2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow's that Nobel Peace Prize working for you?
I was in awe and strongly disagreed with the decision to award Obama the prize when he had done nothing to earn it (my friends, who also voted for Obama, were very dismayed by my criticism). It was probably one of the only times I agreed with the right wing that such a decision was way premature and undeserved. All Obama did was talk about his strong desire for peace and ending the constant wars we wage, and the Nobel Peace Prize was given to him despite the fact his actions beyond talk were negligible and what he did do had little to no impact on world peace and abating American imperialism. It was simply inane to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a new president when this country consistently wages war whether the President of the United States is a Democrat or Republican.
lame54
(35,331 posts)I don't agree with the right wing because they had their own reasons for challenging it
tridim
(45,358 posts)Then impeach him!!!!11
EEO
(1,620 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)
He received a sticker for an assignment he didn't even do.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Then impeach him because you think he is so horrible!!!!!!!!111
Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)RussBLib
(9,044 posts)Isolationism is no longer a good idea in this shrinking, interconnected world.
EEO
(1,620 posts)who didn't do anything to deserve it. And who would inevitably have to use force at some point in his presidency. At no point was isolationism promoted. To see no ground between isolationism and imperialism is a pretty black and white perspective.
RussBLib
(9,044 posts)Sorry, I think I might have mixed up this thread with some others. Been reading a lot of things lately from people who think we should stay on the sidelines of the current clusterfuck in the Middle East and I think my mind conflated them.
trueblue2007
(17,242 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)The Norwegian Nobel Committee giving it to him in the first place. There were no grounds for it and his presidency had just started. They certainly have egg on their faces now.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)War is necessary only as a last resort. I believe that President Obama had a series of bad choices before him. No win situation.
EEO
(1,620 posts)These knee-jerk reactions from die hard Obama supporters are ridiculous. The award was premature. It was like determining a president's legacy in the first year he is in office.
Kablooie
(18,643 posts)To award it based on what someone says before they were tested was not a smart move.
He should have been noted as someone to watch as a candidate for a future peace prize.
After his presidency was over and could be evaluated would be the proper time to consider it.
If at that time he lived up to his peace rhetoric there would be plenty of time to award him the peace prize.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)... is pounced on. Unfortunately, this thread is far more a criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee for awarding the prize, not Obama for accepting the award.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the wrong forum?
EEO
(1,620 posts)Please, do go on bitching though. As I said, very amusing.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)We wish it was a perfect world. But it isn't. In WW2, Hitler was on the loose and had to be confronted.
Obama doesn't want this fight, but he's doing it the right way. No US boots on the ground. Air campaign.
An active regional coalition. Yes, the Middle East is a mess, for many reasons. But ISIS does need to be
obliterated. They are horrid rabid murderers who slaughter without blinking an eye, and that can't be tolerated
in the region. Blast them to peaces. If only it was a perfect world. It isn't and never will be.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)because he prefers peace, he can't ignore the world as it IS.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There were many things that lead to Hitler being who he was. The roots are in WWI. The answer was to address some fundamental problems about the first peace treaty. Waiting around until WWII started was the wrong answer.
War isn't ever the answer to anything. Killing people in Iraq and Syria will only create more pissed off people. Understanding why ISIS has been successful in the region will lead to the nonviolent answers to the problems created by their dominance in the region.
And the irony of "blasting them to peaces" is just too rich.
EEO
(1,620 posts)The argument I presented is how it was premature for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to give the award to Obama. It was like determining a president's legacy in the first year of his presidency. I also acknowledged the "real world" when I stated, "It was simply inane to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a new president when this country consistently wages war whether the President of the United States is a Democrat or Republican."
Oh, and there are boots on the ground in Iraq. What the hell do you think "military advisors" are?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)then fine, ISIS is YOUR business, Americans never even heard of this now supposedly WORSE THAN HITLER group until a couple of weeks ago.
If you are an American, then what business is ISIS of yours? And when you take on this job, have you considered that we once, long, long ago decided to take out another group, but we went to the wrong country, we destroyed that country and in so doing we CREATED ISIS. Now those unfortunate people have no country where they can feel safe and we have people in THIS country demanding, DEMANDING that we REPEAT the failure we still haven't been able, after 11 years, to put back together.
Great idea, let's repeat what we did before which failed spectacularly, except for Defense Contractors of course, hoping this time all our bombs and WMDS can do what they failed to do before.
And why would it take YEARS to 'destroy' a small group of rag tag terrorists btw, when it only us together with our allies, about two/three years to destroy A REAL THREAT TO THE WORLD with a FORMIDABLE ARMY that had already proven its strength??
Has America become so weak it cannot handle a small group like ISIS without spending YEARS AND YEARS we are told, and still, after 13 years, cannot deal with the Taliban and Al Queda??
I love the fairy tales we are told, but even better is the fact that so many actually believe them!!
Blue Idaho
(5,060 posts)Or do you think the Prize Committee owns a crystal ball or a time machine? I'm sorry but I just don't get your outrage jet lag... If you check back to say... 2009 when the award was made - you'll find plenty of discussion on the topic. Today, I'm afraid this is old news.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It sounds like you don't even know that.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Hope for the future and not being George W. Bush are not tangible accomplishments. It was very premature and the equivalent of concluding what a president's legacy is in his first year in office.
Response to EEO (Reply #31)
Post removed
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And the world breathed a collective sigh of relief!
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Jagland said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts.
EEO
(1,620 posts)And it was like determining a president's legacy in his first year in office. Hope is not a tangible accomplishment.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Now if you are against nuclear proliferation feel free to say so. The other part was his reaching out to the Muslim world. Tell me how many administrations prior to his have offered to talk to countries like Iran?
mythology
(9,527 posts)It was about his work on nuclear non-proliferation and in opening further dialogue in the Middle East. It wasn't about what he could do, or what he might do.
You're arguing an invalid point in claiming that it was about giving him a legacy before his presidency was over. It's invalid because it was specifically not what the Nobel Prize committee was doing. Obviously you feel free to ignore that, but it really just makes you look like you aren't interested in anything but your own opinion.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)MuttLikeMe
(279 posts)and that hasn't changed, as far as I'm concerned.