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.
Kissinger, Begin, and Sadat all won it in the 70s. It's had zero credibility since then.
Which is a pity, because the clear purpose is to encourage rather than necessarily always to reward, and Obama's intentions definitely seem to be good.
I very much doubt global warming is a hoax. A majority of scientists in climatology and related fields seem to believe in global warming (though there is disagreement over many of the details, most significantly the degree and that one can vary widely.) Even if they have gotten it wrong, which is a real possibility, I very much doubt that anyone did it with intention to deceive or create a hoax.
Note that I am not making any statements one way or another about "An Inconvenient Truth" or Al Gore or his receipt of the nobel prize. What I am saying is that from my layman's perspective it seems that there is at least some truth to global warming and that even if it is indeed not true then that would be a scientific error, not a hoax.
In my personal opinion is devalued when they gave it to Al-Gore for making a scare-tactic film on global warming :) (Im not commenting on global warming at all BTW - that is another issue - but the film was pure scare tactic bullshit, which devalued the issue more than raising any awareness. Stuff like that shouldn't be awarded :()
I do agree; the only thing I can think is that Obama has achieved quite a bit so far (getting elected in the first place for example). But your right - at least wait till hes had his term(s) and then consider...
All the reports quote a Nobel guy saying they are doing it to support his ideas/ideals - so it looks like a political move.
By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one institution.
So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did that.
From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize:
"The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations."
So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ?
I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'
"By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one institution."
That's just a part/whole fallacy. The badness of what some priests did to boys doesn't devalue what Mother Theresa did by virtue of them both being Catholic.
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, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.
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.
But it does devalue the institution of the Catholic Church as a whole. Just as this prize may devalue the Nobel Prize idea, but doesn't touch one bit what other individuals who received the prize did.
Sure, the institution may be devalued, but that's not the claim being made. The claim is, "the others get devalued as well." Feynman's work in QED is no less amazing today than it was the day before yesterday, and the Nobel no more or less an appropriate prize.
The Catholic Church doesn't control the actions of its priests and nuns. However, it does protect its priests and as an institution it devalues it. As Teresa was neither protected by the Church, nor acting under direct supervision of the church, it doesn't devalue her actions.
However the Nobel committee has complete oversight and control over where these prizes go, the prizes aren't capable of deciding where they go, so a devaluing of the committee devalues the prize.
If the Nobel committee brought out an award for mathematics everybody would think it's about damn time. However if they brought one out for creationist research, not a single scientist on the planet would ever want a Nobel Prize again.
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 anything, it highlights them because of their rarity for that population. Similarly, the Pope could be the Antichrist or whatever: it still doesn't diminish the achievements of one particular nun.
Einstein's Nobel has no tarnish on it because the Committee gave Obama one.
Especially since the Nobel Peace Price is awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament. All other comittees are Swedish. Alfred Nobel's intention with this was to improve Sweden-Norway relations.
Krugman, as an op-ed columnist, is a complete and total wanker.
Krugman, as an economist, did a great deal to further the field (although he has since forgotten these things, apparently). Economists who I respect feel that his prize was deserved.
They gave it to Arafat, Kissinger and quite a few other warmongers, so it didn't have that much value to lose.
Although it's a tad bit early and it would have been nicer as a reward for peace-making achievements, he also embodies the world's achievements in the struggle against racism and governance of old white men.
Yes, quote the guy who brought in caste-based reservation in India. Quote the guy who wanted a separate electorate for Dalits and other religious communities. Quote the guy who did not understand Gandhi !
Now there is 49.5% reservation now in educational institutions in India, yes 49.5% !!, because that's the highest allowed by the constitution, otherwise they would have gone higher. It's something similar to "affirmative action" in the US, but totally taken over by politicians to play electoral politics, to pump in the votes from the lower sections of society.
Gandhi had the vision to understand that caste-based reservations would lead to caste-based politics and further affirmation of casteism in India, Ambedkar never could fathom that, or maybe he could and ignored it!
Anyway, please don't quote someone who didn't understand the ideas or vision of Gandhi, please don't.
"Please, a more credible source and better context too. I have hard time believing Ambedkar actually said that."
Ok, Here goes.
"Abandoning all these sober considerations Mr. Gandhi came out as an, open enemy of the Untouchables. How can the Untouchables regard such a man as their friend and ally?"
