New Wave Outpost Forum

by **SallyLightfoot** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:26 am

I add myself to the WTF? chorus. I imagine some freedom fighter or humanitarian who spent decades in the trenches of 3rd world hell-holes only to get passed over for this award.

by **i_like_lectric_motors** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:10 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
 I add myself to the WTF? chorus. I imagine some freedom fighter or humanitarian who spent decades in the trenches of 3rd world hell-holes only to get passed over for this award.
[/quote]

Here is the list of people he beat out:

http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics ... bel-prize/

I would have chosen Mukwege.

What a travesty. If Obama had an ounce of integrity, he would have turned it down. That's what I would have done (and I deserve the prize much more than Barry does).

by **enzfan** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:08 am

Barry gets a Nobel but Chewbacca gets stiffed for a medal at the end of A New Hope. That shit aint right.

by **Panorama** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:53 am

by **enzfan** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:05 am

Does the cuntflap understand he was in office about two weeks when he was nominated?

by **Panorama** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:14 pm

[quote][i]Originally posted by enzfan[/i]
 Does the cuntflap understand he was in office about two weeks when he was nominated?[/quote]
Yes, she mentioned that starting at about 4:17 into the video.

<HR width="185" align="left">
"Photography with a Vision"
http://www.cooganphoto.com

by **SallyLightfoot** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:30 pm

Maddow is right about Bush derangement syndrome. Bush [i]earned[/i] that; it didn't come out of nowhere, and it wasn't just something that liberals branded him with when he took office (unlike Obama derangement syndrome, which started on day 1 of the Obama admin). Other than that, I think her examples of Desmod Tutu, Carl von Ossietzkey, and Jimmy Carter, and others are good, but I'm still not ready to declare that Obama what he has done is anything but a dent against what the Bush administration implemented. I think Chris Wallace was right in that Obama won the award for (partially) unwinding the policies of George W. Bush. In my opinion, he hasn't gone far enough, and he certainly hasn't gone far enough to win an award worth 2 million.

by **eight6** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:00 pm

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
..., I think her examples of Desmod Tutu, Carl von Ossietzkey, and Jimmy Carter, and others are good,...
[/quote]

How? Were any of the three recipients mentioned nominated 12 days after the adoption of their cause? I do admire the attempt to bring validity and reason to such a pointless selection, but come on...is that all anyone has? Weak reasoning to say the least.

Any word on the other syndrome which began even before day 1 of the Obama administration; you know, Obama Deification Syndrome?

by **Panorama** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:53 pm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... index.html
Obama got the Nobel because he's a game changer

The president's selection as Peace Prize winner is well within the rules laid out by Alfred Nobel in his will.
By Juan Cole
Oct. 11, 2009

I was listening to National Public Radio on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, and they brought on some nonentity from one of Rupert Murdoch's faux "magazines," who delivered himself of the remark that when he heard the news, he broke out laughing. He laughed at Obama. He is being paid by the Aussie media monopolist, the billionaire bully, to laugh at Obama.

The right in the U.S. objected to Obama getting the Peace Prize on the alleged grounds that he had not yet done anything to deserve it. But the right in the United States is to peace as velociraptors were to vegetarianism. They don't believe in the ideal for which the award stands in the first place. And they find President Obama laughable, so they can't imagine him getting any awards. They have underestimated him badly and will probably pay a price for that. They misunderstand the Nobel Peace Prize and its history, and the Rupert Murdoch right (he pays for a lot of this pollution of our airwaves) would not have agreed with any of the past awards.

Alfred Nobel outlined in his will the grounds on which the Peace Prize was to be given, saying it should go annually 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 of peace congresses." The modern committee considers work toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals in the same light as the reduction of standing armies, hence its award to Linus Pauling.

The American right wing would not have approved of Woodrow Wilson getting the prize for helping found the League of Nations. They do not believe in international cooperation or multilateralism in the first place. They think America should cowboy it. They are the tribe of "bring'em on" and "wanted dead or alive." They are about trapping the country in quagmires so as to throw cash to their cronies in the military-industrial complex. They like wars, not peace. They don't care how many people they kill in the global south. A million Iraqis dead? They deny it or justify it or blame it on someone else. They are bottom feeders.

They would have considered Frederic Passy, the first peace Nobelist, as a woolly-headed dreamer and laughed at a Universal Peace Conference organized just a little over a decade before the mass slaughter of World War I. They would have dismissed Jane Addams as a "socialist." And what would have provoked them to more gales of laughter than the 1935 award to the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky. How'd that work out, they'd snicker as they elbowed each other (with any luck breaking some of each other's ribs). If there is anyone they find more laughable than Barack Obama, it is Jimmy Carter (the greatest ex-president in American history), the 2002 awardee. Mohammad Elbaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly got in the way of the American right's war plans, so presumably they didn't rejoice at his 2005 prize. They don't believe in climate change or global warming and want us to switch to the dirtiest coal possible, so Al Gore's 2007 prize set them giggling, as well.

Matt Corley explained at the time how Murdochians insisted that Al Gore had no accomplishments worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize and that it should have gone to Gen. Petraeus instead. I admire both men, but by the criteria outlined in Nobel's will, it was Gore who had a claim on the prize.

