nobelpeaceprize.org
The Nobel Prize has just devalued considerably.
So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did that.
From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize:
"The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations."
So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ?
I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'
That's just a part/whole fallacy. The badness of what some priests did to boys doesn't devalue what Mother Theresa did by virtue of them both being Catholic.
It is a shame that being a priest in the Boston area is now linked with being a pedophile
Einstein's Nobel has no tarnish on it because the Committee gave Obama one.
However the Nobel committee has complete oversight and control over where these prizes go, the prizes aren't capable of deciding where they go, so a devaluing of the committee devalues the prize.
If the Nobel committee brought out an award for mathematics everybody would think it's about damn time. However if they brought one out for creationist research, not a single scientist on the planet would ever want a Nobel Prize again.
She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations; however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.
Krugman, as an economist, did a great deal to further the field (although he has since forgotten these things, apparently). Economists who I respect feel that his prize was deserved.
Which is a pity, because the clear purpose is to encourage rather than necessarily always to reward, and Obama's intentions definitely seem to be good.
I very much doubt global warming is a hoax. A majority of scientists in climatology and related fields seem to believe in global warming (though there is disagreement over many of the details, most significantly the degree and that one can vary widely.) Even if they have gotten it wrong, which is a real possibility, I very much doubt that anyone did it with intention to deceive or create a hoax.
Note that I am not making any statements one way or another about "An Inconvenient Truth" or Al Gore or his receipt of the nobel prize. What I am saying is that from my layman's perspective it seems that there is at least some truth to global warming and that even if it is indeed not true then that would be a scientific error, not a hoax.
I do agree; the only thing I can think is that Obama has achieved quite a bit so far (getting elected in the first place for example). But your right - at least wait till hes had his term(s) and then consider...
All the reports quote a Nobel guy saying they are doing it to support his ideas/ideals - so it looks like a political move.
Although it's a tad bit early and it would have been nicer as a reward for peace-making achievements, he also embodies the world's achievements in the struggle against racism and governance of old white men.
It's an attempt to manipulate the price of gold!
Ok, Here goes.
"Abandoning all these sober considerations Mr. Gandhi came out as an, open enemy of the Untouchables. How can the Untouchables regard such a man as their friend and ally?"
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/41K.What%20Congress%20and%20Ga...
"Thus ended the efforts by the Minorities Committee to bring about a solution of the communal problem. The discussion in the Committee threw Mr. Gandhi's attitude to the Untouchables in relief. Everybody felt that Mr. Gandhi was the most determined enemy of the Untouchables."
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/41D.What%20Congress%20and%20Ga...
Not literally the same statement, but similar in sentiment. Google is your friend.
That Ambedkar regarded Gandhi is a pious fraud and hypocrite is well known to students of Indian History. That doesn't make Gandhi an "enemy of the untouchables" , but yes Ambedkar thought so at times, and said so at times.
Now there is 49.5% reservation now in educational institutions in India, yes 49.5% !!, because that's the highest allowed by the constitution, otherwise they would have gone higher. It's something similar to "affirmative action" in the US, but totally taken over by politicians to play electoral politics, to pump in the votes from the lower sections of society.
Gandhi had the vision to understand that caste-based reservations would lead to caste-based politics and further affirmation of casteism in India, Ambedkar never could fathom that, or maybe he could and ignored it!
Anyway, please don't quote someone who didn't understand the ideas or vision of Gandhi, please don't.
sources - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RAON5AW4yUEC&pg=PA232...
To me the wars are more of a response to America's high state of emotion after 9/11, judging by the amount of people (even in political positions) who at the time agreed to them.
I'm also not saying it was a war based on emotion, but that the high tension and emotion levels obviously had a lot to do with it being acceptable at the time. I'd say it was the American peoples revenge though, not the revenge of GWB.
One can say the US wanted to protect the "people" and it's classy, but there are other places that need a lot more help (like Congo, where over 5.4 million people have died in/because of war since 1998).