"Thus ended the efforts by the Minorities Committee to bring about a solution of the communal problem. The discussion in the Committee threw Mr. Gandhi's attitude to the Untouchables in relief. Everybody felt that Mr. Gandhi was the most determined enemy of the Untouchables."
Not literally the same statement, but similar in sentiment. Google is your friend.
That Ambedkar regarded Gandhi is a pious fraud and hypocrite is well known to students of Indian History. That doesn't make Gandhi an "enemy of the untouchables" , but yes Ambedkar thought so at times, and said so at times.
As a citizen of a foreign country (not US) I think I can understand the logic that went into the Nobel Prize Committee's decision.
Prior to Obama, some people in the international community had grown disenfranchised, resentful, bitter and distant with the US. I'd like to say it was a great number or a majority of people, but I don't have a study or link to back this up. This is just from my experience.
The accomplishment that Obama did, which for US citizens might seem inconsequential, is that they made us (the international community) look at the US with fondness. Changing people's mind is a powerful accomplishment.
Obama's administration made people have faith in US leadership and that once again the international community's voice would be heard by the lone reigning super power in the world.
This isn't a "concrete" accomplishment like publishing a paper, stopping a war or ending an oppressive regime. But it is nonetheless a relevant and important event in the course of international politics. By positively changing the political climate Obama has achieved something that the US had failed to do for many years.
Honestly, I don't understand all of the hate. Peace itself is an ideal, a goal we should aim for but most likely will never achieve (at least not on a global scale), and Obama's intentions and steps in that direction have spoken louder than many others this year.
Obama seems to be a good man with good intent. Awarding him the Peace prize without a clear representation for a big problem he has helped solve does seem out of place. Al Gore didn't actually solve a problem either. Well, unless you count inventing the Internet ;).
The only interpretation I can offer is the Nobel committee wants to show its support for Obama. The 2010 elections are going to be the worst circus we've seen in a long time.
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 understand the motivation behind the prize. Politically, with the Nobel Prize behind him Obama gains a lot of capital. People will be less willing to argue with him, bad press against him quiets down, and he's freer to do what he wants without the insane hostility he faces today. I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
> People will be less willing to argue with him, bad press against him quiets down, and he's freer to do what he wants without the insane hostility he faces today.
So, basically you think the Nobel Peace Prize gives Obama the right to achieve his entire political agenda without any form of opposition? Right....
> I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
> 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 newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
> 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 newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
Are you the person behind those bumper stickers? The ones that say, "If you aren't completely appalled, yada yada"? Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.
> 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.
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.
I think it just might be for the opposite reasons. Everyone in my circle likes Obama and voted for Obama but this is that moment in which everyone is "WTF".
This might be to make him lose credibility. Just my conspiracy theory.
He also gets it while USA are in two wars (wars which have very little to do with peace and most likely related to oil and revenge). Anyhow, I like Obama as well, but giving him a peace award is just too early.
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.
The war in Afghanistan was a reaction on 9/11, an act to get a small group of people called Al-Qaeda - - attacking a whole country because of a group of people is a revenge act. The war on Iraq was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction), was not with the support from U.N. Iraq ranks as the third in the world in oil supplies - - Iraq's oil is one of the first things that invasive army protected and one of the only things that will be protected in the future as the invasive army moves out.
One can say the US wanted to protect the "people" and it's classy, but there are other places that need a lot more help (like Congo, where over 5.4 million people have died in/because of war since 1998).
"The war in Afghanistan was a reaction on 9/11, an act to get a small group of people called Al-Qaeda - " who were sheltered by the Taliban, then the ruling government in Afghanistan.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
I'm happy for him, and I'm glad to be rid of Bush too, but isn't that a little premature ?
Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gorbachev made sense at the time, but plenty of these nobel prizes seem to be very politically motivated and not because of actual achievement.
For instance, Al Gore won the prize, as did Yassar Arafat.
MLK gets imprisoned, shot at, fire bombed and beaten. Encourages millions to stand with him at non violent civil disobedience actions. Millions do so DESPITE the fact that they will be imprisoned and beaten.
Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'.
Gorbachev. OK, when was the last time American school children practiced what to do in case of nuclear attack? Anyone remember 'civil defense fallout shelters'? I didn't think so.
