Nobel Peace Prize - and the winner is >>>>>> O!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Well, Bush did not go to war against Iran, and he also did go to the United Nations on Iraq and got authorization in resolution 1441 to launch the invasion. Then, in resolution 1483, the UN approved the occupation resulting from the invasion. The UN has approved the occupation of Iraq every year through 2008. Continued US presence in Iraq is now a matter for the Iraqi government, and Obama has followed Bush's plan here as well.
 
Media Matters

Also on his radio show, Beck said: "I really think this is a validation of all things. The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given ... to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project because -- because of the arrogance ... because of the arrogance of the progressives that thought no one would stand in their way, that he would be able to accomplish everything. Two weeks into his presidency, they nominated him for it and said, oh, this is going to be a slam dunk. And because of the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing the things that he thought -- please, I'm the messiah. I'll be able to accomplish that. We have now seen -- we are now pulling the curtain back and seeing, oh, wait a minute, he just got an award for doing things he couldn't get done. Hmm." [The Glenn Beck Program, 10/9/09]



Posted Friday, October 09, 2009 11:28 AM
Rush Limbaugh: "Nobel Gang Just Suicide-Bombed Themselves"
Newsweek


It’s hard to tell who is more shocked by this morning’s announcement that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama? Bill Clinton? The right? The left? Reporters who were present at the Oslo announcement audibly gasped. Obama has barely started his first term and has been awarded the greatest achievement for world peace … after just 263 days in office.

But perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize committee has succeeded in pro-actively promoting peace—in joining the hands of America’s liberal and conservative blogosphere.

Obamamania comes as little surprise to Rush Limbaugh, who e-mailed us this morning after we asked him to share his thoughts. “The Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves. Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton. See a pattern here? They are all leftist sell-outs. George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims in Iraq, Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans and saves parts of Latin America. Any awards?” Limbaugh says “Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and for that gets a prize, which is now worth as much as whatever prizes they are putting in Cracker Jacks these days.”

“This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama. It is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympics bid. And with this "award" the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States. They love a weakened, neutered U.S. and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.”
 
Has someone already posted the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize or is it basically that the Nobel committee can choose whoever they like?

I actually have no opinion as to whether he "deserves" the award or not. I actually don't care. One could--and people have--debated the worthiness of other awardees.

To be frank, I don't think he really needs this right now, because it's just given the haters more fuel for their fire. But what are you gonna do?

The only criteria I recall, after you've been suggested, is that you are alive (there's no posthumous awards in any Nobel prize field) and with the Peace Prize that you have done something important to the cause in the preceding year. However, the last requirement is not strict I'd say. If you took a look at previous laureates they hardly ever received the Nobel Peace Prize in the year after probably their biggest achievement, but some time after when their full achievement could have been assessed.

Media Matters

Also on his radio show, Beck said: "I really think this is a validation of all things. The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given ... to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project because -- because of the arrogance ... because of the arrogance of the progressives that thought no one would stand in their way, that he would be able to accomplish everything. Two weeks into his presidency, they nominated him for it and said, oh, this is going to be a slam dunk. And because of the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing the things that he thought -- please, I'm the messiah. I'll be able to accomplish that. We have now seen -- we are now pulling the curtain back and seeing, oh, wait a minute, he just got an award for doing things he couldn't get done. Hmm." [The Glenn Beck Program, 10/9/09]

Are his talks always that incoherent? There's not one sentence from beginning to end that makes a correct sentence. I don't see what point he is trying to make. Well, I see it, but not from what he says.
 
Five'll get you ten when he goes to Oslo to accept, Rush Limbaugh will pop as he's about to give his acceptance speech, take the mike and say, "Now Mr. President, Ima let you finish but I just have to say right now that Bush has done the most for peace of any president of all time!"

:lol: But Rush would be completely sober and not drunk on a bottle of cognac

Who is more of an egomaniac-Kanye or Rush?:hmm:
 
On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "the person who 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".

well there you go, the commitee has to follow the will of Nobel. Let´s take a look:

fraternity between nations:

the Europe - US connection and the Russia - US connection. Both have improved with Obama.

abolition or reduction of standing armies -
this also applies to arms especially nuclear arms, and Obama promotes a nuclear free world, and went away from the space arms blah shield so this is the trick:
getting Russia on the table to discuss about threats like nuclear proliferation of middle east

for the holding and promotion of peace congresses - I strongly suggest a follow up, and I´m sure many NGOs can assist. Lets promote Peace.

for the abolition or reduction of standing armies I suggest reduction of troops - not only US but the world has to collaborate.

another positive effect is that everyone is talking about the Nobel peace prize and if he deserves it or not and whatnot. Most of the comments I have heard are not Limbaugh-ish- but the contrary...

