http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm

Pwned, rest of the world.

I don't care enough to write anything more than what I was talking about with my pal Alex a little while ago.

So I will just copy/paste that.

Aw, don't be sad.

Are you kidding me? Bullsmurf. Bull. smurf. The point is a matter of tenure, not smurfing philosophy. He's been in office for less than a year -- far less, I'd remind you. What has he done to deserve a nobel prize? He's essentially extended the Bush foreign policy. And -- no, don't pipe up, that's not a lie. Obama's foreign policy, in the broad sense, is second term Bush. Back in the day, people who got a nobel peace prize did something to deserve it, or at least had a body of work that was more than just 9 months in an office that puts him in contact with the rest of the world that he's never had before.

Yes, people always bring up Kissinger -- he had a RECORD. You could actually analyze that record, and come up with things that legitimize his award. Cherry-picking? Yep. But he had a record that LET you cherry pick. With Obama, it's not even cherry picking -- it's taking a fine brush comb and trying desperately to find something that can remotely legitimize an award that used to really, truly mean something being given to someone who -- again -- had no valuable foreign peace-policy experience until this January. And his stint on the foreign relations committee doesn't count, unless you want to give McCain and Warner peace prizes too. Al Gore was ridiculous, but it was defensible. He was VP for eight years, and had been doing a lot of travel.

This is just indefensible. Hell, why don't we just give Robert Downey Jr. a nobel peace prize. Iron Man sold gangbusters in Iran, I hear. And really... have you read this? "Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: 'It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve'." Really, Ian. Are you defending that logic? The best thing the committee chairman can come up with is "we would like to support what he is trying to achieve"? And after Muhammad Yunus and Shirin Ebadi in the last decade? Come on, man. Get real.

I was indeed kidding you, dawg.

It's philosophy that the Nobel people are placing first and foremost, but I wouldn't be so quick to discout his accomplishments this far.

I'll post more on the topic later, but as a fun fact: Obama has traveled to more countries in nine months than any other President has traveled to in their entire 4-8 years.

Ah. That's what all-nighters'll do to you, kids.

Really, though. Does anyone seriously think this award means a damn thing anymore?

Aye...I hear that.

George W. Bush.

Barack Obama

Wait what? You pretty much grossly overstated your case there, bro.

As far as I can tell, he won the award for not being named george w. bush. The world is by no means any more peaceful now that our glorious leader is president. If anything, we're at the point in history where world leaders start patting themselves on the back for "engaging in dialogue" with the dictatorial crazies out there. (The next step is appeasement, btw). If anyone should get it, it's Benjamin Netanyahu, for managing to keep the middle east in one piece, despite hamas' every attempts (with the full backing of the international community, I might add) to goad Israel into war. But instead we get an award based not on actions, but on "support [for] what he is trying to achieve". With that specious logic, I should get a college diploma even if I fail every class I take, because I "tried". It's kind of a shame they waited until this week to announce the award, though. It would dovetail nicely with last week's SNL opener...

If Iran develops and or uses a nuclear weapon in the next year, can we please throw mr. hopenchange on the ash heap of history, next to chamberlain, marx, and all the other leaders with failed ideologies?

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Indeed I had.

If this award was anymore rigged, my year 2000 acadec self would've made an aol homepage ranting about the injustice of it all and how it stole LAUSD regionals from him.

I'll have to read up more on this, but unlike Dr. Roffles and Captaink apparently, I'm not immediately inclined to think I know more about world affairs than the people who award the Nobel Peace Prize.

A+



my thoughts on the issue: I seriously feel like i'm the only one right now who heard the news, thought "okay cool," and went on with life. (I'm looking at you, ddt and facebook newsfeed.)


OH AND AL GORE MADE A MOVIE YOU GUYS. He totes deserved it. cereally.

His movie totally didn't deserve to win for best song at the Oscars, though. He owes the cast of Dreamgirls an Oscar!

I had no idea it won for a song as well. I looked it up on youtube... it was okay. I was very distracted by the stupid "global warming isn't real" debates in the comment section. It makes my head hurt.so.much.

does this open the door for Bono? i know he's not quite as well-regarded as Obama, but to be honest he's done more as well...

what the smurfing smurf????!? what the smurfing hell were they smoking?? this is smurfing ridiculous. I have lost all respect for the Nobel committee.

