The committee for the Peace Prize stated that this was the reason for Obama receiving the prize- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Of course, this prize is not due to any personal achievement (whatever that unimportant council that actually awarded the prize says), but to some mystical "affirmation of American leadership." Last I checked, he saw himself as the American leadership, so...wait a minute! That means that this prize is due to personal achievement!
Whatever that personal achievement is, I think it is just a little freaky that he was nominated, not a few weeks ago, but on Febuary 1. That means that Obama had only been in office for rougly two weeks. Before that time, he hadn't done anything. (Except of course, getting those pesky Bush recriminations out of the way and rearranging the furniture in the kids' bedrooms. Apparently, he promoted inter-country peace by having a mix of Arabian and Israeli bedroom furniture.)
I'll end with this little tidbit- "Some analysts have speculated that the prize could give Obama additional clout as he forms a strategy for the war in Afghanistan and attempts to engage Iran and North Korea."
Oh yes! Attacking people will sooo promote "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Posts
10 comments:
The only reason they did this was to slap Bush because Europe hates him (and rightfully so). The main thing he did in Feburary was to revoke the terrorism policies which was actually a prety big step. I think at that time he was more of a nominee than an actual choice, but as he progressed I think they saw over the last few months that he actually has done some good. He has helped to restore the name America in a more positive light which was hard to do after Bush.
To quote (although vaguely) some news channel which doesn't come to mind, Obama has not acheived many concrete accomplishments with peace. But he has created an atmosphere that will and has already been inspiring peace.
Global polls show that the number of countries that consider America a bully has been drastically reduced.
I am soooo sick of this attitude that we have to grovel before Europe (and the rest of the world) and beg forgiveness for electing President Bush.
I believe that the Bush policies to deal with and prevent terrorism were largely successful. Even if you disagree with the policies, undoing them is hardly worthy of a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize, let alone winning it.
If there is one thing that Obama is good at (as long as his teleprompter is working or reporters are told what to ask) it is speaking, or more accurately campaigning.
The Nobel committee basically mentioned 3 reasons he won.
1. He eased tensions with Muslims.
2. His initiatives to reduce nuclear arms.
3. He stressed diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Oh, and for extra credit he inspired a hopeful "global mood"
1. Um...I guess it did a lot to ease Muslim tensions to bow before the Saudi royalty.
2. The US better ALWAYS have nuclear arms, because somebody else will. Some reduction might be a useful tool in diplomacy, but not in world peace. Peace comes from strength, not defenselessness.
3. Unilateralism, hmmm, sounds like code for, "You didn't ask us if it was OK to do that." Well, we are a sovereign nation, and even though we desire diplomatic relations, we may, when we deem fit, act unilaterally in our own interest (you know, like the rest of the world).
And as for the extra credit...great, our President is Dr. Phil for the whole world.
Mmm mmm mmm!
About the only thing he's done to promote peace is tell Israel they're wrong, kiss up to the Saudi Arabian's, and threaten Iran and North Korea. Woopie.
(Sigh)...if you disagree, you might do it without sarcasm and contempt. The committee that decided that he deserved the prize made the right choice, not regarding those who supported it or disagreed. To be frank, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. In my personal opinion, he deserves it. Yes, you may laugh at the fact that they did it partly because of the mood he has created. Let's all have a good laugh. But when you sit down and think about it, that is something the US and the world have been lacking for a long time. And it is impossible to flourish without it.
Personally, I hope that at least a few Obama-haters can learn to admire his admirable traits and learn to live with the ones they disagree with.
Sorry Christoper. You're right, I got a bit sarcastic.
I do admire some things about our President. I admire the fact that he managed to get this far, and didn't quit when the going got tough. I admire the fact that he has done something, or tried to, ease the situation around the world.
What I don't admire, and really can't ignore, is the fact that he has also repeatedly done things that make me wonder just whose side he's on. He apologizes constantly for us, he bows to royalty of other countries, and where does it get us? He's threatened Iran, stuck his nose where it doesn't belong, and taken us even farther into debt. I can't learn to live with the fact that my grandchildren will still be paying on the debt he and his predecessors have incurred.
Certain character trait's value change depending how you apply them. I can see Obama has character qualities that could be used for good, I just don't think he is actually doing that.
Determination is great when somebody is your hero, but not when they are your enemy.
Obama doesn't share my value of liberty, so many of the character traits he employs I do not appreciate, because he uses them to reduce my liberty.
Christopher, I am definitely not laughing about his Nobel Peace Prize...I am cringing that what was once a legitimate award is not nothing more than PC mindlessness.
Recognizing the fact that there has been a lack of unity (mood) in the US in no way discerns WHY that is the case. Likewise, feeling good and hopeful for no reason accomplishes nothing.
Bowing beofr royality is a sign of respect it's a much bigger deal outside of the US. It would actually be insulting not to. Is Obama your enemy? That's not a good thing. I didn't think Bush was my 'enemy' even though he was terrible. The president should never be your enemy, you should always have respect for them. I think we need to apologize to some degree too. I mean, Bush made some bad choices that reflected on our country. His descions hiurt the global comunity and made us look bad.
Let me ask you this Alex. If Obama was just bowing out of respect, why didn't he bow to the Queen of England as well? I'm sure she felt quite left-out and rejected, not to mention offended.
The fact is that Americans have NEVER bowed to royalty. We are not required to. Furthermore, I simply do not think it is correct for the POTUS to bow to the King of a known repressive society- especially a POTUS like Obama who professes to care so much about the poor abused people of the world.
No, Obama is not my enemy. I am certain he is a very nice man in real life, once you get to know him. However, I am the enemy of his unconstitutional policies and his actions that I think show a lack of respect for American interests.
I will totally agree that Bush made bad choices too. But what are we apologizing for? What are we going to apologize about? I mean, if we're apologizing about slavery, how about we just go ahead and apologize to the Greeks about the Spartans being murdered by the Immortals? Or what about apologizing for the fact that the Jewish people were taken over dozens of times? Or what the hey, let's just go all the way and have women apologize for the Garden of Eden incident!!
I do not think it is the President's place to be apologizing for our actions. Granted, past presidents have pretty much screwed the economy. But it wasn't just Bush, and it wasn't just Clinton. The actions of other nations had plenty to do about it as well- and you certainly don't see them apologizing.
Apologizing makes us look weak. It makes us look as if we can't stand up for our mistakes. Yes, your mother always told you to apologize, but there comes a time when apologizing is not appropriate.
Bowing to royalty is a sign of submission. Equals do not bow, subordinates do, and that is exactly what the middle east saw.
Alex you are right, I shouldn't have to feel like my president is my enemy, but he is assaulting my liberty, what do you expect.
Should we be apologizing to the EU for all the soldiers we have still in their countries? No, I don’t mean the ones in the bases, I mean the ones in the many cemeteries. You know, the ones that kept the Nazis (no Alex, not the GOP, I mean the real Nazis) from taking over Europe.
You know, defending a nation, war, intelligence gathering, managing alias, and promoting national morale are tricky things. You can criticize Bush for his execution in some cases, but his intentions were to protect liberty. Obama is willing to rescind our liberty to garner power to the federal government, so he and his arrogant friends can force us to do what they think we are too stupid to do for ourselves. Obama isn't tripping on the way to the end zone, he is heading the wrong way on purpose. That is a completely different kind of failure.
Post a Comment