and the anual esr prize of racism goes to:

jamerio.



Did you even read and understand the reasoning or did your racism mode take over immediately?
(as you won't notice: this is a rhetorical question)

Shut up nigga.

I was in the sun this summer and my skin didn't turn dark, however I did not win a Nobel prize.

What gives?

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/travel/Germany+V...e-796.html

so, reading women's magazines, are we?

Not that this 'research' looks trustworthy but I still agree, germans are the most unfriendly people of europe for sure.

stfu

Butthurt? I'm german too btw

STFU

Big kick in the teeth for the guys who actually deserve this.
Think BO was in office for 2 weeks when the submissions ended (Feb 11th).

Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke.sad.

It's been a joke for a while. :<

And what is not nowadays? :((

Why ESR, of course. :D

Clueless whites giving out prizes :(

*YAWN* racism, grow the fuck up.

did you mean to be a hypocrite?

Mediocrity

lol retarded

...

retarded, this guy did nothing

he's sort of black! what else does he need to do for fucks sake.

I don't agree with the dark skin part. But he certainly did not deserve it. It's idiotic. Good intentions is all it takes? Get a grip!

http://www.little-gamers.com/2009/10/09/leave...orweigans/

" Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939 by Erik Brandt, a member of the Swedish Parliament. Brandt retracted the nomination after a few days.[10] Other infamous nominees included Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini. However, since nomination requires only support from one qualified person, all nominations do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Nobel committee itself.[ "

my trust-o-meter raised right now A LOT
ok Obama, put video cameras in every home in every toilet and on every street, because it is for defending the peace against evil terrorrists, and send a few more thousands us soldiers in middle east, to keep peace and order there
long live Obama and our second glorious leader, Iosif Visarionovici Stalin

http://scattershooting.files.wordpress.com/20...-lenin.jpg

Wtf.

.

http://www.esreality.com/files/images/2009/71...e%2038.jpg

I think your profile pic has set a new standard.

.

So bitter.

just judging by both finalists for this year's nobel peace prize its clear this whole thing and a price is a joke.

Yeah I was kinda surprised to hear this, I really don't know anything about it but my first instinct is to assume it was a dumb decision.

I thought it was 1st april
then I asked someone on the street and he told me it's octomber

nice of him to give the money to charity, that is all

dont they all?

what does he need that money for anyway?

Not that I care about any of this, but just to inform the typically ignorant slags that hang out on this site.....

Obama was working to denuclearize the world longggg before he took office. And it's something that he has earnestly carried over into his office work. Dunno if any of you read about this news headline:

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2009/09/...-assembly/

And while Ban Ki-moon has had an orchestrating involvement in this revelation, Obama still in the execuitve policy maker for the US and the responsibility of most of the denuclearization lies with him and President Medvedev.

Obama was working to denuclearize the world longggg before he took office.

So? It's like giving a Pulitzer prize to someone who has an idea for a novel. You don't give someone a reward for the intention, you give it to them for the result.

comparing the nobel peace prize with other prizes that are based on a specific piece of work.
smart...

I'm not trying to argue about the merits of him getting a Nobel Peace Prize, but rather trying to point out that the guy existed and did real activism against nuclear weapons before he became president.

So?

Its a pointless cause. it would only take a handful of nukes to spoil the world, so what difference does it make if the other %99 are disposed of?

No country is going to give them up entirely so its a waste of time.
The result is the same. When push comes to shove they will still have weapons of mass destruction which will make peoples day a bad one.

Its all political BS to fool the common man into thinking progress is being made.

but the real progress would be stopping the war, this is something he could do tomorrow, but instead will continue for years killing 1000's more people.

So saying things like he's been trying to get rid of nukes which is in itself a flawed idea means nothing.

The one thing people want him to do, he won't do.
The one thing he should be doing he isn't doing.
The one thing he can do, he won't do.

And so nothing else matters. How can you talk about saving the world and economy when you're condoning an unwinnable war.

its failed logic.

Your logic failed you.

you say "mentioning him trying to stop nuclear war"

It was just to point out that at least he was doing something and the votes weren't just because he was a black guy voted into presidency.

But it looks like you see black guy and then take any small piece of info and take it out of context to serve your bias needs.

Gore won it for what he supposedly did to raise awareness about global warming. He hasn't really achieved anything in either legislation or can be credited for a paradigm shift that ultimately saved the planet but he did have a couple good ideas.

That being said, this is purely political and puts the President in an awkward position, as if he weren't already burdened enough with enormous expectations being GWB's successor, or being a Democrat, or being the first black president, or for inheriting a recession. I don't think he really truly welcomes the premature recognition but what can he do, say thanks but no thanks? I'm not supporting the decision but it really doesn't have anything to do with Obama but rather the measuring of lofty expectations imposed upon him.