Obama . . . WTF?!?!?!
Diplomacy between peoples . . . WTF!?!?! Did Israel and Iran give up their nukes and I missed it? Did the Palestinians stop slaughtering Israelis and vice-versa?
Alright, alright, those are too much. How about something simpler? Can I go to Cuba, drink rum, and lay on a beach just because, without having a US government Customs Agent detain me on my return?
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 overthrowing the state it would have been a mess at that time.
Mandela was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the ANC). While he does not bear personal responsibility (since he was in prison) Umkhonto we Sizwe did quite a few despicable things during the struggle.
Also, Robben Island (where Mandela spent the majority of his time) isn’t that notorious. Many prisoners of the struggle era were kept there and many of them obtained degrees while in prison (from UNISA). I would much rather be incarcerated in Robben Island than today’s Pollsmoor prison.
Whatever the argument, he still deserved a prize (as did FW de Klerk) for the negotiated settlement that brought about the first multi-racial elections.
You didn't answer my questions. Specifically, was the violent resistance justified in WWII?
It is easy for someone to be a pacifist when they don't worry about violence on a daily basis because the most powerful military in the world protects them.
"If the choice is between cowardice and violence, I advice violence" - Gandhi
Hard to believe, the guy didn't do nothing yet , he has no achievements just successful talk show appearance, I am afraid that the fact he is pushing U.S. to the edge had a big weight in that decision.
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...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters.
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.
Spot on. I wish we lived in a world where he could openly acknowledge this:
"I want to thank first and foremost my predecessor, George W. Bush, without whose service as a stark contrast, I could not have won this prize (nor, perhaps, the presidency)"
Worth noting that ol' Dubya was the only POTUS willing to appear publicly with the Dalai Lama, at the risk of offending China. Clinton didn't, tho' he did meet him, and Obama has refused to even meet him (see link on my other comment).
Google Tibetan history and see what sorts of "religious order" he wants to implement in Tibet. Chinese are an occupying force there, sure, but the Dalai Lama, if he was no the leader of Tibet, would absolutely deserve a coup and summary hanging.
Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.”24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.
For many reasons, I have decided that I will not be the head of, or play any role in the government when Tibet becomes independent. The future head of the Tibetan Government must be someone popularly elected by the people. There are many advantages to such a step and it will enable us to become a true and complete democracy. I hope that these moves will allow the people of Tibet to have a clear say in determining the future of their country.
What contrast? Other than the fact that Obama doesn't snuggle up with the religious right, I don't see any significant difference between these two guys. A lot of perceived differences, sure. A D instead of an R, yeah. But judging by their far-reaching policy decisions, say, on war, personal freedom, privacy rights, transparency - not so much.
Obama has been noticeably quiet about the mess he inherited. From what I can see he's doing his damnest to raise the level of discourse, no small feat given the politics of his opponents.
No, he's not George Bush, notice also he's not Bill Clinton, nor Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter.
In contrast, Arizona State University actually withheld giving Obama an honorary degree normally awarded to visiting speakers on the ground that his main achievements are yet to come:
Obama spent years at the U of Chicago law school, a place that publishes by the pound. He didn't publish a single paper the entire time he was there. My guess is that's why they withheld the honorary degree.
I'd like someone to inform me of one accomplishment of his that warrants his receiving of the award. And pushing a catchy a slogan of 'change,' to get elected, isn't one of them.
The predominant sentiment here seems to be Obama is a bad guy. I'm not saying he deserves the peace prize, but he didn't ask for it, nor, I'm sure, do anything he has done in pursuit of it. He didn't "push a catchy slogan of change" to get elected, at least, not the way you portray it. He adopted his "change" mantra from his earliest days as a politician, actually as a community group organizer. He sympathized with the disconnect he saw with poverty stricken blacks in Chicago contrasted with the wealth, indifference, and apparent self-interest of high level American politics. That's why he has repeatedly reminded fellow politicians of a duty to actually serve the people, and done things like put limits on staff salaries. The "change" message was coincidentally on time, and took on new meaning in light of Bush's performance, but not something he cooked up at the last minute.
Edit: for those voting me down would you please delineate which of my points you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.
