Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?

cwh wrote: I travel throughout the Caribbean. Obama is wildly popular there. Bush was hated. Big change. Give him time,he will do good.

Hi cwh,

If you’re brought before a court in shackles, what kind of judge would be “popular” with folks in your situation…right, the one that’s soft on crime.

If you’re a car salesman, what kind of customer would be “popular” with your co-workers…right, the one that’s a poor negotiator.

If you’re a citizen in a foreign country, what kind of American President would be “popular” with your co-patriots…I’ll let you finish the sentence.

Well if nothing else, it seems to have made right-wingers understand the silliness of the wars - and the gravity of the human rights violations - Bush started They're all a bunch of anti-war "peaceniks" today!

RX Reven' wrote:

cwh wrote: I travel throughout the Caribbean. Obama is wildly popular there. Bush was hated. Big change. Give him time,he will do good.

Hi cwh, If you’re brought before a court in shackles, what kind of judge would be “popular” with folks in your situation…right, the one that’s soft on crime. If you’re a car salesman, what kind of customer would be “popular” with your co-workers…right, the one that’s a poor negotiator. If you’re a citizen in a foreign country, what kind of American President would be “popular” with your co-patriots…I’ll let you finish the sentence.

Quite a false dichotomy you've set up there. If you're before the court in shackles, sure you'd like a judge who's soft on crime, but you'd also prefer a reasonable, unbiased one over a trigger-happy authoritarian nutjob. Same situation.

GameboyRMH wrote: Well if nothing else, it seems to have made right-wingers understand the silliness of the wars - and the gravity of the human rights violations - Bush started They're all a bunch of anti-war "peaceniks" today!

As a friend of mine who is deeply conservative stated way back when Bush was still in his first term.... Bush is NOT a conservative.

RX Reven' wrote: If you’re a citizen in a foreign country, what kind of American President would be “popular” with your co-patriots…I’ll let you finish the sentence.

Why dont you finish it, im curious as to where you are going with that?

mad_machine wrote: As a friend of mine who is deeply conservative stated way back when Bush was still in his first term.... Bush is NOT a conservative.

Most of the Bush supporters I've met aren't even remotely conservative - they're intolerant authoritarians that don't reflect any traditional values of the GOP.

jharbert wrote:

mad_machine wrote: As a friend of mine who is deeply conservative stated way back when Bush was still in his first term.... Bush is NOT a conservative.

Most of the Obama supporters I've met aren't even remotely liberal - they're intolerant authoritarians that don't reflect any traditional values of the Democrat Party.

Your observation works both ways, sir.

There is little evidence that the current party in power has shown any willingness to demonstrate its' promised non-partisanship in governance.

GlennS, I said the same thing quite some time ago. It is in GameboyRMH's best interest for the US to have a weak, inneffective U.S. president that provides entertainment and wants to give little corrupt Caribbean countries lots of money. It is in Saudi Arabia's best interest for a U.S. president devoted to keeping the U.S. dependant on Persian Gulf oil.

That BBC article linked to:

> ... Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said he could not think of anyone more deserving of the award....

> ... Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency the award was ridiculous. "The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he said....

The irony is starting to really get to the hilarious point. Yeah, Bush 2 had some issues. He was not conservative. He had some leadership faults. He didn't give as good a speech as other professional politicians. He had his good points too.

You know what they say about awards; just like hemmeroids, every shiny happy person gets one in the end.

Is that the FONZ in a pair of Daisy Dukes? WTF

The primary reason stated was:

"his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

It sounds like more for effort than result (and clearly it has nothing to do with domestic issues). I would say that middle east speech would be part of it, but it sounds like that occurred after the nominations (!?) Realistically, its probably more along the line of "who else"? And they really seem to have jumped the gun on this one.

Regarding president Carter comments, those show a bit of ignorance.... he won the prize in 2002 which WAY after his presidency! (in case you didn't realize) The stated reason was: "decades of work seeking peaceful solutions and promoting social and economic justice." In other words, nothing to do with his presidency.

aircooled wrote: Regarding president Carter comments, those show a bit of ignorance.... he won the prize in 2002 which WAY after his presidency! (in case you didn't realize) The stated reason was: "decades of work seeking peaceful solutions and promoting social and economic justice." In other words, nothing to do with his presidency.

