter that we can get. > Oh, I understand now. Thanks for sharing. If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a…

> No, but it gives him a certain authority. When the right is going batshit insane like it is now, I'd like anything to help counter that we can get. Unfortunately, it only grants the premonition of authority, to be used as a tool by his supporters to push his agenda. Rightly so, but don't confuse this anything more than a political tool. > If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a…

> Rightly so, but don't confuse this anything more than a political tool.

That's what I was suggesting: They're doing this because of politics, because they think it will help. I don't hold faith in Nobel Prizes myself, but I agree with their decision if it works.

> Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.

The Republican party is wretched upon even a cursory glance. This is the party that attempted to make Palin, the corrupt book-burning governor, vice president of the country. The party that fought universal health care by claiming that Obama wanted death panels deciding who dies. The party whose leaders have said publicly that Obama might not be a U.S. citizen, that Obama is anti-American, that perhaps a military revolt every now and then is a good thing. The party that sided with Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" after Obama said something that was entirely true. The party that is against same-sex marriage because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage, that thinks the United States is a Christian nation, that preaches conservatism while throwing money into foreign wars.

I want a real conservative party and a real liberal party. As it stands, the Democrats are spineless and corrupt, and the Republicans are worse: They are disgusting liars protected only by the faulty media system we've got going.

The Republican Party hurts America, and the sooner they're gone the better.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#175

Post by gaius »

greyman wrote: post #70
jacquesm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique. Yes, he is unique. As is everybody else. Uniqueness is not a reason to give someone a prize, achievement is. And from where I'm sitting the only thing that has changed is that the American President is no longer making a fool of himself on the international stage and hasn't made the rest of the world wonder if he still has all his ma…

Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much worse choices in the past.

I too have not built any missile shields in Eastern Europe.

Prize nao plz?

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#176

Post by unalone »

lionhearted wrote: post #27
mingdingo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. In a vacuum, these things don't sound so great. In today's world, they actually are. Obviously there's something wrong with that, but that's just the way it is.

> You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. Dude, Bush invaded two countries for no particular good reason. Clinton jumped into the middle of a backwards country's tribal civil war to draw attention away from his personal life. Obama can't close a fucking prison? Seriously.

Maybe that's because Obama doesn't want to break federal law like Bush did? You can't criticize Bush for doing illegal things and then turn around and criticize Obama for obeying the law.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#177

Post by thismat »

gloob wrote: post #164
thismat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide factual information the wars most likely relate to oil and revenge. To me the wars are more of a response to America's high state of emotion after 9/11, judging by the amount of people (even in political positions) who at the time agreed to them.

It might just be me, but starting a war as a response to a "high state of emotion" after being attacked is more or less the definition of "revenge". That said, I'm not commenting on the legitimacy or lack thereof of the wars, nor am I commenting on the "oil" part of the question.

Ah, I see the relation you made there. Makes sense given what was said, but every time I hear someone say: "the war was for oil and revenge!" it's always followed up with: "GWB Jr. is just finishing his daddy's work". That is the revenge I was referring to.

I'm also not saying it was a war based on emotion, but that the high tension and emotion levels obviously had a lot to do with it being acceptable at the time. I'd say it was the American peoples revenge though, not the revenge of GWB.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#178

Post by jacquesm »

thismat wrote: post #128

I think this would hold more weight if he hadn't backed down from the missile defense program and instead pushed hard to set it up in key points around the world. What better way to encourage peace then to start building anti-nuke stations around the world to nullify that threat from all parties.

The operative word in there is 'nullify', anything over '0' is not acceptable, and just about everybody agrees that 100% kill rate isn't going to be achievable. So effectively this shield will do exactly nothing, the only thing it guarantees is that if there will be an attack it will be a lot more massive.

Some thing during the cold war, the stockpiles were enormous, not because we needed the power to destroy the world several times over, but because launch facilities might be destroyed.

Also, first strikes will be directed against the areas involved in the missile shield, because after that the rest is wide open.

I see the whole missile defense shield as an attempt to revive the cold war because it's good for defense contractors, those guys made untold billions.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#179

Post by logicalmind »

shrikant wrote: post #34
tomjen2 wrote: post #8

He didn't deserve that - he haven't even closed gitmo yet.

Like someone said on Twitter: I just played Solitaire on my computer. And goddammit Obama won that too.

I agree that he should not have won this award at this time, but is it Obama's fault that they gave him the award? The criticism should be pointed at the selection committee and not the person who received the award. Unfortunately, the news (and commenters) seem to be blaming Obama for receiving the award.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#180

Post by thismat »

jacquesm wrote: post #172
thismat wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?

Because they do nothing to remove any threat that we are currently experiencing, cost an enormous amount of money, lead to strife within the EU, put money in to the pockets of US defense contractors that could be spent better in more constructive ways and that are based on the flawed principle of the 100% kill rate, which means that when the time comes to deploy you simply overwhelm them.

I see your points, I'm curious though, why does it lead to so much strife with the EU? Why isn't defense considered a peaceful action? Was it the location? Or was it because it made them feel like they didn't have that super power anymore?

I understand it doesn't really reduce any real threat we're facing right now, but what about other nations we would be protecting? The smaller countries who don't have nuclear weapons as a defense option?

These are serious questions, not playing devils advocate here, I'm genuinely interested.

Post reply on HN