Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

[Cathy]

Even I think this is incredibly inappropriate. I am one who very much wants Obama to succeed at home and abroad. It is way too early to suggest that he has actually turned any corner in regard to world peace. It cheapens the Nobel Prize (the image not the money). When giving the peace prize one would think they would want to see years of consistent progress and accountability.

[Jonathan]

One way to look at this is that the Nobel Committee has now given George W Bush 3 anti-Nobel peace prizes since it was pretty clear that the ones awarded to Carter, Gore were statements against the former president.

Another thought: wouldn't you like to be fly on the wall at the Clinton house this morning?

[Cathy]

It is hard to imagine anyone more deserving of a Peace Prize than Jimmy Carter. It was probably given more for his work after his one term in office, but his efforts during his one term will stand the test of time as well. IMNSHO

I do think this was a European Political Statement. I think Obama may someday deserve the prize. It is too bad they couldn't have waited for that day. If however the Republicans decide to try to round up more anti-Obama sentiment because this they will be making a mistake.

[JaneFordA]

[Jim]

The will of Alfred Nobel:

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: ... The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: ... 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.

The prizes awarded in quantifiable fields such as chemistry, medicine, physics always seem sound enough since tangible proof can be determined. Prizes awarded in literature and peace are made on the purely subjective stances of the awarding committee. It needs to be understood that the U.S. will always fare well in the quantifiable areas since it has been a world leader in technology for many years. This was the case this year.

The U.S. is also that world entity in the sight of the Nobel Committee representing the axiom regarding “those who bite the hand that feeds them.” Sweden is today a nation with a Nobel Committee in large part because the U.S. saved its bacon in the 1940s, using a standing army to do so. Carter probably won the prize in 2002 not least because of his efforts to emasculate the military to the extent that he couldn’t even rescue 52 Americans in 1979-81 from Iran. In 2002, Gunnar Berge, the Nobel committee chairman, said this: “The award should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [U.S] administration has taken.” The U.S. had just invaded Afghanistan to dislodge Al Qaeda. Carter’s efforts with regard to Begin and Sadat had occurred 25 years before and, of course, had not brought peace to the Middle East. In fact, things only got worse.

Al Gore won the award in 2007, but no one knows why. If it was because of his Inconvenient Truth campaign, it should have been an award in the sciences, but, of course, he had no scientific bona fides of any kind. It was an anti-American award, pure and simple. Significantly, the UN IPCC, the claims of which concerning the climate are now being prolifically proven false, shared the award with Gore.

In the case of Obama, who has done nothing with regard to world peace, one can only wonder. It may be because he has spent a good deal of time and speaking in an effort to apologize to the whole world for the very existence of this country, which is viewed, obviously, by the Nobel folks as anathema. It’s a sort of great reward for the bad-mouthing of his own country. This is what Obama said in his recent UN speech: “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.” This would be music to Gunnar Berge’s ear. Then, too, maybe the Nobel is the consolation prize for not winning the Olympics for Chicago.

Of course, times change. In 1953, not long after WWII and right at the end of the Korean Conflict, with the U.S. both effecting salvation for huge populations and securing a free South Korea by using a standing army, the Nobel folks gave the prize to former American General George Marshall, a former prominent member of a standing army and, of course, the originator and inculcator of the Marshall Plan, which literally delivered much if not most of Europe from worldly hell. He was State Secretary during the Berlin Airlift in the late 40s that saved Berlin to eventually be what it is today instead of a Russian Gulag.

Yeah...biting the hand that feeds. In this day of European Enlightenment (and decay), the peace prize is always an expression of anti-Americanism.

[Stephen Fox]

in her second entry.
I cannot improve on what she said.
If it were possible for Obama to have turned down the prize as a little premature without insulting this august committee, I think he mighta done so.
One of the more forboding comments I heard this morning has resonances of Shakespearian tragedy, hoping this prize does not turn out to be a "poison chalice."

I think Obama is a phenomenal human being, but this latest is a little too strong on hero worship at the expense of the responsibilities the likes of Richard Land and others who could tamp down the rhetoric of the likes of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity if only they would.

Ill timed well intentioned hope for humanity is what this prize may mean.