"The predominant sentiment here seems to be Obama is a bad guy"
You got this wrong. Most of them are only questioning the thought-process of the nobel committee (in awarding the prize to Obama) and not of Obama, the person.
I was surprised (and pissed off) and wanted to check who the contenders were and this is what the website had to say:
Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.
When I read the title, I thought it was a link bait, until I clicked.
may be, the Nobel Prize association is under new 'management'?
I thought the Nobel prize was given to accomplishments rather than ideas. I really like Obama, but isn't it bit too early?
I'm hopeful that this prize provides a needed boost to his efforts. Obama has made great progress in restoring America's role in the world. He has the opportunity to make great progress on world peace and this prize is a strong vote of confidence in those efforts.
Well done! I'll be curious to see where he donates the money, though he's not a wealthy man financially, he might want to keep some of it.
Both his books have sold millions of copies. The Clintons are now worth well over $100 million, just from giving speeches.
Al Gore left office worth about $2 million and is now worth over $100 million from a combination of his global warming book, movie, and speeches and various board directorships, including at Apple and at Kosla's VC fund. Obama will scrape by somehow.
I was just in Europe for the past few weeks and many people asked me about Obama. It seems that in Europe they are still in the honeymoon phase, whereas in the US it's moved on to the fighting through policy phase. None of the Obama supporters I know in the US still have that post election glow because the debates over health care and such are raging so hard. Europe isn't really touched by that so the honeymoon seems to be lasting longer.
I was very surprised that he got this award right now, but knowing how many of the Europeans seem to still feel, I was less surprised.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee have done the world an important service today, by reminding us how meaningless and fickle most awards are, no matter how much prestige they are supposed to carry.
Pres. Obama pushed for diplomacy with enemies when it was politically risky for him. I think this was both right and courageous. But they should have waited till his diplomatic efforts bore some fruit to give him a Nobel. Awarding it now shows remarkable lack of faith in him AND diplomacy.
Way to jump the shark, Nobel peace prize committee!
They jumped the shark when they gave the prize to a boastfully-amoral purveyor of warmongering realpolitik in 1973, an unrepentant terrorist in 1994, an ineffective cronyist international kleptocrat in 2001, a self-aggrandizing bigoted apologist for dictators in 2002, and a scientifically-illiterate shill in 2007. Jumping the shark is what they do.
I'm not sure its a club the President wants to join, at least not this early in a first term.
Well in his defense it's not like he asked for it. Gibbs first response to the news was "Wow". I think they are smart enough to know that far from being a feather in their cap this is a potential PR crisis on their hands.
Was it really politically risky? Everyone I know didn't like the Bush administration foreign policy. The only places he'd alienate by his policy were places that were going against anyways, but he picked up a lot of swing voters who care about America's international reputation.
Saying "We should seek everyone's support in the iraq war" is not politically risky but saying "We should talk with Iran no matter what" really is risky in the US.
_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
Posted by AP 6 hours ago. Clearly they knew this would create controversy.
Obama got the prize for the simple fact that he is not bush. His doctrine is one of engagement and diplomacy. The people in Oslo clearly stated that they meant for the prize to make his doctrine permeate the status quo. I agree that it's a bit too early for him to get it but the prize was clearly political.
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.
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.
The two people who ever declined to accept the award where both socialist revolutionaries; Sartre and Le Duc Tho. He is not prepared to be in their league.
Here is the issue. The US government has tremendous power over world affairs. Norwegian politicians don't typically have much of a say in the decisions of the US government. But the Nobel Peace Prize is a way for them to have some influence, so they use it for this purpose.
Obama, Imma let you finish, but Kissinger was the worst pick of all time!
A great review of the prize committee's choice @ http://technopolis.blogspot.com/
A bunch of the nobel prize winners have been posted here over the past few days. True, this one is more politically charged, but it seems to fit within that trend.
Any mention of Obama or Bush or Ron Paul or whoever, is pretty much bound to devolve into controversy of a more or less unenlightening and, all too often, unenlightened nature.
I agree with the general sentiments that the award is probably premature but I think the general nature of the award lends itself to situations such as these.
An award has to be given out every year and the world does not produce ghandis at that rate so the people who have made profound achievements will have to share the award with those who've done less.
