Obama Takes the Prize..

[joecoolfrog]

Attention confused conservatives.

A liberal will always win the Nobel Peace Prize. This is due entirely to a fundamental difference between liberals, and conservatives. That difference being, liberals tend to place the common good above personal gain.

Think about that for a minute.

Well, it's not that surprising. It's just a shame that they would give the guy the award before his presidency started. I've figured he'd get one eventually just because of his celebrity status, but this quickly is just a joke.

It also doesn't help that so many of those liberals believe that talking to dangerous dictators is more effective then removing them from power. Removing dictators from power means a more peaceful world for all. Leaving them in power creates the instabilities that lead to civil uprising and international conflicts.

And who decides which dictators are dangerous, the US has supported dozens of murderous tyrants over the years because it suited them at the time.

[Snorri1234]

Socialists reward another socialist...no surprise there. Has any Peace prize recipient been involved in 2 wars when they won???

And I don't care who started them. He is CURRENTLY involved.

Yo, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Yasser Arafat had one of the best Peace Prizes of all time!

[bedub1]

So all Obama had going for him is words, words, words? Newsflash! When it comes to diplomacy, words are actions.

Talking about getting people to talk is step 1, trying to get Israel and Palestine to talk is step 2, having them actually talk is step 3, using your influence to arrive at a lasting peace and agreement is "project accomplished", step 4. Obama received the prize, for being in step1, whereas I think you need to wait until step 4 when you actually achieve an agreement...and it has to last AT LEAST 2 or 3 years before you can really say something has been accomplished, and can give out an award...

And if Fidel Castro thinks it's a good thing Obama won, then you can know for sure it's a bad thing.

[Juan_Bottom]

Maybe you shouldn't think of it as an award then. Think of it more as a global endorsement.

let alone actually DO anything to earn the prize.

I somehow misunderstood everyone when I made my post. Yet for the most part it's the same argument against his winning.
The committee has answered this specific charge though.

[muy_thaiguy]

Maybe you shouldn't think of it as an award then. Think of it more as a global endorsement.

let alone actually DO anything to earn the prize.

I somehow misunderstood everyone when I made my post. Yet for the most part it's the same argument against his winning.
The committee has answered this specific charge though.

When he was nominated? He talked about it, certainly, but hadn't actually done anything at the point of his candidacy for the reward. Hell, if he could get a nomination for just talking about it, then there were and are, scores more people at the time who would have been better candidates.

[Gold Knight]

The fact that Ghandi still hasnt received this prize before Obama kinda does it in for me...

Plenty of presidents have talked about what they are going to do for the world, but because this president is a young African American (no racism intedned here), he is paid attention to more closely because he's different. Its not like other presidents have gone around saying "No we cant!", its the fact that the contrast after Bush has caused so much distaste for American politics that any change is seen as a complete 360.

[Woodruff]

Sorry, let me rephrase...
Congratulations to President Obama for not being President Bush.

I believe that is precisely correct. I do certainly hope that the award is borne out as being well-deserved however...that'd be nice.

[Lobster0123]

it has to last AT LEAST 2 or 3 years before you can really say something has been accomplished, and can give out an award...

I agree. The Prizes for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine are given out decades after the winner accomplished something. The Peace Prize goes out to people who hope to accomplish something in the future.

[GabonX]

You might as well just say what you mean, ie, Gore and Carter getting a prize = conservatives think it must be a joke.

Well those are dumb choices but they're far from the worst the organization has made.

I guess its based on expectation rather than performance to date , the prize to me was a tad devalued once it had been given to Kissinger so it should hardly be taken at face value.

Also:

Socialists reward another socialist...no surprise there. Has any Peace prize recipient been involved in 2 wars when they won???

And I don't care who started them. He is CURRENTLY involved.

Yo, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Yasser Arafat had one of the best Peace Prizes of all time!

[GabonX]

Nobody in this thread has been able to give a legitimate reason why Obama shouldn't have won this prize, this suggests they simply dislike Obama's character. Yet they didn't dislike similar democrats so vehemently, so there is obviously a racist motive. The KKK is over with guys, welcome to the 21st century.

Really? Nobody has given a legitimate answer? I don't think this is as outrageous as some of the members here and I think this is far from their worst decision to date, but the idea that people are racist because they don't think the President should have received the prize displays a certain kind of ignorance.

Here are some of the legitimate posts which you've brushed over which question why he should have received the award.

Wow, talk about devaluing the award (if that was still possible after Carter won it). I'm not surprised that Obama would get one (not that he would deserve one), but saying a lot of words before February 1st is enough to get the award? What about all the people in the past and present who have actually done things to earn the award? Why do they get passed over by a guy who made a bunch of promises?

Absolutely insane
Not only has he done nothing in the past year, nominations closed 12 days after he was inaugurated.

Socialists reward another socialist...no surprise there. Has any Peace prize recipient been involved in 2 wars when they won???

