The Clockwork Mansion

The news coming straight from Norway the US President Barack Obama to receive this honoured prize. Can't think any specific reason to give him ths award over others but the thoughts of the people?

Unlikely.

What has Obama done to promote peace?  That sounds like...(checks Google News)...wait, what?

It must have been very slim competition this year.  I don't mean this as a slight to Obama, but he hasn't even been in office one year, and his accomplishments on the peace front are basically promising to get out of Iraq.

Well, the peace prize has been a joke ever since Henry Kissinger won it for ending a war that he helped to escalate...

Sad to say it was about 205 people he beat out. And atleast Henry created some peace.

Quote from: silentassassin on October 09, 2009, 06:11:25 AMSad to say it was about 205 people he beat out. And atleast Henry created some peace.

Well, Obama will when he actually does pull out of Iraq.  But even though his promises are a little more credible than Nixon's Secret Plan, he hasn't actually done it yet.  There are still combat troops in Iraq.  And then there's the question of giving somebody a peace prize simply for stopping the bellicose policies of the last guy.  Did they give Konrad Adenauer a Nobel simply because he was Chancellor after the fall of Nazi Germany?

If they're going to start handing out Peace Prizes for promises to do things, I promise to bring world peace TOMORROW* !!!


*The promised peace will be obtained by a simple augmentation of the human population to a single digit number.   :mwaha

Yeah, I just heard about that about an hour ago. Something about giving him a peace prize because some people saying it's valid on the supposed fact that he will be worthy of one in the future.   :januscat

Come on, we all know that the Nobel Peace Prize is more or less meaningless. Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, and I believe Stalin had a nomination after the second World War. (Neither won though). All you really need to get in for consideration is to have one history or sociology professor at a major university send in your name, and really, is that so hard for a public figure?


Once you have that, all you need is for three of the five judges to like you more than the other candidates. So really, all you need to win the Nobel Peace prize is some recognizeability, and a little popularity in Europe.


I've stopped paying all attention to the relevance of the Nobel Peace prize, in light of the fact that Yasser Arafat won one.

And Gandhi never did.


Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.

Quote from: Alondro on October 09, 2009, 09:19:48 AM
*The promised peace will be obtained by a simple augmentation of the human population to a single digit number.   :mwaha

I don't know about that.  To paraphrase the sniper from TF2.  "As long as there are two people left alive, someone is going to want someone else dead."

Meh, the peace-prizes lost favor with me when they started handing them out to Muslim warlords who then go and attack Israel.

I don't mind this, but I would have been pretty happy if Greg Mortenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson) won the prize. The chances of him winning would have been really slim, but for Christ's sake, he builds schools in Pakistan for boys and girls and reforms Taliban members through his generosity alone.

I mean, that deserves some kind of prize right there.

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on October 09, 2009, 04:10:53 PM
I don't mind this, but I would have been pretty happy if Greg Mortenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson) won the prize. The chances of him winning would have been really slim, but for Christ's sake, he builds schools in Pakistan for boys and girls and reforms Taliban members through his generosity alone.

Yeah, that's what I think most people are thinking right now.  Including, it seems, Barack Obama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Winning-the-Nobel-Peace-Prize/):

QuoteI am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear:  I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

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 honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.  And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't as big as joke as the Oscars yet, but still, handing an Award top Obama prematurely is alarming. I mean, what if completely snaps and declares himself Emperor of Mankind? I'm not insulting the guy, but imagine if we gave Mao Zedong a Nobel Peace prize for the Cultural Revolution or The Great Leap Forward. Giving someone a prize like this for what they intend to do is completely idiotic. What's the Road to Hell paved with again, children?

Quote from: Kafzeil on October 09, 2009, 10:07:12 PMThe Nobel Peace Prize isn't as big as joke as the Oscars yet, but still, handing an Award top Obama prematurely is alarming. I mean, what if completely snaps and declares himself Emperor of Mankind? I'm not insulting the guy, but imagine if we gave Mao Zedong a Nobel Peace prize for the Cultural Revolution or The Great Leap Forward. Giving someone a prize like this for what they intend to do is completely idiotic. What's the Road to Hell paved with again, children?

Well, exactly.

Allow me to Godwin the thread:

``For his contributions to peace and the peaceful resolution of the Czechoslovakian Affair, the Nobel Committee awards the Peace Prize to Adolf Hitler.'' (OK, they wouldn't have awarded it to the guy who invaded the country in the first place, but still.  People thought that it was over and that war had been averted.)

Quote from: superluser on October 09, 2009, 11:33:49 PM


Allow me to Godwin the thread:

``For his contributions to peace and the peaceful resolution of the Czechoslovakian Affair, the Nobel Committee awards the Peace Prize to Adolf Hitler.'' (OK, they wouldn't have awarded it to the guy who invaded the country in the first place, but still.  People thought that it was over and that war had been averted.)