You can decline the award.

still waiting for Jonesy statement to clear out this issue tbh

Its too bad most people are too stupid to judge Obama on his OWN achievments,

but... he has no achievements.

tbh being the first AMERICAN black president is an achievement

An accomplishment is something you can influence. Race does not matter.

oh look he went from achievement to accomplishment and now hopes noone notices :P

but the two words are interchangeable. why are u responding to him if he's added u to ignore list?

cause it's fun :)

skewed idea of fun, but on the other hand at least you'll always get the last post, and we all know last post = winner. u spammer =)

Obama says "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments" - he's alluding to the fact that his accomplishments are (so far) small and undeserving of the prize.

He goes on to say "to be honest I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honoured by this prize".

Yet he's being contradicted by all the ppl who feel he has all the accomplishments to warrant this. This is an obvious example of political maneuvering with the aim of getting him to follow the correct path. Hopefully it pays off. Those scheming scandis!!!

edit: just a typo, haven't changed text. I know some of u are anal

actually, I never said he had accomplishments that warrant a nobel peace price.

But I do see becoming president as an achievement.

Why I think it's a valid choice can be read in several other posts here.

If Obama thought good intentions alone were enough, he wouldn't have allowed his lack of accomplishments to make him (and almost everybody else) feel that he's undeserving. Having said that, the Nobel prize aside, the way is open for him since the Democrats do pretty much own both the senate and the house of representatives. GOP filibustering will delay but not prevent change. Things don't look good though since the public option on the healthcare bill is dying quickly. There's also still no timetable on the exit of two occupations sorry, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Time will tell

spin it in any way you want its still something impressive. Even more impressive is that he hasnt been assasinated yet by some idiot KKK'er.

Spin it how? Race has nothing to do with an accomplishment.

of course not, because everywhere in the world people from different races are treated equally and given the same chances for accomplishment. Racism only exists in books, movies and jamerio posts.

then shouldn't people who voted for obama get the prize? they gave the example to the rest of the world...

well in a way they did.

Because everyone who voted for him know has the knowledge that he has voted a nobel peace prize winner. And I think that does sound good. Following that line of thought, one could also try to argue that it was partly given to an instituiton (as has been done before), in this case the American presidency, to reward the changes is has undergone now. But I think that's a litle too far.

or hasn't did a drive by. or mugged da local shops. Surprised he hasn't passed a law saying black people are allowed to own white slaves yet.

This is true.

I'm glad we've found common ground.

Because fringe nutbaggery is kinda like a circle. Somewhere along the line the left and right meet up.

Or perhaps it's because I am not left or right.

some of you critics really need to look at the list of past laureates, before you continue making fools out of yourselfs.

You comments are like: "What has the Dalai Lama ever achieved? Nothing lols! Take away his prize, now."


The prize has very often been about ideas, about emphazising them and helping the laureates to realize them through more public attention.

more people should read your post before commenting on.

It is a lot about ideas and trying to make them come truuuuuuuuuu.

Don't you think they should help in realizing ideas of people who risk their lifes and freedom to fight for peace?

I mean, we can say that Obama may be under some pressure after receiving this prize (but, to be honest, I don't think it means that much to him) but I think that there might be some people who not only deserved but also needed that prize more than him...

hey, I'm not saying he was the best choice. Just that he is an acceptable choice, no more, no less.

And I do agree with you. But look at it this way, if all political leaders in the world would try to send a message like he does, there would be way less people having to risk their freedom and lives to fight for peace.

Many of you act as if Obama could decide this and that on his own and make it happen. He can't. He's doing his absolute best regarding health care, the environment & climate change, the israelo-palestinian conflict, iraq & afghanistan, iran/north korea, the economy, nuclear weapons etc. If the guys at the other end of the table are blocking things, you can hardly blame it on Obama seeing as he's doing a tremendous amount of work to make things move forward in these areas.
Take the israelo-palestinian conflict for example, you have Netanyahou refusing to end colonization, etc. Obama is pushing as hard as he can for a solution but it isn't only up to him. Regarding health care, I find it highly amusing that in the US some (not all) of the people saying "but he hasn't achieved anything yet!!!" are the same dumbasses who oppose the reform and will do what they can to criticize Obama on it with arguments that involve "socialism", "Hitler" and "totalitarism".
If you look at the history of the Nobel Prize there have been MUCH MORE controversial winners, so to declare that it has suddenly become a joke because Obama wins it is ridiculous. If you can't see how hard Obama is working on his end of the table to improve the well-being of American citizens, and of everyone else for that matter, there's a problem with you. I'm not saying it automatically means he should win the Nobel Prize, but some reactions are far too dramatic.

..

If the guys at the other end of the table are blocking things, you can hardly blame it on Obama seeing as he's doing a tremendous amount of work to make things move forward in these areas.

You obviously know about as much on this subject as you do on the physics of steel buildings. Democrats hold the majority in all branches of our political system, and they STILL can't pass his legislation. His own party is voting against him!

