Tywin Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'll get called a troll but I really don't care... It's ridiculous.Less than 1 year in office and less than 4 years in politics all together.. and he wins a prize that is meant to signify a lifetime of achievement? perhaps someone would be kind enough to inform the Nobel panel of the exact number of deaths, including civilian deaths, across the world, at the hands of US military/Govt. and any other US Govt. agencies, since Obama took up office.Can we overlook the fact he expanded the war into Pakistan by leaps and bounds. Oh, and the smaller matter of giving 2 x U.S's GDP to the corrupt, leeching banks.Why then? They say it was for bringing stability to international politics, and international politics is anything but stable right now. We have the Gulf states and Chinese and Russians looking to dump the dollar, we have 2 activewars going on, and a continued torture program, what has changed?Also due to his 'efforts to strengthen or normalise international diplomacy, and for his visions about a nuclear arms free world.' But lets leave Israel out of the inspections hmmm?Lets not forget his expansion of Guatanamo. That old gem conveniently swept under the rug, blanketed over further with 'hope' and 'change' propaganda.Gordon Brown world statesman of the year 2009...Tony Blair EU President 2009...Come on, how stupid do you think we are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm a little puzzled as to why you think you would be called a troll for a post that substantially agrees with the twenty preceding it. Did you read them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danro Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I like Obama. I think he has the potential to be a truly great statesman.But this is way to early. He should have had a chance to earn this on the merits of his actions.Awarding the Nobel Peace Price preemptively is not the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm a little puzzled as to why you think you would be called a troll for a post that substantially agrees with the twenty preceding it. Did you read them?I skimmed. ;)I was preemptively expecting the worst given the majority seem to think the sun shines out of Obama's arse and that the man can do no wrong.Therefore, placing forward a 'controversial' opinion is subject to being perceived as trollish behaviour.Colour me paranoid, but political debate invariably gets peoples backs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I skimmed. ;)I was preemptively expecting the worst given the majority seem to think the sun shines out of Obama's arse and that the man can do no wrong.Therefore, placing forward a 'controversial' opinion is subject to being perceived as trollish behaviour.Colour me paranoid, but political debate invariably gets peoples backs up. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I was preemptively expecting the worst given the majority seem to think the sun shines out of Obama's arse and that the man can do no wrong.Where did you get this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Where did you get this idea?It's a well known "fact" among people who dislike Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyelesbarrow Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Talk about pressure.I greeted this news with a "WTF?!" followed by the thought that the Europeans must really really hate George W. Bush. Obama is a singular person in US history, but he's just 9 months into his presidency. What if he morphs into an evil baddie?But seriously, I generally like the guy because he's not Bush Jr, but this is a case of too little, too soon. I just hope he lives up to the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The hairy bear Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I think that we can all agree that this is just dumb. Both the ones who like Obama and the ones who doesn't.As it has been said, from the moment Henry Kissinger got the Nobel it lost all the value it might had. Given that the Nobel in literature is now clearly given just for political reasons, and that I just don't have enough knowledge to judge on the others... I'll just ignore those prizes ones again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Where did you get this idea?Life.Side note: Respect on the Treguard avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 [mod] Get back to the topic at hand -- the Nobel Peace prize. Thank you. [/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 This is pretty silly. I just told another attorney in my office (a liberal) his reaction was "What?" If he had gotten an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan in place and working, if he'd ended the war in Afganistan, if he'd gotten Osama Bin Laden to forswear violence, I could see giving him the award. As it is this just makes the Nobel committee look even more political than it already did.I did have a thought, what if Pres. Obama were to refuse to accept the prize for all the reasons we have set forth here? Does that raise his credibility or hurt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Very, very strange decision.Of course, it is worth noting that the only other sitting US Presidents to win the thing (Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919) are interesting choices in themselves - Roosevelt was not exactly a pacificist, while Wilson's efforts with the League of Nations ultimately came to naught (not that they knew this in 1919). Jimmy Carter, winning it as an ex-President in 2002, was a much safer choice, having spent over two decades in extensive humanitarian work (not to mention forging the Israel-Egypt peace deal while President).Basically, it'd be a better look if Obama were to receive the Prize after having left office with a successful legacy of formenting peace. Giving it to a still politically-active person is dangerous, and giving it to someone after having spent less than nine months in the job is even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah, count me in as another big "What the fuck?" at this news.For once, me and Shryke agree on a political matter.What the fuck, Nobel Prize Dudes?It's a well known "fact" among people who dislike Obama.Ahh, now we disagree. Obama had people going "how great it is that America is enlightened enough to have a black man as president, we should be proud" from the moment he was in office, but he did nothing from that moment on. He could and should have made his changes the moment he got into office, while everyone was enamored with him. The number of people in love with him has slowly decreased after he's done absolutely nothing with that power.And now, a fucking peace prize? For what? He's a black democrat president after George Bush. That's what. This is pretty silly. I just told another attorney in my office (a liberal) his reaction was "What?" If he had gotten an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan in place and working, if he'd ended the war in Afganistan, if he'd gotten Osama Bin Laden to forswear violence, I could see giving him the award. As it is this just makes the Nobel committee look even more political than it already did.I did have a thought, what if Pres. Obama were to refuse to accept the prize for all the reasons we have set forth here? Does that raise his credibility or hurt it?I really like this post.Just saying.In my eyes, his credibility would rise. It means he realized he's not been doing things as he should have, and that he's serious about wanting change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artas Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 followed by the thought that the Europeans must really really hate George W. Bush.You got that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaerv Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I think that we can all agree that this is just dumb. Both the ones who like Obama and the ones who doesn't.As it has been said, from the moment Henry Kissinger got the Nobel it lost all the value it might had. Given that the Nobel in literature is now clearly given just for political reasons, and that I just don't have enough knowledge to judge on the others... I'll just ignore those prizes ones again.Does that mean that you have read Mueller's books, or at least one of them, in order to be able to judge her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I did have a thought, what if Pres. Obama were to refuse to accept the prize for all the reasons we have set forth here? Does that raise his credibility or hurt it?I've been thinking the same thing. I hope he does decline it, though that will also entail some diplomatic risks, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbigski Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Better Obama than Bono though.I really dislike U2 in general. Their music is passable with a few exceptions but something about their attitudes rankles me irrationally. That being said, Bono would actually be a much better choice at this time. Possibly 3 more years of mouthing platitudes will overcome intransigent fundamental human nature evolved over millennia and world peace will break out everywhere. Or maybe there'll just be some noticeable progress on the margins of some of the thornier situations out there thanks to Obama, but either way, he really hasn't done anything yet. Truly the Nobel committee's decision is a triumph of hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Wait, people still take the nobel peace prize seriously?Oh well, more Nobel prizes for America. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Satire died when they awarded it to Kissinger but this is definately giving that decision a run for its money. Good to see the Nobel Committee back on the paint fumes. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.