For what it is worth, Jonathan and others, I would have voted for the Tiannemen Square 10 on this 20th Anniversary year. I hear they were sad and disappointed they did not win, but congratulated his latest honor.
I appreciate their honesty.

[ET]

[Randy]

The Nobel Peace prize is a joke as is most of the people they select. Just another example of the media and socialist governments fawning over what we have for a President.

[Randy]

My grammatical error... It should have been "as are most of the people they select."

[Howard V]

Former V. P. Al Gore got one. Why shouldn't President Obama get one?

Howard

[David Mwangi]

Well he did manage to show that a president can ignore protocol with foreign dignitaries and still not start a war...that's something. I would think a president that wins the Nobel Peace Prize should care a little more about foreign policy...but then what do I know?

[Randy]

No, what is a sad joke is seeing people with brains not saying a thing as Obama leads us straight down the path to socialism. We'll see what you say when we get there--and you're footing the bill for most of it. The joke of his Nobel prize is just icing on the cake.

[William Thornton]

[Jim]

Egad...I’m still laughing. Take heart, dear brother. You’ve just been told by no less than the esteemed moderator that you’re hardly able to fathom his exquisite wisdom. You should feel right at home in this forum, where especially the moderator can successfully cast stones from a house made of glass.

[Jonathan]

[Jonathan]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Make no mistake, Jonathan's definition of freedom represents one perspective. There are multiple perspectives and multiple definitions. We're all free to throw around the word "freedom." But freedom obviously means something different to Jonathan than it does Timothy.

Pretty sure that Mullins meant something just a bit different than Calvin when he wrote about "freedom" in the The Axioms of Religion.

And Neuhaus meant something different than Rawls when he brought up freedom.

I'd surmise that Timothy's definition of freedom is not primarily self-centered (not using this pejoratively) nor overly individualistic. It likely takes into consideration other related principles such as fairness and justice and likely does not neglect the collective community.

[David Mwangi]

Every political discussion becomes about universal health care...no offense but y'uns is boring me here...aren't there any other issues? Like should a president (or anyone) that has been known to ignore or forget protocol when visiting with foreign dignitaries be awarded the "peace prize" since they are just rubbing the whole "most powerful person" thing in people's faces? Will having an "African-American" president help with race relations or hurt it? There have been some discussions started on these lines but then go back to healthcare. As a "African-Canadian-American" (my own minority group) let me state that free healthcare is great...but expensive. It has the potential to bankrupt the US, and put more people into the "system". Which is not the best for some areas where the system has sucked people dry and left them totally dependent on the government.

[Jonathan]

[KeithE]

Just returned from a cruise where Obama's Nobel Prize was a common discussion especially around the blackjack table. Th Europeans (3 - Ireland, Norway and UK) all thought that Obama deserved it for (one mentioned "opening up dialogue with Iran and Russia", another mentioned "attempts to resolve the Israeli-Arab war" and the other guy mentioned both of the previous points as well as "atempts at disarmanent".)

The Americans including myself felt that he had not done enough (or anything) to deserve the award.

At sit down lunch we met a couple of Palestinian sisters who live near San Francisco after having left Gaza some years ago. All their relatives have died since at the hands of the Israelis. They cannot understand why the US supports Israel - just shook their heads in disbelief.

Asked another guy from Ireland about what the Irish think about Americans - they used to admire Americans but not after 9/11 (he brought this up). We must be "dull headed" for not seeing 9/11 as an inside job. We of course got into a long discussion at that point.

Had a great cruise with 10 friends we went with and a coincidental set of 30 other Hunstvillians including the local Interfaith Faith Minister. And I was up $250 at Blackjack and up 6 lbs.

[KeithE]

"Freedom" is a very popular term that all want to call their own - From W's "they hate our freedoms" to Anthony Romeo (Executive Director of the ACLU) who declares this "a time when Consititutional freedoms are in peril" in the intro to his In Defense of America.

I would propose that any definition of freedom applied to all people not to segments like an industry or a particular nation or a gender or landowners. A right given to only some is really a brand of tyranny and not true freedom.

[Bruce Gourley]

[Jonathan]

[Jonathan]

[Jonathan]