Obama - Worthy of the Nobel?

[Havet]

There's been quite some talk on the news about that recently, and it surprises me I haven't seen any thread about it in OI.

I hope my analysis is not biased, especially with all the angry conservatives/republicans in America who think Obama shouldn't have gotten the Nobel simply because he is not conservative/republican :rolleyes:

Here's my take: Alfred Nobel is, or should, be rolling in his grave.

When did the Peace Nobel became such a worthless meaningless title given to people who have pretended to do something and yet ended up doing nothing?

Let's look at facts:

1. Hasn't closed Guantanamo yet (and those who indeed were moved, still remain in prison (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/) for unknown reasons other than fitting a stereotype).

2. Enemy combatants are still subject to special law jurisdiction outside of the American Constitution (http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/75). Oh, and this (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/obam-s25.shtml) too.

3. Authorized the use of drones against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/world/asia/07drone.html) (which means that for each leader of Al-Qaeda 5 civilian die)

4. Kept Robert Gates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15986.html) policy on Iraq (http://www.alternet.org/world/133692/despite_obama%27s_vow,_combat_brigades_will_stay_i n_iraq_/)

5. Reinforced military presence in Afghanistan (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html).

6. Authorized shoot-to-kill on pirates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21156.html).

7. Done nothing about Climate Change (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/10/10/obamas-nobel-peace-prize-does-his-climate-change-record-stand-up-to-scrutiny/) (or is it Global Warming? Damn, I mistake the two sometimes...)

8. Kept the CIA authorization to capture and transport suspected terrorists (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5636297.ece) to countries who aren't much friends of Human Rights (the famous "renditions").

Does this sound worthy of a Peace Nobel?



This is ridiculous — embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize?

What do YOU think?

[Raisa]

Man.....why shouldnt he be worthy of a bougie ass noble peace prize?

I dont really care...technically....he is promoting alot of peace...however THERE IS NO REAL PEACE....in the presence of this injustice so.......it doesnt matter.

[Havet]

Man.....why shouldnt he be worthy of a bougie ass noble peace prize?

I dont really care...technically....he is promoting alot of peace...however THERE IS NO REAL PEACE....in the presence of this injustice so.......it doesnt matter.

The whole point of my thread was to prove how he ISN'T promoting peace. Not even a zip.

[Atrus]

Absolutely not. For a capitalist president, he's pretty good. But you can take any number of things and show that he's encouraging as much war as peace, which isn't worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. They said it was to "encourage his work"
Well, to be frank, lots of politicians all over the world claim to be able to solve world peace, so surely they ALL deserve it, if that's how it works?

[Havet]

Absolutely not. For a capitalist president, he's pretty good. But you can take any number of things and show that he's encouraging as much war as peace, which isn't worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. They said it was to "encourage his work"
Well, to be frank, lots of politicians all over the world claim to be able to solve world peace, so surely they ALL deserve it, if that's how it works?

Precisely my point.

[Demogorgon]

No he doesn't deserve it. He has improved America's world image but that hardly qualifies for a Nobel. Still, the reaction from the American right has been so hilarious it was almost worth giving him it just to watch them explode.

And these are the same people who often claimed Kissenger deserved one.

[Skooma Addict]

He definitely does not deserve it. Did they at least say why they decided he should get it of all people? What did he even do?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If peace means "peace" then no. If "peace" means the qualities that won other people the prize then, certainly, he has a lot of those. Of course, they're all negative qualities.

I was particularly curious what fellow leftists thought when this happened so I checked on the non-restricted thread on this awhile back. Someone made the good point that very few of the winners actually promoted peace.

Therefore, he's in good company.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, on the bright side some decent economists won the Nobel prize. At least they are far better than that god awful Keynesian, Paul Krugman.

[brigadista]

hes in the company of henry kissinger ,fw de klerk,mikhail gorbachev,lech walesa amongst others - nuff said..

[Havet]

Therefore, he's in good company.

Which is shame, since the degrading standards for these prizes run contrary to the initial principles behind them.

[IcarusAngel]

Check out the WSJ's opinion on this: They claim that the Nobel Prize has generally been rewarded to "Goodists," i.e., people who wish good upon the world, such as Murray Butler, but instead should be awarded to people who actually make the world a better place, like Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Harry Truman, etc..

I'm not making this up:

So let there be no doubt that the Nobel Committee did well in choosing Mr. Obama. What this portends for the kind of peace and security that has been bequeathed to us by the exertions of such non-Nobelists as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is another question.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704429304574467080047317314.html

So apparently according to the wall-street journal, the problem with Obama winning the prize is that he hasn't killed ENOUGH people to bring about peace yet lol, like Truman did (bombs on japan) and Reagan did (third world wars that killed 3+ million people).