In this case, I understand the motivation behind the prize. Politically, with the Nobel Prize behind him Obama gains a lot of capital. People will be less willing to argue with him, bad press against him quiets down, and he's freer to do what he wants without the insane hostility he faces today. I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
Not really. I just had a look on the BBC's comments page and the overwhelming reaction is ridicule. Similarly my Facebook newsfeed is full of people wondering WTF.
This might be to make him lose credibility. Just my conspiracy theory.
So, basically you think the Nobel Peace Prize gives Obama the right to achieve his entire political agenda without any form of opposition? Right....
> I'd like to think this prize will help lead to the eviction of the Republican Party even more quickly than it was already.
Oh, I understand now. Thanks for sharing.
No, but it gives him a certain authority. When the right is going batshit insane like it is now, I'd like anything to help counter that we can get.
> Oh, I understand now. Thanks for sharing.
If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
Unfortunately, it only grants the premonition of authority, to be used as a tool by his supporters to push his agenda. Rightly so, but don't confuse this anything more than a political tool.
> If you don't think the Republican Party needs to dissolve and make way for a newer concept of conservatism, you haven't been paying attention to the last decade.
Are you the person behind those bumper stickers? The ones that say, "If you aren't completely appalled, yada yada"? Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.
That's what I was suggesting: They're doing this because of politics, because they think it will help. I don't hold faith in Nobel Prizes myself, but I agree with their decision if it works.
> Please don't assume that your level of disagreement with a particular party must be shared by everyone else.
The Republican party is wretched upon even a cursory glance. This is the party that attempted to make Palin, the corrupt book-burning governor, vice president of the country. The party that fought universal health care by claiming that Obama wanted death panels deciding who dies. The party whose leaders have said publicly that Obama might not be a U.S. citizen, that Obama is anti-American, that perhaps a military revolt every now and then is a good thing. The party that sided with Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" after Obama said something that was entirely true. The party that is against same-sex marriage because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage, that thinks the United States is a Christian nation, that preaches conservatism while throwing money into foreign wars.
I want a real conservative party and a real liberal party. As it stands, the Democrats are spineless and corrupt, and the Republicans are worse: They are disgusting liars protected only by the faulty media system we've got going.
The Republican Party hurts America, and the sooner they're gone the better.
The only interpretation I can offer is the Nobel committee wants to show its support for Obama. The 2010 elections are going to be the worst circus we've seen in a long time.
Prior to Obama, some people in the international community had grown disenfranchised, resentful, bitter and distant with the US. I'd like to say it was a great number or a majority of people, but I don't have a study or link to back this up. This is just from my experience.
The accomplishment that Obama did, which for US citizens might seem inconsequential, is that they made us (the international community) look at the US with fondness. Changing people's mind is a powerful accomplishment.
Obama's administration made people have faith in US leadership and that once again the international community's voice would be heard by the lone reigning super power in the world.
This isn't a "concrete" accomplishment like publishing a paper, stopping a war or ending an oppressive regime. But it is nonetheless a relevant and important event in the course of international politics. By positively changing the political climate Obama has achieved something that the US had failed to do for many years.
Honestly, I don't understand all of the hate. Peace itself is an ideal, a goal we should aim for but most likely will never achieve (at least not on a global scale), and Obama's intentions and steps in that direction have spoken louder than many others this year.
The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
I'm happy for him, and I'm glad to be rid of Bush too, but isn't that a little premature ?
Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gorbachev made sense at the time, but plenty of these nobel prizes seem to be very politically motivated and not because of actual achievement.
For instance, Al Gore won the prize, as did Yassar Arafat.
Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'.
Gorbachev. OK, when was the last time American school children practiced what to do in case of nuclear attack? Anyone remember 'civil defense fallout shelters'? I didn't think so.
Obama . . . WTF?!?!?! Diplomacy between peoples . . . WTF!?!?! Did Israel and Iran give up their nukes and I missed it? Did the Palestinians stop slaughtering Israelis and vice-versa?
Alright, alright, those are too much. How about something simpler? Can I go to Cuba, drink rum, and lay on a beach just because, without having a US government Customs Agent detain me on my return?
No?
Didn't think so.
This Obama Love-fest is sickening.
