Log in

No account? Create an account
Zer Netmouse
October 9th, 2009
07:13 pm


Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
What Obama says about winning the Nobel Peace Prize

(3 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:October 10th, 2009 11:09 pm (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Obama winning the Nobel... I have a problem with the Nobel awarding the award to Obama... does that make sense?

I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone who has ever won the award previously has done as little as he has. You have to remember his nomination was less than 2 weeks into his term.

I really hate to think that it was awarded to him simply because he isn't W or because the USA has finally elected someone with more melanin than the majority.

Now, if years from now, he has gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, closed Gitmo and improved relations around the world...sure..give it to him...but now? Its like giving the prize for Medicine to Flinx because his research may lead to a new understanding the bodies immune system. If that is how it turns out...he would deserve it...but now? No.

The worst thing of this decision by the committee is that it may devalue the award and what it means to win it.
[User Picture]
Date:October 11th, 2009 02:23 pm (UTC)

He'd already fought again nuclear proliferation, and, hey, getting elected was no small thing

Note that Desmond Tutu won the peace prize in 1984, well before the end of apartheid.

See http://bit.ly/EQDYc for more.

This is not an unusual situation as far as Peace prize awards go, though the right wing wants you to think it is.
[User Picture]
Date:October 11th, 2009 02:40 pm (UTC)

Re: He'd already fought again nuclear proliferation, and, hey, getting elected was no small thing

I'm not stating that the award hasn't been giving before goals have been realized. That is not the case at all. But even in '84, Tutu had been fighting apartheid for a long time.

What has Obama been doing for a long time? Like I said above, my problem isn't with Obama winning the award but the timing of it. Remember the nomination was less than 2 weeks into his term.

I'd like to hope that he will do deeds worthy of the prize or at least try. Jimmy Carter, as much as he gets denigrated for his term in office, did a lot more to promote peace than Obama has done so far. And he didn't win the award for that but his contributions throughout his life including his leadership with Habitat for Humanity.

This isn't a right or left thing. Its a demagogue thing, Obama's charisma is outweighing his actions. If its for what he "may" do, then the committee is playing politics with the USA which is just as bad. What happens if he sucks for the rest of his term? He hasn't really accomplished anything as of yet, and may not. The inertia in D.C. is amazing. So how do we as a public not re-elect an Peace Prize winner? What would that say about us as a people?

It just stinks as gamesmanship and political maneuvering, way beyond what the award committee has done in the past.

As far as his work against nuclear proliferation see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123905870471194735.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html

None of which are policies but speech making and come well after the nomination period. Are you saying he fought prior to his election as president? As a sitting US Senator, he had no power in foreign affairs as per the Constition (although in reality they do have some).

Here is a page about his work at the UN on this subject http://www.hedgehogs.net/pg/newsfeeds/keny/item/914997/obama-resolution-on-curbing-nuclear-weapons-backed-by-un-security-council , notice that is from late September of this year.

See what I'm saying? If they had delayed even one year, there would be less issues with this award. The timing was all wrong.
Netmouse on the web Powered by LiveJournal.com