I won't even respond to the errors in the rest, as the very foundation of what you are trying to argue is based on the assumption that the republicans were standing in his way.

apparantly forgot about "filibustering", but good that you know about your own polttics ... not.
Also forgot to mention that for a change like the medical system you need support from the people, which is something Republicans are trying to fight by spreading dumb lies and insane comparisons that really show them for what they are.

Come to think of it, Republicans mocking the Nobel Prize for Peace really fits. Cause there is something they will never get, over even try to...





Oh and your knowledge of steel physics is stuff for comedies. Such as Zeitgeist or Loose Change.

"Come to think of it, Republicans mocking the Nobel Prize for Peace really fits. Cause there is something they will never get, over even try to..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

how does your foot taste?

30 years ago.

look at them now ;)


he's also German born, can't be a real republican :P

how. does. your. foot. taste?

are you seriously trying to compare Henry Kissinger to todays Republicans?

Regardless, I would like to take this opportunity to teach you about English grammar and tenses:

"will never" is in future tense, not past tense. Therefore that expression refers to events in the future, not in the past.
"are trying" is in present progessive tense, not past tense. Therefore that expression refers to current actions and sometimes actions in the future, not to actions in the past.


Was that explanation understandable enough? I'm afraid I used some difficult words in there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqcCtEKoPSA

???

Are you really dumber than I think you are?

You are talking about the past.
I talked about the present.

Do you understand the difference of those two?


Because you really seem unable to understand a single easy posting. And continue to make a fool out of yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEa7ZYKLHOc&feature=fvw

tough, hmm?

You thought you had a point. Now you realized you don't and can't find any arguments to at least try and prove it. And sadly you are unable to acknowledge that you might have been wrong.

So now you have to pretend you were trolling all along by posting youtube links, which noone actually clicks on.

My deepest sympathies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PFEa84gwZU&am...p;index=11

well, your only hope, that I will quit replying, so you can "win" by getting the last post has now come true.

Do keep posting youtube links though, it's really one of th efew things you can do without overstraining your mental capacity.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHTm5ZD9mso

bad loser.

tell me about it man... instead of just admiting he was wrong in the beginning he goes on and on. hope he never gets to do anything of technical nature, that would be devastating.

totally, mate. totally.

word

you really need the last post, don't you?

I am on a project building a compressor station for natural gas near Munich.
Highly explosive.

Why? :)

cheers for the heads up. I have alerted my mates in Munich, they are relocating as we speak.

I call: you don't have friends in munich.

Mine are staying there btw...

man you totally missed world war 2, you'd be a great gestapo officer.
just kidding, you'd suck ass.

oh come on, is that all you can do?
even bubble is less boring than you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Kj6nMILJg

you are truly an idiot and represent the Republicans well.


[-]

hey thanks brah. mind pointing to where I represented them so I can send them the bill? peace brah

disregarding the rest of discussion, democrats have enough votes to override 'filibuster', they're simply as much in the pocket as anyone, including obama
http://video.aol.de/video-detail/the-daily-sh...2607661282

I stand corrected.

got a little more curious and found this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/fa...15987.html

That a weird article, it hints at insight, but has a number of silly statements, and the most weird is that since Lieberman is an Independant, he doesn't have much to do with Democratic majority, and everyone for a long time put him with Republicans. Wish I didn't know any of this crap.

He caucuses with the Democrats and agrees with them on most issues except foreign policy. If he didn't he wouldn't get on any committees and not have any power. So he has a lot to do with a Democratic majority.

hmm, maybe.

But with him not voting along and Tad Kennedy's seat being vacant (till January?). Do they still have that majority?

ted kennedy has a replacement, but he's not elected yet, so looks like they dont have a super majority

dude needs to be awarded with a war crimes tribunal.

if possible with Bush and Cheney testifying against him?

they should be tried as well.

I presume for his actions in (or rather not mving out of) Afghanistan?


If so, how come the people there apparantly disagree with that and want the nato to stay?

nato?

http://www.nato.int

fail.

how did i fail? i'm not the one arbitrarily talking about afghanis and nato, when the issue is about AMERICAN MILITARY AGGRESSION AND OCCUPATION+international law.

In what way, according to you, does the intervention in Afghanistan breach international law?

who said i was talking about afghanistan? the bombings in pakistan alone, earlier this year, are enough to have him hanged under the geneva conventions.

So when you said "occupation", you were referring to Iraq and not Afghanistan?

i was using the term generally.

That's the problem, you're not being specific enough.

it's kind of the point. military occupation is military occupation.

Military occupation WHERE?

what?

the attack on Afghanistan was years ago. Was Obama in charge then? No.
Who is in charge now? Nato.
Who should decide whether staying it's a crime against the Afghani people? I would say the Afghanis not you. But I guess you know better...

afghanistan is not the only place being occupied by usa.