This does diminish the achievements of the greats in a sense but that's just how the system works and the fact that we can't really point to anyone else who obviously deserved the award more than Obama suggests that he may have been the best choice after all.
Nobel prize recipients are called beforehand and asked if they'll accept before being announced publicly. Actually, most major awards are these days, as it removes the, "Thanks but no thanks, your cause is bankrupt" responses which tend to be embarrassing.
The committee is probably thinking Obama will now need to live up to the prize--if is isn't a real peacemaking dude from here out, people will certainly whine.
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.
Obama chose to accept the award when he had ample opportunity to decline it (and earn plenty of PR points for being magnanimous in the process). He accepted it, so he should get an equal share of the criticism.
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 than one that he is inherently deserving of.
After helping to end World War I and having done his utmost to secure a fair and lasting peace in Europe, including being instrumental in founding the League of Nations.
I like Obama, but what has he done so far to compare to that?
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.
Don't think of things in terms of our current timeframe. What he has done in the last 8 months don't count toward this. The nominations for the prize were due roughly two weeks after Pres. Obama assumed office.
At that point in time, there was virtually nothing that he could claim to have accomplished, no matter how trivial.
> 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 marbles.
But to give him a prize for that belies the people that have in some cases paid with their lives for achieving their goals, and then to be awarded their 'prize' 30 years after the fact.
There should be some honour in being awarded a prize, this is more like an incentive to keep going.
Though he is developing a bit of the old "Foot in mouth" syndrome.
Kanye West comment, Racial card and calling police "stupid" before knowing the facts, et cetera.
Bound to happen when you're in the spotlight and decide to have an opinion on something, but one of those was a public comment made directly to the press.
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.
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 needs to pass to figure in the side effects of all the good intentions. If it still stands you can have your prize.
Less than a year into a presidency that has already lost a lot of its luster is premature by any standards.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one, I'm simply saying that he has to earn it and has not earned it yet. By far.
Well, apparently he has, but after this I can't see anybody taking winning the Nobel Prize for Peace as a real achievement.
If there was really nobody deserving it more than Obama this year then maybe they should have simply skipped a year.
Makes you wonder who the other nominees were. Is there a list of that ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> "CIA officials went to the White House and said they had 'specific, predictive, actionable' intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. 'It was a rare occurrence,' Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however -- August 20, 1998 -- nearly coincided with Clinton's deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of 'wagging the dog' in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. 'Don't you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,' Clinton said, according to Clarke. 'You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?' Clarke thought it was. 'Then fucking do it,' Clinton told him."
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.
You do realize that 4 out of those 6 things you listed are nothing more than his desires and wishes, and number 6 is giving him credit for not doing something? Hell, I have at least 50 wishes to make the world better, and a list twice that long of things I haven't done.
You break it you get to buy it. It's amazing that so many people bought in to that stuff under Bush, I always thought that if there is one thing America will forever have to live with then it is Gitmo. Just like the Dutch have their colonial crimes and the Germans have world war II.
Some things can not be excused. Keeping people imprisoned without due process is such a crime that history will definitely remember, and that's besides the 'details' such as torturing them.
And doing it on foreign soil so you can pretend it's not an American thing is even more disgusting. If you do a thing like that at least have the balls to do it in your own country. And if that is impossible then don't do it.
Someone ought to end up in the Hague over that one.
USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended.
What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric.
> USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that?
Good point, so maybe upgrade the US prisons to Guantanamo Bay standards ?
> Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended.
But it isn't a war. Besides that, even if it was there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war. 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.
> What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric.
This we fully agree on. Even torture can be outsourced it seems. But I think that does not remove the responsibility for it.
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. without breaking the Geneva Convention (which doesn't even apply in this case - it requires both sides to be signatories, and the Taliban aren't).
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...
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.
> 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.
Answering straw men was never a requirement. You made that link, it never was in what I wrote.
Also, as I've written twice and you haven't commented:
All democracies I know of that had terror problems (Germany, Italy, USA, Israel, Great Britain) at least walked a thin line on human rights for the terrorists.
It seems governments would be voted out in democracies if they didn't answer attacks on voters without using all measures.
There is a pattern here. My guess is that the reason is that terror problems are similar to civil wars, which are generally acknowledged to be dirtier than coal power plants.