The world wants peace. An overwhelming majority of people who live on this planet want peace.

This is the effect I hear from the media.

This also is the effect I see on this messageboard from YOU, dear FYMers. How many comments would a thread on the peace nobel prize get if it had been rewarded to someone else? Four? Five? How many views? Fifty?

In case this Nobel peace prize was given to him too early or he doesn´t deserve it or not yet as many of you say - - what do you want? Get up on your feet and promote peace yourself. Write to your congressman and tell them you want to help the President reach his goals by promoting peace conferences in every major American city.

This price implies change... and reminds President Obama of his duties.

In that light,
with everyone talking about Peace now - and if Obama did enough, as of yet, to promote it:
the decision of the committee is a smart decision
 
I'm another Obama supporter who saw the headline this morning and thought WTF?

I'd like to think this will spur him to actually follow though on stuff he has promised, such as closing Gitmo. On the other hand, I'm afraid this will cause more harm than good because of the potential for backlash.
 
The Policy is the same despite the letter being sent to the Supreme leader.

The letter is only the tip of the iceberg, and was used as an example. I really don't see how it equates to "Again, following Bush policy..." as you stated. If that were the case, Obama would have held over Bush's national security and diplomatic teams. Diplomacy with Iran wasn't even on the table under Bush.
 
Obama may in fact be the perfect recipient of this award. I mean, past winners have said things that don't exactly promote peace and tolerance. Just look at Al Gore stating that President Bush "BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!!!" and Betty Williams describing how she would literally love to kill George W. Bush. Real peace-loving people, there. :up:
 
Honestly, it is not that difficult to spell Gandhi correctly!

LOL general knowledge.
I'm not sure if "ghandi" technically exists as a word in Hindi, but it's a bit too obvious for comfort what it'd mean if it did. :lol: When I teach Indian politics, I always warn my students that they WILL get marked down significantly if they can't be bothered to spell "Gandhi" correctly. Needless to say, only the native English-speakers make that particular mistake anyway!
 
Last edited:
McCain says Americans "proud" over Obama's Nobel prize
By DPA
Oct 10, 2009, 3:32 GMT

Washington - US Senator John McCain, who lost his presidential bid last year, said Americans should be happy that his campaign rival President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

'I think Americans are always pleased when their presidents are recognized by something on this order,' McCain said Friday in broadcast remarks.

'We're proud when our president receives an award of that calibre,' he said.

McCain says Americans "proud" over Obama's Nobel prize
 
Again, if people see it less in terms of Obama and more in terms of a renewed interest in American leadership in confronting the myriad of problems we face as a world, it starts to make more sense.

So, again, we can see this as a chance to tackle the problems before us, or we can continue to bicker about the same old trivial shit as before.
:up: While Obama certainly wouldn't have been on my preferred candidates list, I like this take on it.
 
I'm not sure if "ghandi" technically exists as a word in Hindi, but it's a bit too obvious for comfort what it'd mean if it did. :lol: When I teach Indian politics, I always warn my students that they WILL get marked down significantly if they can't be bothered to spell "Gandhi" correctly. Needless to say, only the native English-speakers make that particular mistake anyway!

Ha! Yes, it exists in Hindi but is a rude word.
 
Let's see what the President has done recently....lobbied for three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act to remain in their current form....

From 10/9 Wall Street Journal

Patriot Act Redo Clears Split Panel



By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel backed a new version of counterterrorism measures, but the closer-than-expected 11-8 vote highlighted troubles that the Obama administration faces in trying to notch a rare bipartisan win in Congress.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to extend to 2013 three provisions of the USA Patriot Act, but with modifications that supporters said would improve privacy protections for Americans.

Debate over renewing the legislation, which was first passed in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, comes amid a continuing federal probe of an alleged al Qaeda bombing plot in the U.S. Supporters of extending the law have cited the case, still unfolding in Denver and New York, as a reason for continuing counterterrorism measures already in place.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a revised version of the Patriot Act in a closer-than-expected 11-8 vote, with both liberals and conservatives expressing concerns. WSJ's Evan Perez reports.

The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration. But passing the legislation appears more complicated than expected. Five of seven Republicans and three of 12 Democrats voted against the legislation Thursday -- for opposite reasons. Some liberals said the modifications didn't go far enough to satisfy civil-liberties concerns and rein in the government's snooping powers. Conservatives raised objections to amendments that they said could hamper the work of counterterrorism investigators.

At stake are three Patriot Act provisions that are set to expire at the end of December. One provision deals with "roving wiretaps" aimed at tracking suspects who try to evade surveillance with tactics such as quickly changing cellphone numbers. Others involve the government's access to business and library records, and government probes of "lone wolf" members of terrorism groups.