EDIT: For clarity, the honorable Barack Obama is my Commander in Chief, and I respect that. But if I was in his spot, I would decline the award.

i like obama, and think he's doing a pretty good job considering the circumstances, but he clearly did not deserve the nobel peace prize.

What has he exactly brought peace to? He's too busy taking Michelle out on dates! >.>

Nope, same here, Katie. I don't care too much one way or the other.

See: Chile. They had a September 11th too, but there's was in 1973, and their Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was Nixon and the United States government.



I agree, a man that openly stated that he intends to expand existing settlements and make no territorial concessions to the Palestinians should deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

It's ludicrous that a man that has clearly indicated that he has no intention of reducing forces in Afghanistan has won the Noble Peace Prize. Drones bomb villages at the nod of his head, and he's winning the Peace Prize for that?

So the general DDT consensus is that the prize wasn't deserved, and doesn't seem to mean anything, anymore?

Excellent. I'm mainstream for once.













EDIT: ... and so is Tsjr.

DDT agrees at large?

hey, hey now. obama actually is bringing the world together...



... in disagreement over his worthiness of the award.

I drink Obamarade for breakfast lunch and dinner (it's like Shatterade, but more intoxicating)

...wut?

lol Austin

I am perplexed by the Nobel guys giving it to Obama for a shift in attitude. I think it's great and bla bla bla, but no Nobel prize should be given EVER to an American President. This is a simple equation: Casualties caused by Americans>Casualties by everyone else. Obama should not, at this point if ever, get a peace prize.

We should give it to Lebron James. Without him, Cleveland would be worse than Detroit.

As of late Detroit has taken Cleveland's spot as the leading exporter of crippling depression.


So yeah go LeBron!

I'm not at all in objection to their selection.

Can anyone think of someone that they would say right now should have received it?

I mean, I respect Wangari Maathi for all she's done but...do any of you have any idea who she is? Can you name how she has made the world more peaceful? Are we any better off in terms of avoiding North Korean aggression because of the efforts of Kim Dae-Jung? Has Dr. Suu Kyi been changing the world in the 18 years since she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? No, she's been under house arrest for 80% of the last 20 years. Half the Nobel Peace Prizes went to someone or some organization that said "hey guys, I have a PhD, and I can tell you that nukes are bad."

They are all astonishing people, but what have they really done for the world besides hold a particularly admirable philosophy and try and act publicly upon it?

Uh, nah, dude, I'm pretty sure I could name 10 people on the international stage who have more than 10 months work with peace and deserve way more recognition for it than one man who has the "promise" of possibly being OK for peace despite a rather dismal track record the past month or so. I'm pretty sure anyone with even a passing knowledge of international affairs could name at least 3 or 4 people who deserve a nobel more than Obama. The by far most deserving candidate, I'd say, would be Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe -- the problem is that the prize would in and of itself be a slap in the face, given that no country in the western world is doing a damn thing to help him actually create change to the Mugabe rule. It would be like saying "hey, bro, we really like what you're doing, keep on fighting the power... just... uh... don't ask us for help, we already gave you a shiny trophy" kind of thing.

So, he wasn't going to get it. But Helmut Kohl, Mordechai Vanunu... huge, huge number of chinese dissidents, as well. Bill Gates has done a hell of a lot for world peace, though, obviously, in a very different way than the Nobel committee is used to. Sarkozy probably deserves it more than Obama, at least right now. Bill Clinton wasn't a war president -- it's a PEACE prize, and Obama has yet to announce any sort of reasonable level for a withdrawal of troops. Pope Benedict has been pretty damn chill and has been a pretty great pope for foreign affairs IMO. Look at Sima Samar. Look at . And if you're going to say Obama's a reasonable choice, then I don't see why the hell McCain, George H.W., Lugar, or Warner weren't even more reasonable choices. Oh, wait. They're Republican. Nevermind. Guess that's nothing. But hey, Bill Richardson?

Seriously, you're telling me that none of these names came to mind for you? Because when it comes to fighting for peace on a world stage, every person here has a more wide-ranging and varied list of peace-inspiring resumes. Also, Ian: read this post. Again, give me a good argument for why Obama is any more deserving than Lugar, George H.W., Clinton, