really seems more of a political gesture and a "ok, youre doing the right things so far - keep doing lots more" kind of thing
More proper ganda. How the heck does the Commander in Chief of 2 wars get a prize with 'peace' in the name? Is this opposite day?
This i weird, I would never have expected the Nobel Peace Posse to to make such an overtly political move, so maybe there is something in it. Weird though.
Don't fear, right-wingers! This was just the world's concession to the US for the Olympic snub---proper balance has once more been achieved and we can now get back to the standard muckery that renders us inept to accomplish anything as a united country.
I think it's a bit too soon for something so big and noteworthy, but why the hell not? Also, proper ganda?
Well he's following through with them, particularly in Afghanistan. He even made it a point of his to push the war in Afghanistan more, even during the race. The proper thing would have been to give it to him AFTER he's ended it all (assuming he does, I doubt it though.) If you give someone an award AFTER they've done something great, it makes sense. If you give them an award ASSUMING they'll eventually do something great and hope said award pushes them in that direction, you'r stupid as hell. Left or Right, this is ridiculous. I want an award in the hopes I MIGHT do something great, why not?
As much as I may be opposed to these wars, I have to say that it would be terribly foolish to back out now and leave both countries in a complete fucking state. That is basically what happened in Africa, so in order to avoid that, there is some sense in pushing forward. Plus, my understanding was that is had to do with his stance on nuclear disarmament.
I haven't yet read the Committee's statement but my guess is that it's for his overall willingness to negotiate with other nations in practical ways as opposed to the unyielding grandstanding and imperial tone of the prior administration. It does appear to be a gesture of encouragement. While I approve of the president's efforts in that regard (particularly in the case of Iran, which would make a much better quasi-ally than enemy) the award does feel a little premature. Still, good on him.
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but a recognition of the role of American leadership” in the world, Obama said in remarks moments ago. “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures” who won in the past, he added. “I will accept this award as a call to action, a call to all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century.”
yes, but why was he nominated so early in the game if it wasn't political. Some really worthy but lesser known people lost to him.
It's a fair question, and the one on a lot of minds today including those of us who are happy for the win. Again my guess is that it has to do with his campaign statements that he'd be willing to negotiate with Iran, Cuba, etc. without compromise-killing "preconditions." The recent baby steps towards nuclear power regulation of Iran may have been the deciding factor at voting time. Again, just speculation. Who do you think would have been more deserving candidates? I don't think one should expect the prize to be apolitical. There have been some questionable awards e.g. Arafat and Kissinger, both of which were granted for very political reasons having to do with "peace" negotiations despite the considerably inhumane things that we know both persons to be responsible for.
Other possible nominees Dr Denis Mukwege http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/08 ... -the-congo Cluster Munition Coalition http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/ Handicap International They were previous co-winners -maybe that's why they didn't get it this time. They do support Obama's victory, and hope he follows through. http://handicap-international.ca/pagesang/accueil.htm