No, you don't have to like it. I don't either, but I don't compare modern democracies to Nazis.
The only real solution I can see is to work towards more democracy in the world -- and hope the democratic peace theory isn't a fluke...
(Sorry for answering late. It was Friday evening and I try to fake having a life.)
>>Good point, so maybe upgrade the US prisons to Guantanamo Bay standards ?
That was as an answer to your original description of Guantanamo as equally shocking as the mass murders of Jews/Gypsies in WW II.
I would, without doing a Devil's Advocate, describe that position as lacking a sense of proportions.
>>But it isn't a war.
It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
>>So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war.
But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
Edit: Grammar, sigh.
Edit: Historically, all countries I know of with terror problems (USA, Germany, Israel, Italy, Great Britain, etc) has played loose with human rights interpretations. I don't see a reason to judge the US harsher than others.
> That was as an answer to your original description of Guantanamo as of an equal shocking standard as the mass murders of Jews/Gypsies in WW II.
> I would, without doing a Devil's Advocate, describe that position as lacking a sense of proportions.
I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
> It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
From the wikipedia article on the 'war' in Afghanistan:
"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[42]
The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[43] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners"
So, to call it war is not clear cut. A war is something that is declared between nation states and the conflict in Afghanistan misses quite a few of the pre-requisites.
For the people in the region the difference is much less important, but in international law such things do matter.
> But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
> I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
Apparently they were allowed to visit off-and-on during the Bush years, and then restricted in all kinds of ways, since Obama came to power this has changed but it is unclear whether they now have full access to the facility, I can't find any evidence of that.
I'm not American -- don't just assume people's nationality because you don't like their arguments.
>>I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
See the note above, re that all countries I know of with terror problems thread on the limits of human rights.
>>The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers,
Afghanistan is a conflict against organized units which as standard behavior do terror attacks against civilians and misuse civilian dress.
Anyway, it is continuing military operations since the invasion 2001, where the term is used in the standard press.
I don't have a problem with the Afghan invasion -- and neither do neutral countries like Sweden which send soldiers there.
If you harbor terrorists which attack other countries' civilians, you might get invaded. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing -- it is an incentive for countries to not destabilize other countries.
>>So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
Check spr.org. How popular do you think these people would be, if put in US prisons?
Second, I do honestly think the judgment on US here is harsher than e.g. the British and their handling of IRA, etc.
Third, desecrating religious objects isn't illegal in civilized countries. (And is it really documented?)
Fourth, lots of the stories coming from Guantanamo prisoners are certainly made up. There are innocent people incarcerated (all prisons have that). The guilty are in the terror business -- which is more or less the propaganda business.
Some will say there is no place for politics on HN, on one hand it is right it is likely the technological site but on the other all the stuff we do has so much influence on the society that we can stay apolitical.
I am watching Glenn Beck show on Fox News every evening, he revealed that Obama has inserted a bunch of Marxist into the white house, fellows that admires Hugo Chavez , Lenin , Che and other nice dictators that are responsible for most of the blood in last century.
No one here is going to defend Glen Beck, so at best it would just be a one-sided conversation congratulating ourselves for realizing how irrational he is. This doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time.
I wouldn't be so sure. Which would turn it into an exasperating thread, and be an even bigger waste of time, and change no one's opinions. Which is what 99% of politics discussions are on the internet.
that Gitmo is not yet closed is not Obama's fault. In the US almost nobody wants to take the prisoners. The whole thing is a total mess.
What the Nobel price really means: Obama needs more support and less obstruction. The old elites don't give up just because one guy gets elected. The struggle against the military-industrial complex, the neocons, the conservative lunatics, etc. will be long. Plus the US is not prepared for deep structural reforms (like getting rid of the two party system, getting rid of commercialized prisons, getting rid of a fake economy, really reducing the military budget, etc.).
It is a sign from the international community that his intentions are recognized as going in the right directions, now people need to work with him to get stuff done. Like the russians and the chinese leaders need to really reduce the nuclear arsenals. Other leaders need to understand how useless these weapons are today.
Congratulations Americans. Above all, this award is a recognition that the United States still stands for something unique.
(It's hard to imagine the Peace Prize going to any other major political leader currently in office. Hu Jintao? Dmitry Medvedev? José Manuel Barroso? Nah.)
