How does this make you feel? I think it is horribly premature, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Honestly, I am outraged. What has he done to promote peace? I guess promoting a sense of self blame and guilt could disguise itself as peace, or maybe his yet to be filled promises. Maybe its the ego boost the rest of the world has felt, seeing America's economy crumble and then further force itself into debt to get it out. Maybe instead of canvassing the Olympic committee to host in Chicago, he should have been doing something. I want to know what he's done to bring himself this award.

Sorry to open a hornet's nest. Wait, no I'm not.

Don't you know usually have to do something to instill peace, or some sort of self-sacrifice in order to win the prize? I think there was more other deserving people, like Denis Mukwege or someone else; this reminds me of when they gave the Peace Prize to Mother Teresa.

Surely replacing Bush is reason enough for being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm only half-joking. The entire world breathed a sigh of relief when Bush went off the scene. Obama has not continued Bush's belligerent rhetoric aimed at certain nations - he is very much a member of the international community and maybe, just maybe, he can foster a spirit of international cooperation. He has effectively said that it's fine to be a patriot and to love one's country, but it's not ok to express it as aggressive nationalism. Apparently what is good for the rest of the world isn't good for America though, judging by the revolt against Obama since he began pushing through controversial domestic policies.

What gets me is that Americans seem surprised at the nature of the actions he has taken as president, while the rest of the English-speaking world and Europe expected just this kind of legislation from him. I also have no idea why you think this supposed ego-boost has anything to do with the poor state of the US economy. If there has been any kind of boost in the rest of the world caused by Obama it has been one of optimism at potential improved relations. Europe as a whole does not want the US to fail, for a number of reasons. Firstly, trade between us is mutually beneficial; if America sneezes then we catch a cold. Secondly, we fear China and an increasingly aggressive Russia. The US is our traditional ally, not our enemy. Also, I hope it hasn't escaped your notice that Europe is in its worst recession since at least the 1970s, possibly even the 1920s/30s. I don't think they have much time to point and laugh at America when they are going through the exact same situation.

Captain, you're giving extra praise to a system that was put into effect years before Obama was even born. There is no sense to you that this was a little preemptive?

Yes it is preemptive and he needs more concrete results before it should be awarded. I was trying to explain why they might have done it.

I don't think the Nobel Peace prize is nearly as distinguished as it used to be. Despite really enjoying An Inconvenient Truth and appreciating what he's done to further the "green" cause, I don't think Al Gore should have won one, either. I guess in his case, though, trying to save the planet doesn't really fall under any of the more scientific categories, so that's fine.

I do agree that this is extremely premature. I know a lot of people who believe he should refuse it, but unfortunately that seems more disrespectful than anything to me. Granted, their website says he's getting it "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," and I can see that being a valid argument. Again, though, it is very premature.

A slightly-more-angry version of my first reaction, which was 'For what?'. I don't understand it. Nobel Peace Prize implies having done something. Obama has done NOTHING.

Replacing Bush is nice, but by no means should it be enough to receive a peace prize. Whoever was responsible for Obama getting the peace prize wasn't thinking clearly, or is trying to promote Obama.

'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples' - Effort means nothing. There are tens of thousands of people worldwide who are doing their best for one cause or another, but because of luck, lack of intellect, or lack of funds, are unable to do as much. What should matter is what is actually done.

Personally, I can think of two reasons why this was done: Obamamania, or a conspiracy reaching up towards whoever-decides-who-gets-a-peace-prize to make Obama seem like a demigod.

Also:
Pfft. Cowards.

I agree that perhaps someday Obama may have done something to merit the Nobel Peace Prize, but right now he has accomplished nothing that should qualify him for it. This and Al Gore being awarded one severely undermine the gravity of the Nobel Peace Prize.

He doesn't deserve it, let him DO something, then I'd be okay with it.

They hand those things out like candy these days. Al Gore got one, now a man who was president for less than a year? When do I get mine?

To those who are complaining, and whining, it's not your choice to dictate who the hell should earn the Nobel Peace Prize, and it certainly isn't my choice, that's up to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Plus, didn't Obama had to reset relations with Russia, spoken a speech in Cairo for Middle Eastern peace, Israel-Palestine issues, peace available with North Korea, ending the Iraq war soon, and so on? I agree it's premature, but 2009 would end and they made up their decision between the candidates who would win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 10 2009, 12:13 am by KrayZee.

His nomination was put in for the Peace Prize 10 days after he was sworn in. And of course it's not our choice to dictate who wins it, but we can still debate about it, that's what we're doing. I'm not sure why you would post if you're not looking for a discussion to be honest.

I feel that it is an insult to the people who actually deserved the award as well as the others that actually received the Nobel Peace Prize for actually showing peace. Yes, Obama is a good guy. However, I think that Obama truly didn't deserve it. What has he done exactly that is peaceful? Sure, he gave people hope. Hitler did this as well. Does that make anything peaceful? No.

I know it has been said a billion times but I'll say it again. Obama is more of a celebrity than a President. Winning awards and being on magazines, all over the internet, flooding the media with his "change". It makes him closer to the people, yes... but why would you want a celebrity as your President?

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:29 am by DavidJCobb.

Reagan was first a celebrity. Our (My) Californian Governator was a celebrity. How is being a celebrity a bad thing? Both Reagan and Governator did plenty of controversial things, and they're not called a celebrity in politics? And especially that Obama was more of an underdog during the election, I wouldn't call him a celebrity.

How about we start naming some?

Relations with Russia were not reset. The speech in Cairo didn't bring out Middle Eastern peace. Israeli-Palestinian issues weren't solved. There isn't any peace with North Korea. And the Iraq War was already effectively over when he came into office.

When Hitler first came to office in Germany, he raised it from an economically inept country in a depression to a superpower within ten years. Before WWII, he regained German territory from Czechoslovakia, France and Austria. He was a great German nationalist. He was still psychotic, racist, and somewhat evil (E' killed ~19 million Soviet citizens. And you Americans think you made some great sacrifice -_-), but please remember that Hitler was in office for almost ten years before he was considered evil. Even then, a large part of it is probably propaganda.

It's not a bad thing. When you get a peace prize for being a celebrity, that's a different issue.

Obama has repaired nothing so far. The economy would've recovered anyway. Public relations have increased because Obama's a celebrity and can do no wrong. Do I like his government more? Yes. Has he actually done anything worth this? Definitely not. And almost definitely won't.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 10 2009, 1:58 am by Centreri.

Hitler still gave his people hope. Yes, he did all of those things. That is besides the point. What I am saying is that just because someone gives people hope doesn't mean they are peaceful that is why I referenced Hitler because he gave people hope but he still did kill a lot of people.

When a person becomes a President that is different (whether it be race, sex, w/e) than the typical pattern that has been going on for so long, that person that belongs to that specific difference becomes a highlight until it becomes common. For Obama to come in and change this pattern people will remember him as the first person that changed this pattern. He then becomes a person that will be "worshipped" as a celebrity for the mean while. Don't get me wrong, a celebrity can be a good leader. It's just for the wrong reasons some times that a person becomes a celebrity.

There are people out there that do more peaceful things than Obama has. I'm talking about average people that do things for free (like volunteer work) and more. Sure, they are average people but I'm saying they've actually shown peace and compassion for their fellow man. And yes, there are people that do even more than those people but that isn't what I'm saying. They've actually done things instead of saying they will do this and that. Obama may actually do great things later on but he doesn't really deserve it right now.

How about we start naming them?

Like Denis Mukwege, I think the reward would have been more suitable for his kind of work.