It's not too farfetched. He didn't win, but Adolf Hilter *was* nominated in 1939 by Erik Brandt.

Well, considering the nature of the peace prize, he is being awarded it, he didn't win anything.

I was actually talking with some people about the prize being awarded at a party this evening, two people other than myself also held the view that he hasn't done anything, and a third... who called us racist for tearing him down because he's black...

I'm just here to deposit a friend's amused impression of how it all went down.

QuoteWhat I like is my mental image of him being poked awake at 6AM to be informed and him being all blinking and "...buh?", then turning over and going "Michelle, I think I just won a Nobel Prize" and she'd be all "that's nice dear *turns over, zzzs*" and then they realize it wasn't a dream later. X3

Quote from: Reese Tora on October 11, 2009, 03:54:20 AMI was actually talking with some people about the prize being awarded at a party this evening, two people other than myself also held the view that he hasn't done anything, and a third... who called us racist for tearing him down because he's black...

What I find interesting is the number of people on the left who think that he hasn't done anything, especially given the ``empty suit'' rhetoric you see coming from the right.

I'm not so sure if he's really earned it either, and I'm very liberal. That being said, I think Obama is correct that the Prize is sometimes used to give momentum to causes the recipients champion. And Obama has had a history of pushing for the end of nuclear weaponry, even in the Senate. So in that respect, I can see the logic behind the decision.

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 04:16:54 AM
What I find interesting is the number of people on the left who think that he hasn't done anything, especially given the ``empty suit'' rhetoric you see coming from the right.

So... what _has_ he done to warrant a Nobel? So far as I'm aware, he popped up out of nowhere to win the election for no apparent cause.

Which makes him just another suit. Of course, I consider most of the election options in both the US and the UK - and, in fact, everywhere else I've been - to be "bad", "worse", or "unpalatable", generally speaking, so I might be somewhat biased...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on October 11, 2009, 05:47:11 AM

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 04:16:54 AMWhat I find interesting is the number of people on the left who think that he hasn't done anything, especially given the ``empty suit'' rhetoric you see coming from the right.

So... what _has_ he done to warrant a Nobel? So far as I'm aware, he popped up out of nowhere to win the election for no apparent cause.

Which makes him just another suit. Of course, I consider most of the election options in both the US and the UK - and, in fact, everywhere else I've been - to be "bad", "worse", or "unpalatable", generally speaking, so I might be somewhat biased...

Well, the rhetoric is different.  During the election, a lot of people on the right said that Obama was so popular because he said hope and change a lot, but that he didn't have any policy positions and was completely inexperienced.  This was the empty suit rhetoric.

Now, a lot of people on the left are saying that he has a lot of good policy positions, but that he hasn't had the opportunity to follow through on what he said he'd do.  It's not the same argument, but it's similar enough that the right wing will use it to claim that the left secretly knows he's an empty suit.  In reality, there's a difference between a political position based on getting things done and an award based on making the world a better place.

As to what he has done in international relations to deserve a peace prize, I'm not sure he has done much of anything.  He's altered the missile defense plans, which seems to have eased tensions with Russia and led to less nuclear proliferation rhetoric.  And he *says* he's going to remove all combat troops from Iraq, but it seems like it might be a good idea to see if he's lying before you give him the Peace Prize.

Well, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given for no apparent reason a few times. I think this time is just another example. I think he may (or may not) be worthy of that prize at some point in the future, depending on what he does while he's in the office. But so far I don't think he has actually done anything to make the world a more peaceful place.

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
As to what he has done in international relations to deserve a peace prize, I'm not sure he has done much of anything.  He's altered the missile defense plans, which seems to have eased tensions with Russia and led to less nuclear proliferation rhetoric.  And he *says* he's going to remove all combat troops from Iraq, but it seems like it might be a good idea to see if he's lying before you give him the Peace Prize.

s/lying/capable/, I think. All the good intentions in the world are not going to remove the troops, if there's a good reason they need to stay. And the President is one of the few people who actually have access to the full information.

Of course, that's not saying he'll avail himself of that info, mind. Just that it's available...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on October 11, 2009, 04:52:02 PMs/lying/capable/, I think. All the good intentions in the world are not going to remove the troops, if there's a good reason they need to stay. And the President is one of the few people who actually have access to the full information.

Well, I'm not sure that I would predicate that on capability.  Desmond Tutu got the prize in 1984 for his ``role as a unifying leader figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.''

Of course, Tutu was not capable of resolving apartheid at that time.  That would be resolved by another Nobel laureate, Nelson Mandela, a decade later.  But Tutu had been active and making progress in that area for years, and giving the Nobel to him was credible, because he had shown that he was interested in actually making good on his promises.

