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

181–190 of 218 posts

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#181

Post by unalone »

gaius wrote: post #120
unalone wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people hold the Nobel Prizes in such esteem. It's like people complaining that Radiohead doesn't win enough at the Grammies, or that people let Slumdog Millionaire win the Best Picture Oscar. Prizes aren't some objective reflection of how good a person is. The Nobel Prize has long been controversial. Why do people still treat it like a prize where its failures are worth criticizing? In this case, I u…

Politically, with the Nobel Prize behind him Obama gains a lot of capital. Not really. I just had a look on the BBC's comments page and the overwhelming reaction is ridicule. Similarly my Facebook newsfeed is full of people wondering WTF.

It's been less than a day since this was announced. You cannot judge the effectiveness of a certain political move that quickly. We'll see the repercussions of this award over weeks and months.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#182

Post by thismat »

jacquesm wrote: post #178
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 wor…

It seems we're talking in two different places about the same subject, haha.

I do see your point, and it does seem logical. It definitely would be nice though to remove the threat of any nuclear attack from or against any nation for the foreseeable future. Though I guess a nuclear strike might be less devastating than years of war in the long run huh? What a chilling world we live in.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#183

Post by jacquesm »

thismat wrote: post #182
jacquesm wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

It seems we're talking in two different places about the same subject, haha. I do see your point, and it does seem logical. It definitely would be nice though to remove the threat of any nuclear attack from or against any nation for the foreseeable future. Though I guess a nuclear strike might be less devastating than years of war in the long run huh? What a chilling world we live in.

True enough. But still, if I have to worry about terrorists and failed states that seems to somehow be more acceptable than to have two superpowers on hair trigger 24x7, where any stupid move or misinterpretation can lead to a huge disaster.

There is a list somewhere of the number of 'close shaves', too long and too close to have any confidence that such a state could be maintained indefinitely. That was just a matter of time.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#184

Post by jacquesm »

thismat wrote: post #180
jacquesm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weap…

Here is my take on that, but it is skewed because of location (EU):

Poland and several other countries in the former east block are still extremely anxious about being on Russias doorstep, and the Americans figured that now was the time to get a foothold there in case there would ever be a 'revival'. Playing in to the fear they promised a shield from anything bad that Russia might be able to do, ostensibly because of the so called rogue states.

But I really don't see N. Korea or Iran attacking Europe, if Iran will do something it will more than likely be against Israel, and if North Korea will do something I'd expect it to be against Japan or South Korea, and most likely conventional against SK, Japan I'm not so sure.

So the threat is magnified for political purposes and to get a foot on the ground right where it kicks the Russians in the teeth. And of course the Russians never played along and named it for what it was.

NATO has some serious firepower in Europe already, but hardly any of it near the old Russian borders and using a popular fiction (that Iran and North Korea are a threat to western Europe) they tried to get their way.

Obama figures it is simply going to cost a bunch of money, increase the tension so better to let it go.

Smart move on his part.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#185

Post by SamAtt »

tedunangst wrote: post #145
jakkals wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only other US president to receive the honor was Jimmy Carter and he received it for his work after he was president" Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Price in 1919 (while he was in office). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

Roosevelt won in 1906, while in office.

For being the driving force behind ending a war that killed almost 200,000 people (just felt someone should make that point)

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#186

Post by thismat »

jacquesm wrote: post #184
thismat wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weap…

Here is my take on that, but it is skewed because of location (EU): Poland and several other countries in the former east block are still extremely anxious about being on Russias doorstep, and the Americans figured that now was the time to get a foothold there in case there would ever be a 'revival'. Playing in to the fear they promised a shield from anything bad that Russia might be able to do, ostensibly because of…

Very informative, I think your take on it, because of your location, leads to a better understanding of the area and the tensions. Helps people like me understand it a little better.

I agree with you that Iran and North Korea definitely don't seem to be a threat against Western Europe, at least not an initial one or immediate one. I was under the impression that the locations for the shields were chosen based on it being able to intercept a multitude of possible strikes against different countries. Obviously the information I've gotten has been minimal and not well researched, which is why I continue to pester you ;).

Given the information you've provided, it seems Obama was indeed making a good decision, that's good news. I am a little curious on what the real threat is already against the US though. It's arrogant to think that we're not being targeted for a large hit, but with the media the way it is it's hard to accurately gauge anything, I tend to err on the side of being overly critical.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#187

Post by berntb »

gaius wrote: post #171
felixc wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I don't disagree with any of the above.

What gets my goat a bit is that you see attacks on Guantanamo for breaking the Geneva Convention (or even, as here, that it is as shocking as the Nazi mass murders!) -- and when it is pointed out that is a non-serious argument, there is never an answer.

I never could stomach propaganda written by people that know better. I like to think "the good guys" should be better than that, too.

Idealists lie, where pathos go in -- integrity go out.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#188

Post by 1010011010 »

boredguy8 wrote: post #152
masomenos wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pet peeve of mine: Teresa was not necessarily the greatest person to walk the earth. From her Wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa ): She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations; however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vish…

Nobody's perfect, and of people well-known in the West, she's at the top of the list. Those flaws certainly don't outweigh the good, and the flaws certainly aren't on the level of child molestation. So absent an alternative that avoids having to take ten minutes to explain who I'm talking about, I'll continue to use that ol' nun.

What good did she do?

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#189

Post by billswift »

viggity wrote: post #157
jakkals wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only other US president to receive the honor was Jimmy Carter and he received it for his work after he was president" Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Price in 1919 (while he was in office). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

The fact that they gave it to Wilson proves that the whole thing has been a farce since it started.

Wilson was the worst president of the 20th century. If it hadn't been for his getting the US involved in the First World War, it is unlikely there would have been a Second.

Re: Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

#190

Post by mcd »

viggity wrote: post #160
mcd wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a few comments (this whole thread is contrary to YCNews policies). > Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'. Nelson Mandela was convicted of trying to overthrow the state by armed means and sabotage. It was not due to non-violent protests and even if the cause was right, armed insurrection is never right. And if he succeeded in overthrow…

Armed insurrection is never warranted? So the Polish resistance during WWII wasn't "right", was George Washington wrong for rebelling against Britain? "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson

I personally feel that killing is almost never warranted. Gandhi did not kill anyone and Desmond Tutu never advocated for violence.

The problem with violence is that everyone feels that their cause justifies it.

Post reply on HN