I like how you put "only" as if the US were still the occupying force and not nato.

Most of the armed personnel in Afghanistan are either U.S military or (largely) contractors hired by the pentagon as part of their outsourcing strategy. Don't merely look at American soldier numbers, there is a lot of U.S public money to be had for these private contractors assisting the military. Many of them controversial, like Blackwater. Some Blackwater security guards are being taken to court over murder and manslaughter of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

How private contractors like to roll

so?

It still is an offical nato command, while it's no secret that the nato is heavily influenced by the US, it's not a 100% control, the other members have some say, too.


Somewhat off-topic, what I often find people who opt for the "move out by tomorrow" - option, for legal or "humanitarian! reasons, do not or not seriously consider is this:
What will happen to the people who cooperated with the Nato programs when we just leave and the Taliban are back in charge and I don't mean in a military sense.
I am talking about Schools for Women and Hospitals, Women who didn't wear a veil, Men who didn't shave.
You will leave all them at the whim of people who thought it was a good call to blow up 2000 year old
historic artifacts.

Will you explain to them how all that is really done so they can live in peace and not in an occupied country anymore?

It is debatable whether invading Afghanistan was good or just or whatever. I think it was, as opposed to Iraq, but as I said, it's debatable.
But I am convinced leaving now, just like that, would cost thousands of people their lives.

Britain and America are the only NATO members who’ve deployed a proper fighting force. The Netherlands actually have the fourth largest fighting force presence in Afghanistan and that’s only 1,500 strong. Out of 28 members? Token gestures. It’s not the big motivated collaboration that could be called a concerted NATO-wide effort.

About withdrawal, very few people want them out tomorrow, but an exit strategy with some milestones and a tangible deadline wouldn’t go amiss. There’s still money to be made by the fed from increased government borrowing for the war. Contractors are still getting paid, and the arms manufacturer’s profits are none too shabby during war time so I wouldn’t expect it to end anytime before 2012. Making it an eleven year war, to remove a few towel heads using antiquated military equipment. lol

These things take decades to get right. You can't just go in and expect to be out within 10 years and everything be fine.

"these things"? what things specifically? Why decades, and how many decades? Could you be any more vague?

Re-read the second part of the post you're replying to, America don't want to get "these things" right. Hamid Karzai is a puppet, and the elections were a total farce. A lot of Afghans didn't vote in some regions, yet the ballot boxes were chock full! They're certainly exporting their version of "democracy". Ballot rigging is one of "these things"

Oh, sorry you're right, I didn't realise you were there to personally verify if the Afgahns were voting and who they were voting for.

lol i was a little patronising but some responses are just wow. Anyway, I take it you didn't read the link. Well here's some more info on how the elections are an epic fail

moar

moar

moar

It doesn't matter if the elections were rubbish or not, in fact I'd be surprised if they weren't given the social, political and economic development of Afghanistan.

The problem is, it isn't some mass conspiracy to keep a war going or to have Afghanistan be a USA/UK puppet state. It takes decades to change from a society like Taliban Afghanistan to a stable, safe semi-democratic/democratic society which is why NATO is still there, why more troops are being sent to fight the Talibans disruptive influence and why a "pull out" plan cannot and should not be made.

On the one hand you say democracy isn’t important (when you say “it doesn't matter if the elections were rubbish or not”) and then on the other hand you say that there should be an effort made to turn Afghanistan in to a “semi-democratic/democratic society”. You think it’s possible to have a democracy with a corrupt election process? In any case the very notion of nation building (even though the war is really a vehicle driving profits for the military industrial complex) is crazily arrogant. Getting tired of these replies now so please don’t argue for the sake of arguing anymore

I didn't say democracy wasn't important, I said it's not important if the elections were fraudulent or not.

You can't just waltz in to a third world country that's never had a democracy and expect to be able to hold flawless elections. Do you think the democracies in developed nations began perfectly?

It takes time, lots of time and requires a step by step process. The notion of nation building may very well be crazily arrogant but it's not my notion and is exactly what is happening.

"I didn't say democracy wasn't important, I said it's not important if the elections were fraudulent or not" so you're saying that democracy is important, but that the election process isn't? election process = democracy. how is it your obvious contradiction eluded u, even after I'd laid it our for u in comment #186? I'm not trying to be a dick, but u just have to see this.

"You can't just waltz in to a third world country that's never had a democracy and expect to be able to hold flawless elections" It's pretty simple. An Afghan ticks the box beside the candidate he wants to win, and places it into the ballot box. Then the people counting the votes should tally it up. It's not a case of unattainable first time flawlessness; it's an insidious robbery of power. This is obvious.

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how" - Joseph Stalin

"The notion of nation building may very well be crazily arrogant but it's not my notion" I didn't say it was ini, lol.

