Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

> But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique.

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.

View on HN

Though he is developing a bit of the old "Foot in mouth" syndrome.

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.

Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much worse choices in the past.

It's not like he had a whole lot of choice there, the missile shield was one of the biggest and stupidest mistakes of GWB (outside of invading Iraq and squandering the world wide ocean of goodwill the US could tap from after 9/11).

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 ?

Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?

Because they do nothing to remove any threat that we are currently experiencing, cost an enormous amount of money, lead to strife within the EU, put money in to the pockets of US defense contractors that could be spent better in more constructive ways and that are based on the flawed principle of the 100% kill rate, which means that when the time comes to deploy you simply overwhelm them.

I see your points, I'm curious though, why does it lead to so much strife with the EU? Why isn't defense considered a peaceful action? Was it the location? Or was it because it made them feel like they didn't have that super power anymore?

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.

Here is my take on that, but it is skewed because of location (EU):

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.

Very informative, I think your take on it, because of your location, leads to a better understanding of the area and the tensions. Helps people like me understand it a little better.

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.

I too have not built any missile shields in Eastern Europe.

Prize nao plz?

Submit your birth certificate and proof that you're not George Bush, please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com