The bill approved Thursday includes new court oversight and additional administrative steps that terrorism investigators have to comply with. It also adds notification requirements to a separate law governing National Security Letters. Government investigative agencies use the letters, a type of administrative subpoena without court oversight, to gather business records such as telecommunications data related to suspects in terrorism probes.

The Obama administration asked Congress to renew the provisions in their current form, but said it was open to discuss changes. A White House aide said Thursday officials are studying the changes the Judiciary panel made over the past two weeks.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) said lawmakers were trying to ensure "security and liberty" in passing the legislation. He cited the alleged bombing plot in urging passage of the bill. "Our bill will provide the tools that are needed to protect us, while increasing the protections of our vital constitutional rights, as well," he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the panel, said, "The last place in our government that we ought to put additional burdens on investigators would be in a national-security case."

The American Civil Liberties Union had endorsed changes proposed by Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.) that would have led to a broader rewrite of provisions in the Patriot Act and in other counterterrorism laws.

Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said, "This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the Patriot Act and stand up for Americans' Fourth Amendment rights" against unreasonable searches and seizures.

....Approved increase of troops (by about 50%) to Afghanistan--a move I don't necessarily disagree with, except for the fact that I don't see any particular reason for hope for change in that region.

Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase - CNN.com

......Approved withdrawal of 4000 troops in Iraq in October and most troops withdrawn by August 2010.

Mixed reviews.
 
The letter is only the tip of the iceberg, and was used as an example. I really don't see how it equates to "Again, following Bush policy..." as you stated. If that were the case, Obama would have held over Bush's national security and diplomatic teams. Diplomacy with Iran wasn't even on the table under Bush.


Well, I guess that shows you have not heard about the many talks that Iranian and American officials had in Baghdad during the Bush years. Obama did hold over Bush's Secretary of Defense which is unprecented in United States history given that Gates was serving and Administration of a rival party.

The Bush administration has been working for years with France, Russia, China, Germany, other European countries, the IAEA in order to resolve the problem of Iran's nuclear development.
 
fraternity between nations:

the Europe - US connection and the Russia - US connection. Both have improved with Obama.

abolition or reduction of standing armies -
this also applies to arms especially nuclear arms, and Obama promotes a nuclear free world, and went away from the space arms blah shield so this is the trick:
getting Russia on the table to discuss about threats like nuclear proliferation of middle east

1. There were reductions in nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States during the Bush years.

2. Conventional military arms under both countries though have continued to increase, even while Obama has been in office. Its a stated aim of Obama to increase the size of the US military.

3. Russia has worked with the United States on the threat of nuclear proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere since the Clinton years. This is nothing new.



The world wants peace. An overwhelming majority of people who live on this planet want peace.

There has never been an American President that did not want peace.
 
Maybe for his next trick, Obama can bring peace between the left and right in America. :up:

It'll never happen as long as one side doesn't want it.

And one side definitely doesn't.

After all such a peace will put Limbaugh, Beck, and Co. out of a job.
 
It'll never happen as long as one side doesn't want it.

And one side definitely doesn't.

After all such a peace will put Limbaugh, Beck, and Co. out of a job.

and the other side being snoody and self rightous about it doesnt help either :wink:
 
I am still shocked over this award announcement. Don't get me wrong: I think Obama was the right winner for the US Presidency, I was glad he won the election.
But seriously..... Nobel price? Already? I feel like they awarded it to him because he has been in the office for 10 months and hasn't started any wars yet.

oh well....
 
and the other side being snoody and self rightous about it doesnt help either :wink:

Let's say, that the Democrats were not snooty and self-righteous, but were humble and cooperative, do you think Limbaugh or Beck would change their tune? After all Obama has made quite an effort at reaching out in a bipartisan manner.

Of course, not. It's not in their financial interest to do so. They've made a bucket load of money promoting a particular worldview.
They'd be fools to change.
 
I am still shocked over this award announcement. Don't get me wrong: I think Obama was the right winner for the US Presidency, I was glad he won the election.
But seriously..... Nobel price? Already? I feel like they awarded it to him because he has been in the office for 10 months and hasn't started any wars yet.

oh well....

Actually, the deadline to be nominated was just a few weeks after his inaguration.

I personally think he got nominated and then won because people were just so overwhelmed with happiness that America actually elected someone as president who has intellectual ability, can speak coherently and is willing to give diplomacy a shot. Those are good things, but honestly, they should be qualities the leader of any country should possess in order to be considred at least half-way decent. It's sad how far GWB lowered the bar.
 
Back
Top Bottom