Barack Obama was given the prize because he is a game changer. Obama has dedicated himself to reducing and ultimately scrapping the nuclear arsenals that threaten the world with nuclear winter or a destruction of the ozone layer; either event would be catastrophic for human beings' existence on the planet. Obama has already made a substantial change in relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Two years ago we were talking about whether Cheney could convince Americans to go to war on Iran. Now Washington is engaging in direct talks with Tehran that have easied tensions.

Whether she or he actually achieves peace or not is unpredictable, but game changers are clearly visible to everyone. The handshake between Rabin and Arafat in the early 1990s was potentially a game changer, and the Oslo deal would have profoundly enhanced world peace if it had worked (it might even have averted 9/11 and the subsequent wars). Al Gore's campaign for the environment was a game changer. Shirine Ebadi's dedication to a rule of law in Iran is a game changer, and she gives hope to many otherwise cynical youth and women.

For those who are giggling and demanding concrete improvements, it is worth noting that most of the recipients have been idealists rather than practical persons. Obama is both, and therefore he has a real shot at vindicating the social worth of his policies in the future. Right-wing policies were tried for eight years and they failed. Miserably.

-- By Juan Cole

<HR width="185" align="left">
"Photography with a Vision"
http://www.cooganphoto.com

by **Panorama** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:57 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/opini ... &th&emc=th
New York Times
October 10, 2009
EDITORIAL
The Peace Prize

President Obama responded to the news of his Nobel Peace Prize the right way. He said he was humbled, acknowledged that the efforts for which he was honored are only beginning and pledged to see them through, not on his own but in concert with other nations.

There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy. Members of the dwindling band of George W. Bush loyalists also sneered — with absolutely no recognition of their own culpability — that Mr. Obama has not yet ended the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another.

Mr. Obama has bolstered this country’s global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; by rejoining the effort to combat climate change and to rid the world of nuclear weapons; by recommitting himself to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and by offering to engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Obama did not seek the prize. It is a reminder of the extraordinarily high expectations for any American president — and does bring into sharp focus all that he has left to do to make the world, and this country, safer.

In Iraq, Mr. Obama is still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region. He must decide, soon, on a strategy for Afghanistan that will do what Mr. Bush failed to do — defeat Al Qaeda and contain the Taliban — without miring American and allied troops in an endless unwinnable conflict.

To make real progress toward Mr. Obama’s declared goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must both agree to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals. If, as we suspect, Iran refuses to give up its illicit nuclear activities, Mr. Obama will have to press the rest of the world’s big powers to impose tough sanctions. He must come up with a more effective strategy to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.

While he has made an excellent start on climate change with new regulations that finally begin to grapple with carbon emissions, the United States has to lead the way to a global agreement.

Mr. Obama is going to have to overcome narrow-minded opposition in Congress to keep his promise to close Guantánamo and deal with its inmates in a way consistent with the Constitution and American values. He has much more to do to erase the worst excesses of Mr. Bush in detaining prisoners without charges and flouting the Geneva Conventions.

Americans elected Mr. Obama because they wanted him to restore American values and leadership — and because they believed he could. The Nobel Prize, and the broad endorsement that followed, shows how many people around the world want the same thing.

<HR width="185" align="left">
"Photography with a Vision"
http://www.cooganphoto.com

by **eight6** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:04 pm

[i]The right in the U.S. objected to Obama getting the Peace Prize on the alleged grounds that he had not yet done anything to deserve it.[/i]

I think the objection stems more from the fact he hasn't done anything, period, let alone enough to be deserving of such a lofty accolade. Of course, when you think about it, if the award can be given because you like an individual's/institution's swagger, how lofty an accolade is it?

[i]"Mr. Obama is going to have to overcome narrow-minded opposition in Congress to keep his promise to close Guantánamo and deal with its inmates in a way consistent with the Constitution and American values. He has much more to do to erase the worst excesses of Mr. Bush in detaining prisoners without charges and flouting the Geneva Conventions."[/i]

Last time I checked, this was a promise Obama made. If this doesn't happen as per his promise (closure within one year), are we now to blame others for HIM not keeping his word?

by **marie3** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:09 am

The Nobel was really for all Americans, not Obama. A thank you for getting rid of the fu*king shit ass administration that ran us and the whole world into the ground over the past eight years.

Just my opinion.

by **djcraig** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:36 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
 The Nobel was really for all Americans, not Obama. A thank you for getting rid of the fu*king shit ass administration that ran us and the whole world into the ground over the past eight years.

Just my opinion.[/quote]

So what does that say about the Dems who in 8 years with 300 million people to choose from, kept nominating even less compelling presidential candidates than GW and lost to Him TWICE? How fucking inept. Guess the world owes them a big kick in the ass.

<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

by **KYYX4ever** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:46 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
 The Nobel was really for all Americans, not Obama. A thank you for getting rid of the fu*king shit ass administration that ran us and the whole world into the ground over the past eight years.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

Seconded.

Obama still has a long way to go; one can't undo all the damage that was wrought under BushCo. in the sweep of a hand. Or even 8 months. Perhaps even in one term. But he's headed in the right direction. Plus, diplomacy rocks !

by **MARV** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:56 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
 Plus, diplomacy rocks![/quote]

You need to be able to say that no matter who's in office, not just when your guy is in office. This board has a rich history of bitching and moaning to the contrary.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

New Wave Outpost Forum

Really...Obama...

Who is online