"but is exactly what is happening" Really? There are almost 50 million medically uninsured Americans who have to stitch up their own wounds and suffer without medication. Hospitals call taxi cabs to pick up uninsured patients to drop them off at some comprehensively under-equipped charity since they're unable to pay the many thousands of dollars in hospital bills. Given how much money is made in war by the military industrial complex you still believe the political and business elite in the U.S (who don't don't give a shit about their own people) care about the average Afghan? You know it's bad when even faux news is reporting the corruption.

Actually your system would result in even more fraud than in the system they actually used. They did a pretty good job for a nation in such a state as Afghanistan and it cannot always be helped that some people take it upon themselves to destroy votes.

That is why it wasn't important that there was some fraud for this election (note how it wasn't happening everywhere and only affected one candidate who wasn't a front runner). By the next election things will have improved and I would expect increased participation and a decrease in fraud.

They are quite clearly trying to build up democratic nations in Afghanistan and Iraq (They did the same Bosnia and Germany).

How much money is made in war? Please, give me some solid, reliable and verifiable statistics.

“your system would result in even more fraud” Why didn’t you see that the voting system is irrelevant if the administrators of the election process are corrupt?

“They did a pretty good job for a nation in such a state as Afghanistan” what “good job” are you referring to? Corrupt elections? record civilian deaths? Opium production
blossoming since the Taliban lost control in December 2001?

“By the next election things will have improved” u going to substantiate at least one thing that u say?

“They are quite clearly trying to build up democratic nations in Afghanistan” I’ve already given u info to the contrary. u going to substantiate at least one thing that u say?

“How much money is made in war? Please, give me some solid, reliable and verifiable statistics.” Why do u refuse to read the links I paste? I just gave u a link showing that Haliburton had made $600m in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2003. All this for one organization. I also pasted a link showing private contractors outnumbering military personnel. U.S government contracts have already paid out more than $25 billion as of 2006 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look down to the list and you’ll see how much profit there is to be made from war. “Congress appropriated at least $106 billion for Pentagon contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 through the first half of the 2008 fiscal year, the report says” from the very same link I pasted earlier, that you refuse to read.

Isolated incidents in a large undeveloped country going through the process of democratisation is inevitable and unavoidable without massive resources.

As such the election was pretty well run overall, but I guess since you're the man with all the answers why don't you tell us how they should have done it?

They are clearly in the process of nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraq and you've not provided any information to the contrary.

I've read all those links you've pasted and none of them show how the USA (or in fact any nation) is making a profit out of the war, on the contrary it just shows how much in debt the USA is getting having to pay so much money into military organisations.

Oh right, yeah, the federal reserve does!!!!!!!

And as we know they control the UK and NATO and cannot think of better ways to make money than going to war.

"As such the election was pretty well run overall" you're either obstinate to the point of being cognitively deficient, or you're trolling me. either way, i can't believe i bothered. u also need to recognise not once did u substantiate a single thing that u spewed. not once. last post from me

How would you have run the election?
How would you set milestones without jeopardising the lives of civilians and military personnel?
How would you leave Afghanistan without leaving it at risk of destabilising?

It takes a long time to rebuild a nation and be able to leave it in good standing. Now that they are there, they're stuck there as it would be totally irresponsible and basically mean the past eight years were a complete waste of time (They invaded for a reason, why reverse things?).

OH MA GAWD I GUNNA RAGE BECAUSE OF NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LULZ.

Seriously though, the Nobel Prize is only an acknowledgment - not a trophy - of ideas/concepts/actions/accomplishments etc. It is not like people do research/write books/do something for peoples well being with the aim of winning the Nobel Prize (specifically the Nobel Peave Prize). People do their research and so on irrespectively of the Nobel Prize's existence. Indeed, the prize maybe the an additional motivation as well as receiving the award can help your cause.

Obama has done a lot of work to put the USA in a good light. He is actually attending international Congress' and other meetings with the intention of not just blocking every negotiation attempt that is put forward by other nations. In fact, he appears to be the one longing for cooperation. This is much needed work after the previous 8 years. Even if it may seem like stupid publicity work.

He may have no achievements per se under his belt. But what do you expect? His inauguration was 10 months ago. Actions potentially affecting the the international political arena and the entire planet have to be lined up carefully. You can't just flip a coin and act at your every whim. You think from day one Obama could just hop on the AirForceOne and play golf with the big shots in China just because he is Obama?

Obama sure is trying. The Nobel Peace Prize may be an additional motivation for him and maybe just symbolizes the hope/faith many people put in him in these dire times. In this respect, his intentions alone may just be worth more than anyone else's actions in the past years in respect to peace.

People should stop running their balls through a cheese grater over this and Jamerio should stop being a fat chav cunt.

"He may have no achievements per se under his belt. But what do you expect?"

How about not expecting him to win the Nobel Prize?

"Seriously though, the Nobel Prize is only an acknowledgment - not a trophy - of ideas/concepts/actions/accomplishments etc."