And I don't care who started them. He is CURRENTLY involved.

Sorry, let me rephrase...

Congratulations to President Obama for not being President Bush.

Honestly, that's exactly the first thing I thought.

At least Carter and Wilson did something to promote peace. All he has done is make a bunch of promises that haven't amounted to much, yet.

He promised to reduce nuclear arms with the Russians. I'm reading up on U.S.-Russian relations, the Russians will do what is in their national interest and reducing their nuclear armament isn't in their national interest.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, they are both pissed off at him for:
Israelis- Telling them to stop settling in Palestinian areas
Palestinians- For not being tough on Israel for settling in Palestinian areas.
So, peace doesn't look like it will come anytime soon.

He is ramping up the War in Afghanistan, attacking Pakistan and killing Pakistani civilians. The Iraq War is still going on and the U.S. will be there for years to come, no matter of what he promises.

To me we should give it to some one who really deserves it. I wouldn't care if he got it in a couple of years for actually doing something, but my question is what has he done to promote or to perserve peace in the world?

There may be more good reasons to question why he got the award. I stopped at the top of page 2

[MeDeFe]

I just want to point out that the prize is not given out for doing a good job as the US president, so claiming that he shouldn't even have been nominated because he'd only been in office for 2 weeks is a bit silly.

[GabonX]

I just want to point out that the prize is not given out for doing a good job as the US president, so claiming that he shouldn't even have been nominated because he'd only been in office for 2 weeks is a bit silly.

Also, it's racist to question what he did for peace before he was President

[MeDeFe]

I just want to point out that the prize is not given out for doing a good job as the US president, so claiming that he shouldn't even have been nominated because he'd only been in office for 2 weeks is a bit silly.

Also, it's racist to question what he did for peace before he was President

Not afaik, so what did he do?

[Woodruff]

I just want to point out that the prize is not given out for doing a good job as the US president, so claiming that he shouldn't even have been nominated because he'd only been in office for 2 weeks is a bit silly.

Also, it's racist to question what he did for peace before he was President

Not afaik, so what did he do?

That, my friend, is precisely the correct question.

[GabonX]

You guys are so racist

[Baron Von PWN]

He promised to reduce nuclear arms with the Russians. I'm reading up on U.S.-Russian relations, the Russians will do what is in their national interest and reducing their nuclear armament isn't in their national interest.

This is a highly contentious point if somewhat off topic. The Russians would likely be happy to reduce their nuclear arsenal,so long as the Americans do as well. It's expensive and doesn't do a whole lot, they would probably rather spend the money on modernizing the rest of their army. Also the Russians have said they won't consider cuts until the missile shield has been taken out of Europe, which Obama has done, this is a big plus for the Russians so I wouldn't be surprised if they agree to arms cuts with the Americans.

[TeletubbyPrince]

It's expensive and doesn't do a whole lot

It's not that expensive to keep nuclear weapons around, in fact it's more expensive to dismantle them. Furthermore having the worlds second largest stockpile of nukes is a hefty bargaining chip. Clearly you are pulling your "information" ( ) out of your ass.

[Frigidus]

Furthermore having the worlds second largest stockpile of nukes is a hefty bargaining chip.

Is it? Is having 200 nukes any more of a bargaining chip than having 100? What are we going to do, end life on Earth and vaporize the moon for good measure? The only purpose having nukes serve is to prevent other countries from using their nukes, and we don't need the second largest stockpile to ensure that.

I'll agree that it is important to have some nukes, but it serves no purpose having an obscene number of them.

[TeletubbyPrince]

Furthermore having the worlds second largest stockpile of nukes is a hefty bargaining chip.

Is it? Is having 200 nukes any more of a bargaining chip than having 100? What are we going to do, end life on Earth and vaporize the moon for good measure? The only purpose having nukes serve is to prevent other countries from using their nukes, and we don't need the second largest stockpile to ensure that.

I'll agree that it is important to have some nukes, but it serves no purpose having an obscene number of them.

There are many urban targets in America alone, far more than 100. There are also many tactical uses for nukes. Finally, remember that a lot would be shot down or destroyed before launched. Having a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons could come in very handy.

You are also looking at the world in a very naive way. There is always a chance for the next great war. Look at America today; it's population is stupid and at some point it will probably be overtaken by China in power. Those are two potent ingredients for conflict and while I'm not saying they will result in a war, rather it is one of many possibilities that could lead to one.

Also, the effects of a nuclear war are over-dramatized. It wouldn't end all life on Earth, as you say.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why are we discussing this again?
I bookmarked this a while ago:

All over the world, the U.S. military faces tough challenges. But one of the most difficult might be right here on American soil: How to safely dispose of some 10,000 nuclear weapons over the next decade.

At the hart of every one of these nuclear weapons is a grapefruit-size "pit" of plutonium--one of the most toxic substances on Earth. This human-made element is highly radioactive.