Even Gandhi is blushing at this one.
AFAIK, yes - Israel completely obliterated Palestine during Christmas bombing.
> Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'.
Nelson Mandela was convicted of trying to overthrow the state by armed means and sabotage. It was not due to non-violent protests and even if the cause was right, armed insurrection is never right. And if he succeeded in overthrowing the state it would have been a mess at that time.
Mandela was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the ANC). While he does not bear personal responsibility (since he was in prison) Umkhonto we Sizwe did quite a few despicable things during the struggle.
Also, Robben Island (where Mandela spent the majority of his time) isn’t that notorious. Many prisoners of the struggle era were kept there and many of them obtained degrees while in prison (from UNISA). I would much rather be incarcerated in Robben Island than today’s Pollsmoor prison.
Whatever the argument, he still deserved a prize (as did FW de Klerk) for the negotiated settlement that brought about the first multi-racial elections.
"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson
The problem with violence is that everyone feels that their cause justifies it.
It is easy for someone to be a pacifist when they don't worry about violence on a daily basis because the most powerful military in the world protects them.
"If the choice is between cowardice and violence, I advice violence" - Gandhi
"I want to thank first and foremost my predecessor, George W. Bush, without whose service as a stark contrast, I could not have won this prize (nor, perhaps, the presidency)"
Google Tibetan history and see what sorts of "religious order" he wants to implement in Tibet. Chinese are an occupying force there, sure, but the Dalai Lama, if he was no the leader of Tibet, would absolutely deserve a coup and summary hanging.
Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.”24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.
For many reasons, I have decided that I will not be the head of, or play any role in the government when Tibet becomes independent. The future head of the Tibetan Government must be someone popularly elected by the people. There are many advantages to such a step and it will enable us to become a true and complete democracy. I hope that these moves will allow the people of Tibet to have a clear say in determining the future of their country.
I am sure a Hong Kong style autonomy would benefit them but is hard to see the Communist party handing out semi-democracy like candy to whoever asks.
searches around a bit http://www.dalailama.com/news.220.htm Here is a recent-ish post by His Holiness.
But the chairman of the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee said bluntly that the award was meant to slam Bush's policy on Iraq.
"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters.
(Reuters)
No, he's not George Bush, notice also he's not Bill Clinton, nor Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/...
Edit: for those voting me down would you please delineate which of my points you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.
You got this wrong. Most of them are only questioning the thought-process of the nobel committee (in awarding the prize to Obama) and not of Obama, the person.
Only one Nobel winner ever achieved disarmament ... and I don't think he should have gotten the award.
Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.
may be, the Nobel Prize association is under new 'management'? I thought the Nobel prize was given to accomplishments rather than ideas. I really like Obama, but isn't it bit too early?
Well done! I'll be curious to see where he donates the money, though he's not a wealthy man financially, he might want to keep some of it.
Both his books have sold millions of copies. The Clintons are now worth well over $100 million, just from giving speeches.
Al Gore left office worth about $2 million and is now worth over $100 million from a combination of his global warming book, movie, and speeches and various board directorships, including at Apple and at Kosla's VC fund. Obama will scrape by somehow.
Of course Obama's real wealth is in those two beautiful girls.
Oh dear, I'm afraid this sentence could be interpreted in many ways. :(
I was very surprised that he got this award right now, but knowing how many of the Europeans seem to still feel, I was less surprised.
He still has the power to start a major war against any country in the next few years. How ironic would this be then?
Way to jump the shark, Nobel peace prize committee!
I'm not sure its a club the President wants to join, at least not this early in a first term.
Let's see if he turns it down. Either way, it's a win-win of him and he'll get plenty of adulation.
It's either 3 of them or none. Be fair.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090227/120342505.html
Unfortunately, the list of names won't be revealed for 50 years.
Without the list, it's hard to compare everyone's accomplishments.
_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful. More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
Posted by AP 6 hours ago. Clearly they knew this would create controversy.
_ Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute.
The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.
Wow! So Obama was president for only 11 days before he was nominated.
too bad he hasn't lived up to the promise.