(not that Obama isn't going to make good on his promises, but he hasn't had the opportunity to prove it yet)

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
Now, a lot of people on the left are saying that he has a lot of good policy positions, but that he hasn't had the opportunity to follow through on what he said he'd do.  It's not the same argument, but it's similar enough that the right wing will use it to claim that the left secretly knows he's an empty suit.  In reality, there's a difference between a political position based on getting things done and an award based on making the world a better place.

Wait, the Democrats are holding pretty much every section of the government....  Remind me again, what exactly is keeping him from following through?

Quote from: Valynth on October 11, 2009, 06:54:09 PM
Wait, the Democrats are holding pretty much every section of the government....  Remind me again, what exactly is keeping him from following through?

The Democrats are not very well unified, they're more like an anti-Republican coalition than a political party. They can work together to oppose them, but they have their own 'sub' party affiliations, ones that don't mingle well with each other. They can work together to take the houses of congress, but their own agendas come to light when they are in power. I think the health-care debate is very ample evidence of the dis-unity of the Democrat party, each wants to have their own way and they're apparently not willing to compromise over what to do. (The Democratic primaries were also a good example of this, if you were following them.)

And remember, the president cannot legislate. He can get someone in his party to propose a bill but that's about it. Considering how the house works, a bill is not likely to look the same at all if, or when it comes out of the house. It might look so different that the president may not even want to ratify the bill.

Quote from: Valynth on October 11, 2009, 06:54:09 PMWait, the Democrats are holding pretty much every section of the government....  Remind me again, what exactly is keeping him from following through?

Well, I suppose he could declare that tomorrow is the last day for troops in Iraq and fly all 124,000 troops home immediately.

Does that sound smart to you?

Speaking about the missle defense plan changes, I'm not happy about anything that Russia's happy about.  Let's review history:  since when has anything that made Russia happy been good for anyone else?

Seriously, why would they be upset with Poland having a system to stop incoming nuclear weapons, unless they're planning to launch some at Poland in the first place?

And if they're worried about Poland launching weapons at them... that's even stupider!  This is Poland after all.  The Russians just need to push the 'return to sender' button on the Polish missles!  XD   

*Charles is an evil right-wing mega-racist who hates everyone.  Even himself.*  I'll kill that danged whitey nerd boy!  *stabs self and dies*   :knifed

An interpretive illustration of the self-destructive nature of racial bigotry.   :3

Quote from: Alondro on October 11, 2009, 10:22:16 PMSpeaking about the missle defense plan changes, I'm not happy about anything that Russia's happy about.  Let's review history:  since when has anything that made Russia happy been good for anyone else?

Seward's Folly?  They were eager to dump that land, and I think on the whole we're quite glad to have gotten it.

I don't know why people make such a big deal about missile defenses anyway. They don't actually stop ICBM's anyway........

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 10:58:59 PM

Seward's Folly?  They were eager to dump that land, and I think on the whole we're quite glad to have gotten it.

Indeed, but who would have known that there were such vast fossil fuel resources there or that the United States would become one of their most supreme opponents in the future?  It is the luck of the draw.

Quote from: superluser on October 11, 2009, 09:20:57 PM

Quote from: Valynth on October 11, 2009, 06:54:09 PMWait, the Democrats are holding pretty much every section of the government....  Remind me again, what exactly is keeping him from following through?

Well, I suppose he could declare that tomorrow is the last day for troops in Iraq and fly all 124,000 troops home immediately.

Does that sound smart to you?

Isn't the declaration of an extraction date and obeying said date one of the many promises he made to get into office?

Quote from: Valynth on October 12, 2009, 01:26:40 AMIsn't the declaration of an extraction date and obeying said date one of the many promises he made to get into office?

Yes.  His deadline is the end of 2011.

Quote from: superluser on October 12, 2009, 01:38:21 AM

Quote from: Valynth on October 12, 2009, 01:26:40 AMIsn't the declaration of an extraction date and obeying said date one of the many promises he made to get into office?

Yes.  His deadline is the end of 2011.

not exactly what he promised. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q)

Quote from: Valynth on October 12, 2009, 01:47:04 AMnot exactly what he promised. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q)

I'm sorry.  I must have misinterpreted ``After this redeployment, we will keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq.'' to mean that a residual force would remain in Iraq after that redeployment.  Combat troops will be removed by August 2010.

Quote from: superluser on October 12, 2009, 02:28:30 AM

Quote from: Valynth on October 12, 2009, 01:47:04 AMnot exactly what he promised. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q)

I'm sorry.  I must have misinterpreted ``After this redeployment, we will keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq.'' to mean that a residual force would remain in Iraq after that redeployment.  Combat troops will be removed by August 2010.

From what I'm reading it WAS going to be 2010 before he got elected and now he and his staff are saying 2011.