In addition, plutonium stays radioactive for more than 240,000 years. In creating this element, humankind has given itself a deadly gift that keeps on giving.

If terrorists stole just ten pounds of the stuff, says arms expert Frank Von Hippel, they could easily construct a bomb powerful enough to wipe out an entire city.

Our military experts know all about building nuclear bombs, which get their awesome power by either splitting atoms apart or fusing them together. For more than 40 years, they churned out nuclear weapons at a frantic pace. The goal was to outrun the former Soviet Union in a race to build up the more intimidating arsenal. When this arms race reached its peak in 1988, the U.S. had amassed some 24,000 nuclear weapons--enough firepower to destroy the planet a thousand times over.

The bulk of weapons dismantling in the U.S. is being done near Amarillo, Texas at the Department of Energy's Pantex plant. Pantex was originally designed as a bomb-production plant. According to one source, technicians at the heavily guarded facility dismantle seven warheads each day, following stringent safety regulations.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dangerous ... a014719237

I don't remember why I saved this. But I remember not finding what I was looking for, which was an accurate count of our stockpiles. 24,000 nukes is a butt load though. A completely outrageous number.

[TeletubbyPrince]

That doesn't disprove anything I said, though...

My points still stand. Many nukes would be destroyed before or during launch. Not all of those 24,000 nukes are capable of destroying cities; some would be meant for tactical use. Take a guess at how many urban centres there are in the world, there're probably (can't cite this, sadly) more than 10,000. Having 10,000 nukes could have it's uses.

[Frigidus]

That doesn't disprove anything I said, though...

My points still stand. Many nukes would be destroyed before or during launch. Not all of those 24,000 nukes are capable of destroying cities; some would be meant for tactical use. Take a guess at how many urban centres there are in the world, there're probably (can't cite this, sadly) more than 10,000. Having 10,000 nukes could have it's uses.

Er...not really. The world would end well before 10,000 nukes went off.

[notyou2]

The award seems a little premature, perhaps it has been awarded on faith in the future.

[TeletubbyPrince]

That doesn't disprove anything I said, though...

My points still stand. Many nukes would be destroyed before or during launch. Not all of those 24,000 nukes are capable of destroying cities; some would be meant for tactical use. Take a guess at how many urban centres there are in the world, there're probably (can't cite this, sadly) more than 10,000. Having 10,000 nukes could have it's uses.

Er...not really. The world would end well before 10,000 nukes went off.

You're overestimating the power of a nuke. The world is a big, durable place, the nukes would be detrimental to parts of the environment and they'd certainly kill lots of people, but many would survive and the radiation wouldn't have any drastic effects on life as a whole. Look at Chernobyl: plant life is thriving. Look at Hiroshima and Negasaki: they are far from uninhabitable. I realise that todays nuclear weapons are more potent than Fat Man and Little Boy, but you're exagerating their effects by saying 10,000 would end life. Also, I'm willing to bet the statement

the U.S. had amassed some 24,000 nuclear weapons--enough firepower to destroy the planet a thousand times over.

was made by dumbass hippies trying to raise "awareness". Even if it was only talking about human life, it wouldn't be enough to eliminate the rural population (I'm doubtful it could even kill off the urban population).

EDIT: btw, I went to the site you linked, and I found the word "heart" mispelled on the second paragraph. I also saw the phrase "humankind", as opposed to mankind. That's looking an awful lot like dumbass hippy propoganda

[jbrettlip]

That doesn't disprove anything I said, though...

My points still stand. Many nukes would be destroyed before or during launch. Not all of those 24,000 nukes are capable of destroying cities; some would be meant for tactical use. Take a guess at how many urban centres there are in the world, there're probably (can't cite this, sadly) more than 10,000. Having 10,000 nukes could have it's uses.

Er...not really. The world would end well before 10,000 nukes went off.

You're overestimating the power of a nuke. The world is a big, durable place, the nukes would be detrimental to parts of the environment and they'd certainly kill lots of people, but many would survive and the radiation wouldn't have any drastic effects on life as a whole. Look at Chernobyl: plant life is thriving. Look at Hiroshima and Negasaki: they are far from uninhabitable. I realise that todays nuclear weapons are more potent than Fat Man and Little Boy, but you're exagerating their effects by saying 10,000 would end life. Also, I'm willing to bet the statement

the U.S. had amassed some 24,000 nuclear weapons--enough firepower to destroy the planet a thousand times over.

was made by dumbass hippies trying to raise "awareness". Even if it was only talking about human life, it wouldn't be enough to eliminate the rural population (I'm doubtful it could even kill off the urban population).

EDIT: btw, I went to the site you linked, and I found the word "heart" mispelled on the second paragraph. I also saw the phrase "humankind", as opposed to mankind. That's looking an awful lot like dumbass hippy propoganda

Haven't you seen Wargames?? There is no winner in a Global Thermonuclear war. How about a nice game of chess?