[Havet]

So apparently according to the wall-street journal, the problem with Obama winning the prize is that he hasn't killed ENOUGH people to bring about peace yet lol, like Truman did (bombs on japan) and Reagan did (third world wars that killed 3+ million people).

Nah your misinterpreting them. In the case of Reagan or Thatcher, they believe their "free market reforms" have brought more peace since they supposedly solved economic problems, therefore making them apt to the Nobel Peace Price. However, they totally ignored the fact that both (american) presidents engaged in wars or collaborated on the decision of killing more people.

[IcarusAngel]

They're talking about how Truman, FDR, etc. brought 'stability' to the world, just like Reagan brought 'stability' to south america. The word 'free-market reform' isn't even in the article.

Of course I was making fun of the fact that they're saying Obama hasn't done enough of these policies that lead to mass deaths yet.

[Havet]

They're talking about how Truman, FDR, etc. brought 'stability' to the world, just like Reagan brought 'stability' to south america. The word 'free-market reform' isn't even in the article.

I apologize for the misunderstanding


Of course I was making fun of the fact that they're saying Obama hasn't done enough of these policies that lead to mass deaths yet.

Indeed; one has to wonder if there any limits to human intelligence as much as there are limits to human stupidity.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, in Neo-Con thinking Reagan won the "cold war" with his military posturing, spending, and interventions into Latin America that killed millions of people and led to failed states.

War is peace in their minds. For example, if Obama 'neutralized' Iran and won the war in Afghanistan (which is impossible to do by their standards), he would then by worthy of the prize.

[Dimentio]

Actually, I think the Right Livelihood Price probably is more honourable now.

[SouthernBelle82]

Hell no. But then again Henry Kissinger won the award so.... It's all a joke.

[SouthernBelle82]

Man.....why shouldnt he be worthy of a bougie ass noble peace prize?

I dont really care...technically....he is promoting alot of peace...however THERE IS NO REAL PEACE....in the presence of this injustice so.......it doesnt matter.

How is he promoting peace? By escalating the troop presence in Afghanistan? Bombing innocent people? And how many troops are still in Irak we never hear about? And what about us being friends with people who do horrible things? When has he stood up for Palestinians or Ghazians against Israel?

[SouthernBelle82]

No he doesn't deserve it. He has improved America's world image but that hardly qualifies for a Nobel. Still, the reaction from the American right has been so hilarious it was almost worth giving him it just to watch them explode.

And these are the same people who often claimed Kissenger deserved one.

By doing what? Speaking? What about actually doing what he has promised?

[Skooma Addict]

And what about us being friends with people who do horrible things? When has he stood up for Palestinians or Ghazians against Israel?

He shouldn't "stand up" for anybody. He should just stay out of the situation completely.

[The Accomplice]

If a guy like Henry Kissenger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, then what's stopping the NPP Committee from nominating Obama?

To answer the question, no. He's still continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iran. We all know that wars aren't synonymous with peace.

[Durruti's Ghost]

We all know that wars aren't synonymous with peace.

Fool. War is synonymous with peace if the Party says war is synonymous with peace. :lol:

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, in Neo-Con thinking Reagan won the "cold war" with his military posturing, spending, and interventions into Latin America that killed millions of people and led to failed states.

War is peace in their minds. For example, if Obama 'neutralized' Iran and won the war in Afghanistan (which is impossible to do by their standards), he would then by worthy of the prize.


Well, the U.S. empire can't claim that it's using "White Man's Burden" anymore, now that Obama's in office...!

[Havet]

Now a question to ask to those who, like me, don't think Obama is worthy of the Nobel.

One argument I heard in favor was:

"Just because he got rid of Bush he deserved the Nobel"

My original thoughts were: "What if Mccain had won it, would he still be apt for the Nobel Prize?"

To which the answer was: "probably yes"

Now i find that an extremely crude answer. What do you think?

Another argument:

"Just by getting elected and changing the views of the world regarding America he has promoted peace, even if he hasn't actually accomplished anything of what he proposed to do".

[Luís Henrique]

"Just because he got rid of Bush he deserved the Nobel"
He didn't. The voters did.

Luís Henrique

[Havet]

He didn't. The voters did.

Luís Henrique

Good point. Thanks.

[GPDP]

Now a question to ask to those who, like me, don't think Obama is worthy of the Nobel.

One argument I heard in favor was:

"Just because he got rid of Bush he deserved the Nobel"

My original thoughts were: "What if Mccain had won it, would he still be apt for the Nobel Prize?"