What better way to encourage peace then to start building anti-nuke stations around the world to nullify that threat from all parties.
Some thing during the cold war, the stockpiles were enormous, not because we needed the power to destroy the world several times over, but because launch facilities might be destroyed.
Also, first strikes will be directed against the areas involved in the missile shield, because after that the rest is wide open.
I see the whole missile defense shield as an attempt to revive the cold war because it's good for defense contractors, those guys made untold billions.
I do see your point, and it does seem logical. It definitely would be nice though to remove the threat of any nuclear attack from or against any nation for the foreseeable future. Though I guess a nuclear strike might be less devastating than years of war in the long run huh? What a chilling world we live in.
There is a list somewhere of the number of 'close shaves', too long and too close to have any confidence that such a state could be maintained indefinitely. That was just a matter of time.
The two people who ever declined to accept the award where both socialist revolutionaries; Sartre and Le Duc Tho. He is not prepared to be in their league.
An award has to be given out every year and the world does not produce ghandis at that rate so the people who have made profound achievements will have to share the award with those who've done less.
This does diminish the achievements of the greats in a sense but that's just how the system works and the fact that we can't really point to anyone else who obviously deserved the award more than Obama suggests that he may have been the best choice after all.
Amazing then that nobody told him about how accepting that prize might constitute a pretty big case of hubris.
1) He banned torture (waterboarding)
2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be easy.
3) He's willing to negotiate with Iran without pre-conditions
4) He's actually trying to push for a Middle East peace deal, and is being vocal about settlements
5) He wants a world without nukes.
6) He didn't put the missile shield near Russia, significantly calming things down over there.
Probably some other stuff too.
Is he like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi? Absolutely not. But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique.
Wants: To close a nasty illegal prison, but hasn't yet. Talked to some people. Wants less nukes in the world. Didn't build a defense system.
Did: Re-banned torture, in accordance with international law.
Result: Nobel peace prize.
In a vacuum, these things don't sound so great. In today's world, they actually are. Obviously there's something wrong with that, but that's just the way it is.
Dude, Bush invaded two countries for no particular good reason. Clinton jumped into the middle of a backwards country's tribal civil war to draw attention away from his personal life. Obama can't close a fucking prison? Seriously.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/30/terror...
> "CIA officials went to the White House and said they had 'specific, predictive, actionable' intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. 'It was a rare occurrence,' Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however -- August 20, 1998 -- nearly coincided with Clinton's deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of 'wagging the dog' in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. 'Don't you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,' Clinton said, according to Clarke. 'You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?' Clarke thought it was. 'Then fucking do it,' Clinton told him."
It's not about being easy or hard, but about the gigantic class action civil suit awaiting the U.S. government the minute they release them.
You break it you get to buy it. It's amazing that so many people bought in to that stuff under Bush, I always thought that if there is one thing America will forever have to live with then it is Gitmo. Just like the Dutch have their colonial crimes and the Germans have world war II.
Some things can not be excused. Keeping people imprisoned without due process is such a crime that history will definitely remember, and that's besides the 'details' such as torturing them.
And doing it on foreign soil so you can pretend it's not an American thing is even more disgusting. If you do a thing like that at least have the balls to do it in your own country. And if that is impossible then don't do it.
Someone ought to end up in the Hague over that one.
USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended.
What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric.
Edit: A couple of grammar changes.
Good point, so maybe upgrade the US prisons to Guantanamo Bay standards ?
> Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended.
But it isn't a war. Besides that, even if it was there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war. So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war. You have to choose and then play by those rules. Inventing new terms ("enemy combatants") isn't going to convince anybody but the most gullible.
> What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric.
This we fully agree on. Even torture can be outsourced it seems. But I think that does not remove the responsibility for it.
That was as an answer to your original description of Guantanamo as equally shocking as the mass murders of Jews/Gypsies in WW II.
I would, without doing a Devil's Advocate, describe that position as lacking a sense of proportions.
>>But it isn't a war.
It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
>>So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war.
But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
Edit: Grammar, sigh.