Oh so you think that because he's pioneering world peace and to fix the economy he deserves a medal. Geez I bet no one else has thought of that.

And he's doing all that while signing papers to continue an unwinnable war in the middle east. So his actions are death and misery and his concept is love and peace and to fix the world.

Wow you really are Tim but dim.

Hold on arent you the guy who used to spout how great bush was?

yer :\

and Blair in the same post if I remember rightly

It has been awarded to people before that haven't done anything but were considered to be on the right course. Like Sadat and Begin and others.

Lol, you're funneh!

Even if you want to try to give credit to anything he has done, he was nominated for this award 2 weeks into his presidency. The nomination was clearly politically motivated.

You do know that the committee doesn't nominate people?

As stated before he has been working on peace and stuff before his presidency :o

Like when?

never quite understood how a modern US president can ever get a Nobel prize for peace

A questionable move by the Norwegian Nobel Price committee. Me thinks they want to make it harder for him to apply military pressure or encage in a war. Or at least try to deliberately make a point of nodding towards the hopes of peace. If he started one right now, this prize would be even more "fail".

http://imaletyoufinish.com/wp-content/uploads...a-moon.jpg

i think one of the main reasons they gave it to him was because nuclear disarmament in one of his goals. He passed a bill in the senate with regard to that, and has hosted a summit to that intent as well.

other tahn that, he doesnt really deserve it...

goals

Kick ass screensaver! Thanks!

Yes, have troops in two countries and win a peace prize, thanks for making me chuckle.

yep

btw. this discussion reminded me first page of one of the most popular newspapers here
http://new-arch.rp.pl/okladki/b_7_8444.jpg
"Peace Nobel for Obama" with a huge photo
and next to it
"Afghanistan: two soldiers died"

(yeah I know he is not the one responsible for entering Afghanistan but it still looks interesting)

1990 - Michail Gorbachev was awarded Nobel prize
1991 - USSR disbanded
2009 - Barak Obama wins Nobel prize
???? - The whole world is waiting now...

Sending the troops home would be a good start...

1988 - Michail Gorbachev moves troops out of Afghanistan
1990 - Michail Gorbachev was awarded Nobel prize
1991 - USSR disbanded
2009 - Barak Obama wins Nobel prize
20?? - Barak Obama moves troops out of Afghanistan
???? - The whole world is waiting now...

????
PROFIT!

:|

i didn't know sending 20,000 troops to war, contemplating 40,000 more would earn you the nobel peace prize.

Wilson got one.
Kissinger got one.

And they were involved with the start of wars as well.

Acutally, dunno if anyone else wiki it yet. But this quote fom Nobel himself got my attention:

during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.[1]

Now, it's very hard to say whether he really did the most or the best, maybe he didn't.
But we have see a change of course towrds Iran (Had some hardliner been elected I would have bet on a war instead) there is more pressure on Isreal,. Obama also seems to have sacked the rocket shield thing and negotiates deals for less atomic weapons.
All of those do, in my eyes, fit in with that quote.

Kissinger getting one is not an argument for Obama deserving it, but more an argument against the nobel peace prize true prestige.

or maybe about people reading quotes completely: "during the preceding year"

"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies"

does this apply to obama? he has increased military activity in afghanistan sending in more troops than ever. also he sanctioned an obviously un-democratic and violent election of a new president. all the while, civilian deaths in the first half of this year saw an increase from 2007 and 2008.

and i'm not even talking about iraq or pakistan or whatever other territories the usa bomb on any given day.

even the biggest obama supporters think this recognition is a joke.

I am talking about a quote, and it says nothing about activity. Feel free to donate a different prize, this one is Noble's and that is his will.


"even the biggest obama supporters think this recognition is a joke."
interesting. Do you have any support for that bold statement?

The quote is "during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.[1]"

Says nothing about activity? How has increasing warfare in afganistan, sending in additional troops with plans for even more, a dramatic increase of civilian casualties fit in with that quote? in fact that quote if anything tells exactly why obama shouldn't have gotten that prize.

that's not a bold statement, both the international and domestic response(even from Obama himself) to this prize has been pretty one dimensional if you haven't noticed, and i'm not even talking about the republicans.

no you are just trying to assume what Nobel meant. It does not say anything about the activity. And an army does not increase in size by moving it around the globe.


Also, your argument about the increased amount of citizens is bad.
The increase was not as much brought about by nato, but instead because the taliban increased their actions against militaty targets but also against civilians.

So basically you are saying: Oh look there are people being killed right next to me and they are asking for my help. Better run away now, because I am all for peace. I mean yeah, letting the Taliban kill all opposition they get will certainly assure some sort of peace.

Before you now tell me how the Taliban weren't so bad, please take a very close look at what is looking in Pakistan.

