i got the feeling that they simply gave him the peace prize because it is trendy to like obama. obama has done nothing to deserve the nobel peace prize, and in fact he is sending more troops. the prize is rendered completely meaningless if it is used like this, imo. i think it is pretty telling that they didn't cite a specific case in their reason for awarding him the prize.
",and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." For those who claim that Obama has done nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, above extract is taken from Alfred Nobel's will about his Peace Prize criteria. We all know that Nobel Prizes are given annually. And whether you support or not, Obama's election was the hottest topic of the last year among others for obvious and not so obvious reasons. Because basically everyone gathered different meanings from this election, everybody expected different things. For some, even seeing Obama's inauguration speech was the single most important "big event" in their entire lives. Anyway... If we go back to Alfred Nobel's will, it states that "shall have done the most or the best work". Within the period of last year, can you think of anybody else in public eyes (the laboratories of "peace", not physics, not chemistry) who has done "better" -see, not necessarily the most- job than Obama did. Do you know any other name (in last year) who has been carried his or her messages of hope, negotiation, peace, agreement, cooperation better than Obama did? Has anybody made a better or more contribution to decrease the world's ongoing political tension more than Obama did since he was elected? Could anybody enlighten us about this mystery name? The second part of the will raises more specific criteria: "for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". I think it would be unfair to claim that Obama did not do anything in this department. He at least stopped European defence shield project and has been sending negotiation signals to anyone interested without imposing preconditions. I don't know what is your criteria for deserving Nobel, but some reminders: Nobel Prize is not given by some God-like creatures, it is a secular prize within the humanly possible activities. And Peace Prize is not given to person who stopped all wars and clashes in the world (that would be the very last Peace prize before its abolution) , it is given to those who has made considerable "efforts" and/or "contributions" towards peaceful methods and ideas. If person occupies an effective position (respected writer, artist or politician), his/her effect will necessarily reach more people that's right, but I think this is the whole idea: Reaching more people. Personally, it does not really matter for me if Obama has a Nobel Prize or not. What I care is simple: Until Obama's election, I had a feeling that world and America were in the hands of dark forces, and we were all open to any sort of irregularities, deceptions, dangers and who-knows-what previous administration and it's allies might have cooked for us. Today I don't feel that way. Peace is about feelings, especially feelings of security, nothing to do with numbers or physics.
Yet, absolutely nothing has changed. Lots of promises, no action. Peace is not about feelings. It`s about ending war, abuses, aggression and addressing injustices. None of which have occurred.
This thing "absolutely nothing has changed" is utterly and totally impossible in known universe. Things move in galactic and planatery level, new people born and new technologies emerge every day; shortly, nothing remains same, especially "absolutely" same... And yes, peace is simply about feelings, between two individuals, two or more groups of people, or among nations. If I don't sense any hostility, any threat or any other signal against my existence, I am in peace with you. It can be temporary, but still makes me to deal with other things in this life, or spend time, money or energy on other things for nations. What does it give me this feeling? A nice person, an agreement, a shared benefit or culture, a common cause, or anything that does not alert me against you. If you feel the same way, this is peace. What you have listed (actual ceasefires, disarmament, etc.) will only improve and get real when the feelings are mutual. We are apes, not machines; we work with feelings. If we don't "feel right" we even seriously consider sending nukes to our neighbours; if we feel right we don't mind if you are having sex with our cousins. Simple as that...
You are correct. Nothing remains the same. Every day innocent people caught up in Obama`s pointless wars, purpose of which as yet undefined, are torn to shreds, mutilated and murdered as their loved ones look on in horror, and wonder why? And through no fault of their own. The touchy, feely, karmaspeak does not stop the bullets. But they could be stopped by making choices based on humanistic principles instead of geo- political games. As yet, Obama has chosen not to. What? :m:
It does. Check out Mahatma Ghandi's life. He organised his society alongside what you call "touchy, feely, and karmaspeak principles" and gained independence against armed British Empire (yes he was ironically killed by violence, so was Martin Luther King, this is not the point; point is their efficient peaceful methods in other people's lives). And mocking these principle will not make any contribution to principle of peace, it will just legitimize the bombs and bullets. Because "guns don't kill people, I kill people with guns".
And look what happened to India... It fought wars against its neighbors, remained one of the most inequitable societies on earth and eventually, in the form of Indira Ghandi, allowed itself to be co-opted and influenced by the Soviet KGB.
If you lot are seeing peaceful methods -or the idea of means of conduct between humans without war- so unrealistic, impossible, a politics of deception, or something an unachievable practice; So why do you care so much if Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize, or he did not? It's a fantasy anyway...
NO DOUBT!! They take pride in being "independent"?:wtf: Well, maybe they WANTED to give it Gao Zhisheng, but since he's disappeared and maybe dead or something, they may as well give it to someone they can actually find and deliver it to. A celebrity or something... This Nobel debacle (and that's what I'll call it from now on since I see no other fitting term for it) is seriously one of the stupidest things I've heard of in quite a while. I would dearly love to give Obama an award, as well! I call it the Pied Piper Award! It's for people who play the pipe and entrance the masses in a meaningful, transformative way! It's for people who talk the talk, and, rather than walk the walk, take a sporty private jet to some fancy closed meeting of elitists whose only interests are those of furthering their own interests all the more! YEAH!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And to the bravely open-minded Nobel Committee, I will gladly give the Piece of My Fist Award! YEAH!!!!
Wow! it seems you have quite a lot of problems with th Turks in general and Mr. Erdogan in particular.. But I still support my idea.
There will always be about 50% who will oppose Obama policies no matter what he does. That is the nature of our two party system. And that 50% is a lot of people. It is amazing that Rush Limbaugh did not have a heart attack.
Actually, it's probably closer to 30 - 35% - the party base. A lot of people who generally vote Republican have kept an open mind and a lot of people who consider themselves Republicans think the current Republican party is shit, they were just waiting for a Democrat who would do a better job.
He is physically escalating conflict in Afghanistan, (with major spillover into Pakistan) as opposed to the option of withdrawing and dialogue. Using terms such as a war of necessity, without clarifying with substance, what is so necessary, is telling.
Do you think Karzai should walk around Afghanistan in a robe, espousing loving, rather then fighting the invaders? :m: You are sadly deluded. I am all for pacifism, but this is not a realistic view of this particular situation. The conflict in Afghanistan, and the bulk of violence can be stemmed with a simple decision to withdraw foreign forces. Sadly the US is more concerned with losing face than losing lives.
I agree with quad here. Withdrawing forces would simply mean that the Taliban would press their advantage. Can not the people themselves be consulted about their own future?
