Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize

Post by 1010011010 » Fri, Oct 09, 2009, 4:31 PM UTC

jakkals wrote: post #103

olefoo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is correct, we have not closed the prison camp at Guantanamo, nor have we ceased extraordinary renditions, nor apparently have we ceased to commit torture as a matter of policy. While the Nobel Peace Prize is by it's very nature a political tool intended to promote the political goal it is named for; in this case it feels rather premature. It does seem like an award that was directed more against his predecessor…

"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

Post by eru » Fri, Oct 09, 2009, 4:51 PM UTC

boredguy8 wrote: post #133

asmithmd1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think it does. When chatting with my new barber he mentioned that his brother is a priest - and then quickly had to add the disclaimer that "but he is ok." It is a shame that being a priest in the Boston area is now linked with being a pedophile

That other people also think shoddily / fallaciously doesn't make it any more valid. Plus, that's not responsive to my point. If 50% of cops are corrupt, when meeting any given cop, there may be a 50% chance that they're corrupt. But if it turns out upon meeting this cop you find out she saved thousands of lives and is the model of virtue, the badness of other cops in no way diminishes her accomplishments. If anythin…

Post by Maktab » Fri, Oct 09, 2009, 5:30 PM UTC

logicalmind wrote: post #179

shrikant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by daniel-cussen » Fri, Oct 09, 2009, 5:54 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #28

tsally wrote: post #9

Gandhi died before he was awarded the Peace Prize, even though he was nominated five times. Obama gets it less than a year into his Presidency? I like Obama, but that's just wrong.

Yep. It should be a prize for achievement, not for intentions. The Nobel Prize has just devalued considerably.

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Oct 09, 2009, 6:40 PM UTC

berntb wrote: post #187

gaius wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…