You're completely misinterpreting the quote, no matter how you try to twist and turn it says "reduction of standing armies"

In your first paragraph you're basically saying that 50,000 US troops in Fort Knox is the same thing as 50,000 US troops away abroad engaging in actual warfare, since the actual number of people in uniforms are the same. I don't think that's what Nobel meant, more likely he was of the opinion that sending troops to war is an increase of standing armies.

Fact: The military in Afghanistan increases in size when troops are being deployed there in the dozens of thousands.

Are you oblivious to the frequent protest by the Afghan people against the extreme and disproportionate use of force the military uses in their fight against the Taliban? The same thing can be said for Iraq and Pakistan. But I guess that's a "bad argument" to make in a peace prize discussion, like all other civilian death statistics.

Regarding your last paragraph, where exactly did I say the Taliban weren't bad? Anyone who criticizes the war must be pro-Taliban! OK, Bill O'Reilly.

"standing army" means an army that does not disband during peace.
That is pretty much standard today, but back in Nobel's day it wasn't, so such a distinction would be a bit more important.

But at least you agree later on, that you are in fact interpreting the quote and not taking it literally, despite accusing me of doing just that...

Also nice to insult me, instead of actually reading correctly. I wrote "before you now..." as in you haven't but I figure you might.

Then you even take it one step further and postulate that I said everyone against a war is pro Taliban. I certainly never said that. I actually mentioned elsewhere that I think it is very debatable whether attacking Afghanistan in the first place was smart or not.
I do however question those people that think it is a smart (and humanitarian) idea to just leave right away.
Or what do you think theTaliban will do if there is just the new Afghani army left to fight them, when even the trained Pakistanis have trouble stopping them?
Tell me, I am curious to hear that. Or is it impossible to debate such a thing with you and do you have to resort to insults as the likes of tourist et al do?

I insulted you??? You were the one indicating that I was pro-Taliban. And what did you have to base that on? Nothing, except me criticizing the war and Obama! "Oh, next you're gonna say you're pro taliban". Hence the fully deserved Bill O'Reilly comparison!

But oh, you said it without actually saying it, so you can act all offended "uh, I didn't actually call you that, i only said i figure you were, that's totally different". How convenient! Now after I respond, you're the innocent victim and I'm the one with the insults!

And no I didn't agree with you on a single thing you said about that very simple quote which you still don't understand. I can't explain it any better than I already have.

I can't respond without insults? It's getting pretty difficult with you at this point, but at least in my posts I've tried using pretty straight forward logic and I've gotten nothing substantial in return except one liners of twisting facts and hidden insults. So here's an insult for you: Fuck off you pretentious asshole.

you really need to read more carefully. I wrote "not so bad" which ir not the same as "not bad". And it was an preemtitive statement, unsure whether you wanted to write it or not, but wanting to stop you at the very beginning in case you wanted to.
But good to know that you think people deserve insults when you don't read well.

And here's an idea if you don't want to be called out on insulting someone, then maybe you shouldn't make an insult?

I also wrote the last part as a question, whether you are able to debate something without using insults (again). But of course you again have to go an interpret it as an attack, conveniently ignoring the question mark.

Well, and since you couldn't read that statements correctly, and beofre that had an "interesting" definition of the word "standing army", I think it's pretty clear who is the one that can't interpret a "simple quote".

And yeah, if you want you may take those last two lines as an insult.

you really need to read more carefully. I wrote "not so bad" which ir not the same as "not bad".

YEAH THERE'S SO MUCH DIFFERENCE YOU PUT "SO" IN THE SENTENCE SO IT WASN'T AN INSULT OMG

I also wrote the last part as a question

WOW YOU CLEVERLY PUT A QUESTION MARK AT THE END MEANING IT WASN'T OFFENSIVE AT ALL SORRY I DIDN'T SEE IT


you're a real fucking genius

overreacting much?

you wanted to see an insult so you did. If you hadn't you woudn't have. Easy as that.

No i didn't give a fuck. We had a perfectly normal debate, I thought, until you started crying in #147 accusing me of insulting you because I called you bill o'reilly! So I explained exactly why I did that, and called you out on your own patronizing and pretentious remarks. But being the unbelieveable stubborn deuche you are, you actually deny them in ways I would never have imagined.

you really need to read more carefully. I wrote "not so bad" which ir not the same as "not bad".

I also wrote the last part as a question, whether you are able to debate something without using insults (again). But of course you again have to go an interpret it as an attack, conveniently ignoring the question mark.

Yeah! nothing patronizing about that!!! You had a question mark!! Are you really that blind?

But really I didn't give a fuck until you started crying and making your post just about how hurt your feelings were.

All the while you're the most patronizing asshole on esr.

no, I asked you straight forward whether you feel you are able to continue this discussion normally or whether you wnated to stick with insulting, like the guy below prefers.

Your answer was quite clear.

you were the one starting with the insults, you were the one who strayed this discussion of the normal course. pretty sad since I've never felt the need to use insults with you.