Edit: Historically, all countries I know of with terror problems (USA, Germany, Israel, Italy, Great Britain, etc) has played loose with human rights interpretations. I don't see a reason to judge the US harsher than others.
I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
> It is not a war in Afghanistan? Please inform the media.
From the wikipedia article on the 'war' in Afghanistan:
"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[42]
The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[43] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners"
And:
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79295
So, to call it war is not clear cut. A war is something that is declared between nation states and the conflict in Afghanistan misses quite a few of the pre-requisites.
For the people in the region the difference is much less important, but in international law such things do matter.
> But I just did a Devil's Advocate argument that the prisoners aren't treated worse than normal US' prisoners (which is horrible, but still much better than most any 3rd world prison system).
So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
> I thought the Red Cross had access to Guantanamo?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/30/letter-obama-asking-ac...
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/leaked-guant%C...
Apparently they were allowed to visit off-and-on during the Bush years, and then restricted in all kinds of ways, since Obama came to power this has changed but it is unclear whether they now have full access to the facility, I can't find any evidence of that.
>>I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time.
See the note above, re that all countries I know of with terror problems thread on the limits of human rights.
>>The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers,
Afghanistan is a conflict against organized units which as standard behavior do terror attacks against civilians and misuse civilian dress.
Anyway, it is continuing military operations since the invasion 2001, where the term is used in the standard press.
I don't have a problem with the Afghan invasion -- and neither do neutral countries like Sweden which send soldiers there.
If you harbor terrorists which attack other countries' civilians, you might get invaded. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing -- it is an incentive for countries to not destabilize other countries.
>>So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ?
Check spr.org. How popular do you think these people would be, if put in US prisons?
Second, I do honestly think the judgment on US here is harsher than e.g. the British and their handling of IRA, etc.
Third, desecrating religious objects isn't illegal in civilized countries. (And is it really documented?)
Fourth, lots of the stories coming from Guantanamo prisoners are certainly made up. There are innocent people incarcerated (all prisons have that). The guilty are in the terror business -- which is more or less the propaganda business.
Edit: Grammar, sigh.
The term is "unlawful combatant" and has the meaning of someone on the battlefield out of uniform. In the case of spies, they can be summarily executed perfectly legally - i.e. without breaking the Geneva Convention (which doesn't even apply in this case - it requires both sides to be signatories, and the Taliban aren't).
But in response to "there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war" - those guidelines, by their own definition, carry no legal weight in this context. Since the Taliban fighters are not uniformed members of the Army of a Geneva Convention signatory, they aren't actually "prisoners of war" for a start...
What gets my goat a bit is that you see attacks on Guantanamo for breaking the Geneva Convention (or even, as here, that it is as shocking as the Nazi mass murders!) -- and when it is pointed out that is a non-serious argument, there is never an answer.
I never could stomach propaganda written by people that know better. I like to think "the good guys" should be better than that, too.
Idealists lie, where pathos go in -- integrity go out.
Answering straw men was never a requirement. You made that link, it never was in what I wrote.
>>Answering straw men was never a requirement.
You involved Godwin, I didn't.
Also, as I've written twice and you haven't commented:
All democracies I know of that had terror problems (Germany, Italy, USA, Israel, Great Britain) at least walked a thin line on human rights for the terrorists.
It seems governments would be voted out in democracies if they didn't answer attacks on voters without using all measures.
There is a pattern here. My guess is that the reason is that terror problems are similar to civil wars, which are generally acknowledged to be dirtier than coal power plants.
No, you don't have to like it. I don't either, but I don't compare modern democracies to Nazis.
The only real solution I can see is to work towards more democracy in the world -- and hope the democratic peace theory isn't a fluke...
(Sorry for answering late. It was Friday evening and I try to fake having a life.)
Yes, he is unique. As is everybody else.
Uniqueness is not a reason to give someone a prize, achievement is.
And from where I'm sitting the only thing that has changed is that the American President is no longer making a fool of himself on the international stage and hasn't made the rest of the world wonder if he still has all his marbles.