To which the answer was: "probably yes"

Now i find that an extremely crude answer. What do you think?

Another argument:

"Just by getting elected and changing the views of the world regarding America he has promoted peace, even if he hasn't actually accomplished anything of what he proposed to do".

I was about to come in here to talk about this very same thing, actually.

I had a little back and forth with a professor today (who, by the way, identifies as a Marxist) on this very issue. I told him he didn't deserve it because he hadn't done anything to deserve it, and in fact had done the antithesis of promoting peace by escalating Afghanistan. He then told me while Afghanistan worries him deeply, he nevertheless believed there was no one in the world today more qualified for the Peace Prize than Obama, merely because he was somehow "changing the direction" of discourse and America's image around the world towards a positive direction. He then declared we should be proud of having a president who's a Nobel Prize recipient.

Most astoundingly, my professor, a supposed Marxist who by this very account will probably make most Marxists reading this roll their eyes and call him a petit-bourgeois fool, then proceeded to state the difference in our opinions may be due to his approach being more idealistic and Hegelian (Obama's promotion of peace is still in the realm of ideas and talk, which is enough), while mine was more materialistic and Marxist (Obama has done nothing to substantially promote meaningful peace).

Then again, this professor of mine has a history of a love affair with Obama, so I'm not terribly surprised he defends this travesty. I quite like the guy, and have taken three classes with him to date (currently I'm taking him for Modern Political Theory, hence the Hegelian and Marxist classifications up above, since we will be covering those thinkers in the future), and he does criticize the Democrats a good deal. But his fascination with Obamania is frankly annoying, and very un-Marxist of him.

Luckily, I have another professor who's even more radical and has even gone so far as to declare himself a revolutionary who does not buy into this crap, so not all is lost.

[Havet]

I was about to come in here to talk about this very same thing, actually.

I had a little back and forth with a professor today (who, by the way, identifies as a Marxist) on this very issue. I told him he didn't deserve it because he hadn't done anything to deserve it, and in fact had done the antithesis of promoting peace by escalating Afghanistan. He then told me while Afghanistan worries him deeply, he nevertheless believed there was no one in the world today more qualified for the Peace Prize than Obama, merely because he was somehow "changing the direction" of discourse and America's image around the world towards a positive direction. He then declared we should be proud of having a president who's a Nobel Prize recipient.

Most astoundingly, my professor, a supposed Marxist who by this very account will probably make most Marxists reading this roll their eyes and call him a petit-bourgeois fool, then proceeded to state the difference in our opinions may be due to his approach being more idealistic and Hegelian (Obama's promotion of peace is still in the realm of ideas and talk, which is enough), while mine was more materialistic and Marxist (Obama has done nothing to substantially promote meaningful peace).

Then again, this professor of mine has a history of a love affair with Obama, so I'm not terribly surprised he defends this travesty. I quite like the guy, and have taken three classes with him to date (currently I'm taking him for Modern Political Theory, hence the Hegelian and Marxist classifications up above, since we will be covering those thinkers in the future), and he does criticize the Democrats a good deal. But his fascination with Obamania is frankly annoying, and very un-Marxist of him.

Luckily, I have another professor who's even more radical and has even gone so far as to declare himself a revolutionary who does not buy into this crap, so not all is lost.

Heh, interesting story. Seems i'm not the only one having opposition when talking of these things.

I keep seeing articles on the newspapers supporting Obama (in less obvious ways), and they all seem to appeal to this idealistic sense that the prize is just for him to "have an incentive to get the job done", or to "promote the continuation of his work", and they talk of how one needs to "understand the context of this prize", and that he might have not achieved much yet, but will do so "tomorrow", etc.

The problem is, most of these commentators actually thing he acheived something in the material realm by citing these:

- Speech to Muslims in Cairo
- "attempt" of approximation with Tehran (not sure its spelled correctly)
- Non quarreling with moscow (what does that even mean?!)
- Resolution on nuclear weapons (i was actually wondering if anyone could show any information regarding where that resolution actually accomplishes anything or its just a roleplay to pretend only?)

[GPDP]

On the bit about nuclear weapons, it's clearly bullshit:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22799

[Havet]

On the bit about nuclear weapons, it's clearly bullshit:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22799

Thank you very much. Facts 1 - 0 Myths !

[Rosa Provokateur]

The Socialist Worker ran an article by Howard Zinn on this called Peace Prize or War Prize? (http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/14/peace-prize-or-war-prize).

I think it does an excellent job at shedding some light on the prize's history and why we shouldn't be all too suprised that Obama got it nor should anybody hold him in high esteem for it.