Saturday, October 10, 2009

Nobel Prize Rant

I can't believe Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize! He hasn't done anything yet! Sure, he has great promises - better health care and an end to war, but he hasn't accomplished either one yet. If I was to stand on the street corner and promise everyone better care and happiness, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage", they would call me a nutball. But the Nobel Prize committee said Obama's promises were too good to ignore.

Well, at least he isn’t like Wangari Maathi, who won the award in 2004 and then later stated that HIV was created by white scientists in order to eradicate the black population. Now that’s batshit crazy.  And then Al Gore won the prize in 2007 for his work raising awareness about global warming. This isn’t about me not believing in global warming. Cause I don’t. It’s the fact that his Tennessee mansion burned through 22,619 kilowatts in one month – that’s more than most people use in a year!

In 1994, the prize was awarded jointly to Yassar Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin.  Peres was responsible for developing Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, Rabin had some very questionable actions during his term as Defense Minister, and one of the Nobel committee members resigned in protest of award a known terrorist, Arafat, the peace prize. Ironically, Gandhi was nominated several times but never won once.

So, just because someone wins the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t mean shit.


  1. If you are going to rant, please research a bit first. The prize has nothing to do with domestic policies such as health care or when he brings our troops home. Why would the international community care about those things? "Promise[ing] everyone better care and happiness, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," as you put it, has nothing to do with the international scene or peace. Yes, normally the prize has been presented, even controversially, for accomplishment. This prize, to a 48-year-old freshman president, for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership.The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was viewed as a rejection of the unpopular tenure, in Europe especially, of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. This is not uncommon. In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth. But the committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue (moving away from the unilateralism of Bush towards a more multilateral approach).“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?” For a world that at times felt pushed around by a more unilateralist Bush administration, the prize for Mr. Obama seemed wrapped in gratitude for his willingness to listen and negotiate, as well as for his positions on climate change and nuclear disarmament. Announcing the award, the Nobel committee cited Mr. Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and said that he had “created a new climate in international politics.” Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas, with polls showing him hugely popular, and he has made a series of speeches with arching ambition. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, at the expense of offending some of his Jewish supporters. In a four-paragraph statement, the Nobel committee praised Mr. Obama for his tone, his preference for negotiation and multilateral diplomacy and his vision of a cooperative world of shared values, shorn of nuclear weapons. The awarding of this prestigious title may have been a little early, but it certainly had reason behind it.

  2. I am only going behind Alfred Nobel's will, which declares that the peace prize be awarded 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." Obama increased troops by 13,000 and increased the military budget by 4%. The international community does care about these things. Making promises does not equal doing things. You would have known that if you would have done research instead of blindly supporting someone. And nobody likes Bush. You still shouldn't give someone an award just for not being Bush. Obama needs to accomplish something, anything before he deserves an award.

  3. I think that this prize given in advance is a mistake. How are we to be sure that what Obama has planned on doing will actually happen? Nothing so far has come from what he has "promised". The only reason Obama is getting praise for being this great international speaker, is simply cause for the past 8 years Bush never attempted it. Now as for Obama's background in the matter, yes he should be one of the best there is. Just look at what his Father has done for Africa. So Obama has alot of the necessary skills to do this position very well. More then Bush ever had, or could even attempt. For promoting peace talks between the Israels and Palestinians, that was bound to happen. Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle east, in fact they are our only ally over there. So of course we want them to be at peace, to avoid supporting another war. You talk of Obama wanting to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That is all fine and dandy, but there has been nothing done in decrease the amount of nukes we have in the US. Nor, has there been any decrease in the amount that we have sent to Israel. Talk is just what it is, talk. Until actions can be done to prevent this, then there is no reason to acknowledge someone for it. Also, on a side note, Obama hasn't really done anything to end the war. His first action as president was to send 13,000 troops over to Iraq. There is also an order, from the president, to send 17,000 more troops over to Afghanistan. Here I thought he promised to end the war in what 6 years. Another example of saying something and doing another. The only thing I would say is that Obama has a way of speaking to other country's that Bush did not. However there was another President that was better at this then Obama has been so far. Lets not forget Clinton and all the he did with foreign policies. Now if all of Obama's plans take affect, then yes I would agree that he deserves that award. As it stand right now, I believe that it is too early to tell.

  4. You said that you believe that the peace prize, as stated by Alfred Nobel, should be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations."
    Now think. Who fits that description the best for the past year? You cannot deny that it is Obama, who changed the overarching policy of the United States from unilateral to a multilateral state. And, had you paid attention to what I said, I did not state that the award was given to him because he is not Bush. I said that "The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was VIEWED as a rejection of the unpopular tenure... of George W. Bush. In a clear swipe at his predecessor, the committee praised the 'change in the international climate' that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons." And as for talks about weapons, the Obama administration canceled the plan to station land-based anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and the administration is also in the works of a new START treaty (the current one expires this December).

    PS: Do not ever accuse me of not doing research.

  5. Ok, then answer this question. How do you rid the world for nuclear weapons, when you allow a bill to pass for the research and development of better nuclear weapons. The world will never be rid of them, cause they are the reason alot of wars don't even get started. Also look this up, how many people have been given the award on mere promises. Not sure but I doubt it has happened. All I am saying is that this award is way too premature.


Share your thoughts