But to give him a prize for that belies the people that have in some cases paid with their lives for achieving their goals, and then to be awarded their 'prize' 30 years after the fact.
There should be some honour in being awarded a prize, this is more like an incentive to keep going.
Recipe for getting a nobel prize:
Undo your predecessors stupidity.
We should be getting to parity first, then we should improve beyond where we were roughly 9 years ago, then some time needs to pass to figure in the side effects of all the good intentions. If it still stands you can have your prize.
Less than a year into a presidency that has already lost a lot of its luster is premature by any standards.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one, I'm simply saying that he has to earn it and has not earned it yet. By far.
Well, apparently he has, but after this I can't see anybody taking winning the Nobel Prize for Peace as a real achievement.
If there was really nobody deserving it more than Obama this year then maybe they should have simply skipped a year.
Makes you wonder who the other nominees were. Is there a list of that ?
I understand it doesn't really reduce any real threat we're facing right now, but what about other nations we would be protecting? The smaller countries who don't have nuclear weapons as a defense option?
These are serious questions, not playing devils advocate here, I'm genuinely interested.
Poland and several other countries in the former east block are still extremely anxious about being on Russias doorstep, and the Americans figured that now was the time to get a foothold there in case there would ever be a 'revival'. Playing in to the fear they promised a shield from anything bad that Russia might be able to do, ostensibly because of the so called rogue states.
But I really don't see N. Korea or Iran attacking Europe, if Iran will do something it will more than likely be against Israel, and if North Korea will do something I'd expect it to be against Japan or South Korea, and most likely conventional against SK, Japan I'm not so sure.
So the threat is magnified for political purposes and to get a foot on the ground right where it kicks the Russians in the teeth. And of course the Russians never played along and named it for what it was.
NATO has some serious firepower in Europe already, but hardly any of it near the old Russian borders and using a popular fiction (that Iran and North Korea are a threat to western Europe) they tried to get their way.
Obama figures it is simply going to cost a bunch of money, increase the tension so better to let it go.
Smart move on his part.
I agree with you that Iran and North Korea definitely don't seem to be a threat against Western Europe, at least not an initial one or immediate one. I was under the impression that the locations for the shields were chosen based on it being able to intercept a multitude of possible strikes against different countries. Obviously the information I've gotten has been minimal and not well researched, which is why I continue to pester you ;).
Given the information you've provided, it seems Obama was indeed making a good decision, that's good news. I am a little curious on what the real threat is already against the US though. It's arrogant to think that we're not being targeted for a large hit, but with the media the way it is it's hard to accurately gauge anything, I tend to err on the side of being overly critical.
Prize nao plz?
Kanye West comment, Racial card and calling police "stupid" before knowing the facts, et cetera.
Bound to happen when you're in the spotlight and decide to have an opinion on something, but one of those was a public comment made directly to the press.
It does seem like an award that was directed more against his predecessor than one that he is inherently deserving of.
Edit: for correction.
Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Price in 1919 (while he was in office).
I like Obama, but what has he done so far to compare to that?
... that bastard!
At that point in time, there was virtually nothing that he could claim to have accomplished, no matter how trivial.
I wasn't the first to start this thread but once it was started I am adding comments that are relative to the context.
I wouldn't be so sure. Which would turn it into an exasperating thread, and be an even bigger waste of time, and change no one's opinions. Which is what 99% of politics discussions are on the internet.
What the Nobel price really means: Obama needs more support and less obstruction. The old elites don't give up just because one guy gets elected. The struggle against the military-industrial complex, the neocons, the conservative lunatics, etc. will be long. Plus the US is not prepared for deep structural reforms (like getting rid of the two party system, getting rid of commercialized prisons, getting rid of a fake economy, really reducing the military budget, etc.).
It is a sign from the international community that his intentions are recognized as going in the right directions, now people need to work with him to get stuff done. Like the russians and the chinese leaders need to really reduce the nuclear arsenals. Other leaders need to understand how useless these weapons are today.
(It's hard to imagine the Peace Prize going to any other major political leader currently in office. Hu Jintao? Dmitry Medvedev? José Manuel Barroso? Nah.)