Obama Awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Problem is, he was nominated only 12 days in of his presidency. And based on what? A pretext of what he said in his 2008 campaigning? That's even worse.

why are you still clinging on his Presidency as the deciding factor for Nobel Peace Prize? If you do not have anything to contribute other than that same line, please keep it to yourself. You have been heard.
 
Compared to Obama's first 12 days of semi-partying mode??

What exactly has any other president accomplished in their first 12 days in office? Sidestepping the question? You brought the issue up, so support it. If not, let it go. It really is a thinly veiled attempt to distract from the fact that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the fact that he has is just a terribly bitter pill for you to swallow. It has absolutely nothing to do with his first 12 days in office.

But, if you would like to discuss the various accomplishments of various presidents during their first 12 days in office, I'm sure that you are welcome to start a thread on the topic.
 
That is pretty shaky if the committee bases its decisions on campaign promises from any politician.

well - here's a thing. Yes - all these campaign promises and fancy talk. Same old same old. So what made this different from other smooth-talking politicians? They didn't become the President of United States.... Obama did :)
 
why are you still clinging on his Presidency as the deciding factor for Nobel Peace Prize? If you do not have anything to contribute other than that same line, please keep it to yourself. You have been heard.

Exactly. They are two unrelated events, and all one need do is read the rationale behind the decision of the committee to understand that fact.
 
Ok. What's was the timeline like during his 12 days then?

no......... no....... no........ I did not say they lied about his timeline. I said they are in business of malignant disinformation and misinformation. They are disinforming people that his 12-days Presidency was a deciding factor for Nobel Peace Prize - look at what you're using to argue on this issue.
 
Here's the link to CNN and article:
LONDON (CNN) -- Did President Obama land a Nobel peace prize at such an early stage of his presidency simply because he's not George W. Bush?
A "surprised and humbled" Obama said he would accept the Nobel peace prize as a "call to action."

A "surprised and humbled" Obama said he would accept the Nobel peace prize as a "call to action."

Diplomatic circles are certainly not dismissing such a notion and a "surprised and humbled" Obama has himself agreed that the award (for which nominations had to be submitted only two weeks after his inauguration) can hardly have been a recognition of anything he has yet accomplished. It is a prize for aspiration rather than achievement.

One of the best deliberate laughs Bush obtained in his last days in office came when he expressed himself pleased at the street reception during his attendance at a NATO summit in Romania.

"A lot of the crowd were waving... some of them with all five fingers," he said.

Bush was acknowledging that many in Old Europe at least could not wait to say goodbye to a man whom they saw as a Cold Warrior at heart, the president who had led the world into a disastrous intervention in Iraq and a man heading a gas-guzzling nation who was not prepared to help the world cope with climate change.

For many Europeans, the chief concern through the long, drawn-out race for the Democratic nomination and through the presidential election was that the result should give them anybody but Bush. Watch reaction in Europe to Obama's award Video

They were uneasy about his missile defense shield plans to base U.S. military installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. They felt he had never lived up to his pledge to work as hard on the Middle East peace process as Tony Blair had done on bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

Especially they felt that the internment camp at Guantanamo Bay and the "extraordinary rendition" to countries where terror suspects might have been tortured was an affront to democracy which besmirched the reputation not only of the U.S. but of its allies, too.

Europeans were alarmed that Bush seemed to be encouraging the climate change deniers. And although he became readier to listen to his European allies during his second term, they never really took to the man whose instinctive response was to use America's military might in the world's trouble spots rather than to stay at the negotiating table and who had little time for the United Nations.


Couple that with the words in the Norwegian Nobel Committee's citation that the peace prize is being awarded to Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" and that they have "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," and the message is clear.

Unusually, this is a world statesman being rewarded not for what he has done but for representing a new beginning. As Mikhail Gorbachev was quick to point out, the Obama presidency is a big signal -- "He has given hope."

By commenting approvingly that Obama has created a new climate in international politics, with emphasis on the role of diplomacy and of the United Nations, the Nobel Committee is clearly encouraging the new president, after just eight months in office, to continue with a style that Europeans find much more comfortable than that of Bush and the neo-conservatives. Those who worked with Bush are likely to feel aggrieved and to maintain that they, too, were working for the extension of democracy for which Obama is now being commended.

As Europe digested the news of the prize, nobody wanted to go public with critical comment on a man who is still seen across Europe as a beacon of hope. But there were off-the-record mutters that this was all somewhat premature.

Cool heads were noting that while intentions have been expressed, there has been no significant progress yet on the Middle East peace process. The proposed closedown of Guantanamo Bay has been announced but it has not happened. There are still large numbers of American troops in Iraq and the numbers in Afghanistan are likely to be increased.

While Obama has spoken of his hope of agreeing with Russia on a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads, we are nowhere near to seeing an end to nuclear weapons, which are currently in the possession of the U.S., Russia, China, India, the United Kingdom, France, Pakistan and Israel.