I thought I had explained that the last sentence with "not so bad" was not meant as an insult?

It was patronizing whether you see it or not. It was a cheap shot and completely warranted the Bill O'Reilly comparison. That's what he does all the time.

Some guy: I don't think we should be in Iraq
Bill: That's completely unamerican! Next you're gonna say Saddam Hussain isn't so bad ehh? TRAITOR.

But really I had no idea you would take the O'Reilly so personally and not just lol and move on with the OBAMA NOBEL PRIZE debate.

I can see the patronizing and I know I sometimes have a tendency to that. But I utterley despise O'Reilly.
So in my eyes, no, it didn't warrant that.

:D true

well, anyway, I think we were pretty much at the end of the discussion. You had your interpretation of the quote (which to me seems more like an interpretation of the intention) and I have mine, which I think was a bit more literal.

But that's pretty much a dead end.

so we agree, Obama didn't deserve the nobel prize. ;)

deserve is just the wrong word imo.

don't bother using logic and arguments with this guy, he doesn't operate like that. he uses what he likes to call "explanations without arguments".

also [+] for the correct usage of the word "pretentious". you seeing this ix?

lol

At least he didn't receive second one, in economics...

Nevermind what Obama has SAID. What has he actually done for world peace?

He's still in Iraq and Afganistan, and Guantanamo is still open.
At least wait until he has done something...

Oh hi.

You are like the fifteenth person, who says the it's underserved because of the lack of accomplishments. And yes, I do have to agree that my initial thought as well.

But again, there is the chance this award might really help to push things in the right direction. Whenever someone in America now opposes Obama voting on related issues, he will have to answer whether he is just bitter that Obama got the prize, and now wants to block of any chance that could make it more deserved.
On the same line of thought, this awrd really raised awareness and sparked a big discussion on peace related issues.

Is there anyone who can honestly say, that that isn't a good thing?


So yeah, regarding accomplishments it was underserved.
But regarding what can possibly be accomplished by giving this prize to Obama, it is a good choice.



Sure there are probably more deserved winners (even though people here haven't even named one!) but all those lesser known people who got the award are often forgotten again far too soon. What for example about "Aung San Suu Kyi" who was just in the news again, but has been under house arrest for years. Things are still shit in Burma, whom did that prize really help?

Incidently a new American mega-bomb being tested. It's the biggest non nuclear bomb in history.
Intended to be available for use against the world in 2010.

There is a picture of it here:

http://www.metro.se/2009/10/13/32477/forst-fr.../index.xml

Also swedish text, if you would like to google translate it :)

I do think he is much better than Bush, and a fine speaker of common sense, but he hasnt done anything worth getting a prize over yet. I just wish they could at least wait until he has done the things he promised before they throw the prize at him.

It just seems to me like the peace prize is just a general prize for people doing some good in the world, and not about peace at all.
Al Gore getting the prize attests to that I think.

Even Adolf Hitler (and Stalin & Mussolini) was briefly nominated for the Nobel Peace prize by some guy of the parlament, though obviously the nominations were retracted later.

but he hasnt done anything worth getting a prize over yet. I just wish they could at least wait until he has done the things he promised before they throw the prize at him.

Hey I never questioned that!

But I do on the other hand believe that giving him the prize will make it easier to reach those goals. And that alone validates the choice to me.

how does receiving the prize make it "easier" for him to achieve his stated goals? My thinking was, "here's the peace prize Obama, now act like u deserve it by ending some wars"

I wrote my thoughts on that in #156:

"Whenever someone in America now opposes Obama voting on related issues, he will have to answer whether he is just bitter that Obama got the prize, and now wants to block of any chance that could make it more deserved.
On the same line of thought, this awrd really raised awareness and sparked a big discussion on peace related issues."

Maybe not much, but then again politics in the US and actually everywhere are so much driven by public opinion...

"Whenever someone in America now opposes Obama voting on related issues, he will have to answer whether he is just bitter that Obama got the prize" This would help in kindergarten. "and now wants to block of any chance that could make it more deserved" and this would hinder. Thoroughly unconvincing

in case you haven't realized it, politics is very much like kindergarten.

about that bomb, I don't really know what to make of it.

But, since it is a non-nuclear device, and it is meant for military bunkers, it can in a very twisted way, seen as a step in the right direction.
A la
"Hey world you don't have to Weapons than can kill thousands of civilians in one strike to be really terrifying.
One bomb that threatens to just kill the military leaders in their fortified bunker can do the trick.
After all those are the ones who get to start a war."

But, again, not really sure.

America wins again!

he didn't seek the nobel prize...he made a speech that he was surprised he got it and implied that he wasn't deserving

Yet, he doesn't decline the award.

I believe he's responding to the far-fetched concept in the original post suggesting that any realistic individual might actually seek the Nobel Prize as an attainable goal.