Bit early to tell, but he may be pulling pages from Bush's strategy book....

Quote from: Valynth on October 12, 2009, 03:13:07 AMFrom what I'm reading it WAS going to be 2010 before he got elected and now he and his staff are saying 2011.

Bit early to tell, but he may be pulling pages from Bush's strategy book....

As of Sept. 30, The BBC reports that the US is on track to have all troops out by August 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8283910.stm) and is in fact accelerating the withdrawal.

Unless you have a more recent report...

hmmm, from what I can gather (and bear in mind the sources are questionable):

The Iraqi PM has offered to allow troops until late 2011, hence the confusion about the date.

Obama, on the other hand wants to get out by 2010.

Given Iraq's position I can't blame them for wanting us to stay.

I remember when John Hume won one.

Nominations for the Peace Prize closed less than two weeks after Obama took office, which means he was likely considered for nomination even before taking office.

This whole thing makes less sense the more I learn about it. 

Quote from: Alondro on October 13, 2009, 11:35:44 AMNominations for the Peace Prize closed less than two weeks after Obama took office, which means he was likely considered for nomination even before taking office.

I guarantee that every head of state (or at least most heads of state) is similarly nominated every year, ``just in case.''

Quote from: Alondro on October 13, 2009, 11:35:44 AM
Nominations for the Peace Prize closed less than two weeks after Obama took office, which means he was likely considered for nomination even before taking office.

This whole thing makes less sense the more I learn about it. 

I need to check someplace just to make sure, but if this is true then color me confused.

(I mean, this is coming from someone who has a relatively positive opinion of Obama and I still am perplexed.)

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on October 14, 2009, 10:03:17 AM

Quote from: Alondro on October 13, 2009, 11:35:44 AM
Nominations for the Peace Prize closed less than two weeks after Obama took office, which means he was likely considered for nomination even before taking office.

This whole thing makes less sense the more I learn about it.  

I need to check someplace just to make sure, but if this is true then color me confused.

(I mean, this is coming from someone who has a relatively positive opinion of Obama and I still am perplexed.)

Call me a cynic, but the pursuit of something like "peace" isn't as objective as an advance in chemistry, or physics. In all honesty, Obama probably won the peace nomination because of his staggering popularity in Europe, not because of any steps taken to promote world peace.

up in arms about all this?


bear in mind who Alfred Nobel WAS.. he invented TNT, after all.

in the vain hopes of making a weapon so horrible, that nobody wanted to go to war because of it.

then Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project came along, quite literally blowing that away.

a little prize like the nobel is just a wad of metal and a title, and the subject of trivia conversation down the road... those who truly earn it, the repecussions of their actions will be felt for decades to come. Ghandi, Mandela, just to name a couple.

I don't know, the Nobels in the hard sciences tend to go to people who do make a real difference.  That wad of metal and title also comes with a check and usually offers for a fellowship position.  Fellowship positions are usually come with job descriptions such as, "What ever you are doing, just keep on doing it, will cut you a check every so often".

But again, this is in the hard sciences, where your reputation is your life and death and your achievements are all written down and published and prizes are handed out by a jury of respected peers in the field.  The peace prize tends to be handed out by a hand full of Norwegian parliamentarians, apparently with no resources to judge accomplishments outside of cable television.

"It's gonna be hard to be a president of war with a prize of peace."
-Corner West

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaM94mieeLg&feature=channel)

It's a political prize, granted, but it might be placed into the right place for once. It might prevent some conflicts if Obama has some merit under his belt when he tries to negotiate with something-something.

I just hope that this does not diminish the value of the Nobel peace prize, since my old president, Martti Ahtisaari, won it last year. He really earned it too. Many years of almost constant work in Europe, Asia and Middle-East with good results in nearly hopeless situations. Compared to him, Obama is still a greenhorn. To compare his efforts to Ahtisaari's is almost insulting.

almost...

Maybe this Peace Prize was simply a ploy to twist Obama's arm to sign that environmental UN treaty in Coopenhagen; the one that includes language essentially setting up a world governmental (it has the phrase 'government' in several paragraphs where it talks about the body to be created to oversee all the stipulations in the treaty) authority with incredible power over any nation that signs it, and to make the West accountable for what they call 'climate debt'... which as always the US will end up paying the lion's share.

The treaty will, in effect, eliminate national sovereignty for any nation that ratifies it, by making many of their laws and agencies subject directly to UN regulations.

It would make the US answerable to the UN.  This treaty could trump our laws and Constitution (if 2/3 of the Senate approves it and/or they simply ignore the Constitution, as they are increasingly apt to do).

I wondered from the start if the medal was just another trap, a carrot to lead the already willing Obama into full-fledged socialism.  Now I'm sure.  He won't dare refuse to sign so soon after receiving the medal, not even with massive public objection.