Obama may want the Senate to ratify the test-ban treaty but that has not happened yet and his moves on climate change, too, will require congressional compliance.

The truth, say many continental commentators, is that Obama deserves a badge for effort -- an effort begun by scrapping the missile shield development in Poland and the Czech Republic -- but a peace prize is a step too far at such an early stage.

He is being rewarded not for solid achievement but for creating new hope -- in effect, for not being Bush.
advertisement

It may well be, as President Sarkozy of France has declared, that the award "confirms finally America's return to the hearts of the people of the world." But some fear that America's conservatives will take it as a sign of weakness and become more obstructive to Obama's aims.

Meanwhile, others are wondering: "What on earth will they give him when he does have a real achievement to point to?"
 
and one part 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.

He didn't do any of that in his first 12 days. In fact, during his 2008 campaign he derided Bush for not sending in enough troops in Afghanistan. Sure doesn't sound like he was for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html

He couldn't have done "work for fraternity between nations" in his first 12 days. So, that nixes it. And certainly did not hold any peace congresses in his first 12 days either.

Looks like a bust to me.
 
well - here's a thing. Yes - all these campaign promises and fancy talk. Same old same old. So what made this different from other smooth-talking politicians? They didn't become the President of United States.... Obama did :)
But according to you in post 161, becoming President was NOT the deciding factor. :confused:
 
That is pretty shaky if the committee bases its decisions on campaign promises from any politician.

I agree. I'd be just as harsh if it happened to a Republican only 12 days in as well. Doesn't make any sense.
 
He is being rewarded not for solid achievement but for creating new hope -- in effect, for not being Bush.

This comes from the article. I question why was this noted? Perhaps, for creating hope is good but if it were to go bust, then what? It probably wouldn't just mean anything for it, wouldn't it?
 
no......... no....... no........ I did not say they lied about his timeline. I said they are in business of malignant disinformation and misinformation. They are disinforming people that his 12-days Presidency was a deciding factor for Nobel Peace Prize - look at what you're using to argue on this issue.

Which of the 12 days timeline is false then?
 
He didn't do any of that in his first 12 days. In fact, during his 2008 campaign he derided Bush for not sending in enough troops in Afghanistan. Sure doesn't sound like he was for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html

He couldn't have done "work for fraternity between nations" in his first 12 days. So, that nixes it. And certainly did not hold any peace congresses in his first 12 days either.

Looks like a bust to me.

What exactly, do his first 12 days have to do with anything? He had to be considered for nomination prior to his first 12 days in office. The actual nomination came 12 days into the presidency. Obviously, he was considered prior to ever taking office. I would think that a scientist would be able to follow the linear nature of this quite easily.:cool2:
 
I agree. I'd be just as harsh if it happened to a Republican only 12 days in as well. Doesn't make any sense.

harsh? on Republican? never seen it. You wouldn't. Were you as harsh on Sanford as you were on Letterman? Tell me the truth.
 
This comes from the article. I question why was this noted? Perhaps, for creating hope is good but if it were to go bust, then what? It probably wouldn't just mean anything for it, wouldn't it?

I read this article yesterday. I think the intent was to show that Bush had such a negative impact on foreign relations and the concept of peace that it made Obama's philosophies contrast all that much more. And people were decidedly ready for anything that bore no resemblance to Bush and his policies.
 
Which of the 12 days timeline is false then?

you just don't get it, do you? Once again - you're using "12-days timeline" as the deciding factor. That is what Foxs want to tell people - whining "what did he do??? look!! he did nothing for 12 days! what the fudge!?"

:roll:
 
What exactly, do his first 12 days have to do with anything? He had to be considered for nomination prior to his first 12 days in office. The actual nomination came 12 days into the presidency. Obviously, he was considered prior to ever taking office. I would think that a scientist would be able to follow the linear nature of this quite easily.:cool2:

Not so if they nominated him after the fact when he became president. Either they nominated him for his 12 days of work or based on his campaign promises.
 
I read this article yesterday. I think the intent was to show that Bush had such a negative impact on foreign relations and the concept of peace that it made Obama's philosophies contrast all that much more. And people were decidedly ready for anything that bore no resemblance to Bush and his policies.

That was my impression as well.
 
Not so if they nominated him after the fact when he became president. Either they nominated him for his 12 days of work or based on his campaign promises.

Do you think that the question of nomination came up only 12 days into his presidency? Get real. Nominees are discussed for months prior to becoming official.
 
But according to you in post 161, becoming President was NOT the deciding factor. :confused:

his peace philosophy was the deciding factor for Nobel Peace Prize and his peace philosophy was the deciding factor for him to win the Presidency race as well.
 
you just don't get it, do you? Once again - you're using "12-days timeline" as the deciding factor. That is what Foxs want to tell people - whining "what did he do??? look!! he did nothing for 12 days! what the fudge!?"

Which is it then? They nominated him based on his first 12 days of office or his campaign promises and speeches he did in 2007 and 2008?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top