There are two mentions of Carter in this thread. One acknowledged his receiving the award in 2002, the other (mine) simply noted he was passed over the same year the Nobel committee awarded a corrupt politician/terrorist the Peace Prize.

To what ignorance are you referring?

Or are you calling my post describing Carter's "peace" plan ignorant? It is exactly what happened. They did stop actively shooting at each other, so I suppose it was successful. Maybe we can stop paying them now?

Dr. Hess wrote: The irony is starting to really get to the hilarious point. Yeah, Bush 2 had some issues. He was not conservative. He had some leadership faults. He didn't give as good a speech as other professional politicians. He had his good points too.

Yes, Bushes emergency aids relief program in Africa is one shinning point of his presidency. Spending an additional 48 billion on africa is a major commitment.

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm

So yes, Bush wasnt all bad.

Dr. Hess wrote: Jimmah's Peace Plan: Hey Isreal, you stop killing Egyptians and we'll give you 3 billion dollars U.S. a year. OK? Hey Egypt, you stop killing Isrealies and we'll give you 3 billion dollars U.S. a year. OK?

More for this. Although what you say is likely true, you are completely ignoring his later efforts (and this did happened while he was in office). As the Nobel committee stated: "...has spent the past two decades traveling around the globe monitoring elections, promoting human rights, and providing health care and food to the world's poor. "

I would have to say though, you are at least half correct in you statement (assuming you statements are accurate, I did not check), apparently they wanted to give him the prize in 78. Of course, realistically, paying people not to fight you is likely cheaper than actually fighting them, then again we weren't actually fighting them.

aircooled wrote: And they really seem to have jumped the shark on this one.

Fixed.

Let's not forget that being nomimated and being selected are two different things. After all, Ralph Nader has been nominated for president; but he's never been selected. Decrying the achievement because of the proximity of the nomination and the inaugaration is a red herring.

Obama has done a lot of talking; but talking may lead to healing. Let's hope so. I'd rather raise my children in a world where the leaders of the world believe they can make a difference, than in a world where the leaders don't even try to make a difference.

No, I wrote what I meant. To "jump the shark" implies that it will never be valid again. I said "jump the gun" because they seem to be giving it out way to soon.

I think the real problem the Nobel committee has is that it was founded in the time of nation vs nation wars. These days the wars (which isn't as applicable word as it use to be anymore either) seem to have little to do with nations and more to do with "groups", which can be a LOT harder to negotiate with.

This really does not imply that the award will never be applicable again, but I really think they shouldn't feel obligated to give it out every year, it's kind of insulting to those who won the award for really making a big difference.

Hey?! Where did that post go? It said something about Nader getting nominated...

Opps, OK, I will just remove this then.

In reply to aircooled:

No, not for the peace prize -- but for the Presidency of the US (1972, 2004).

Dr. Hess wrote: It is in GameboyRMH's best interest for the US to have a weak, inneffective U.S. president that provides entertainment and wants to give little corrupt Caribbean countries lots of money.

Oh yeah we're all dying for foreign aid down here. The whole region, just a great big patch of helpless poverty that can only suck at America's teat...now excuse me while I fix this makeshift windmill that's powering my laptop. With just a little foreign aid I could afford some new bearings for it...

I have a question:

The award comes with a $1.4 million dollar award, right?

Is Barry going to apply any of these winnings to the deficit?

Xceler8x wrote: </cite because it wasn't that long ago black folks in America couldn't vote.

I wish to subscribe to your revisionist history...

Iran's got nukes, North Korea is being a little bitch, Chavez is blathering on about class warfare, and Russia is turning a cold shoulder to the West.

At least China hasn't invaded Taiwan, so I guess that's worthy of a Peace Prize...

John Brown wrote: I have a question: The award comes with a $1.4 million dollar award, right? Is Barry going to apply any of these winnings to the deficit?

Nope

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQDGUso0g6mGJtgN2bKSDkvHf2oQD9B7NKB81

ACORN is a charity, isn't it? They need some more money to help the "working girls."

Gameboy, I'm just saying that it would be in your best interest to have a U.S. President that wants to give our children's money to you now, rather than one that, say, wanted to shut down the practice of our corporations setting up "Headquarters" in little piss-ant Carribean countries so that they could avoid paying U.S. taxes. What would be in our (U.S. Americans) best interest would most likely conflict with your best interests. And if you need help cross referencing that bearing to a Toyota vehicle, lemme know.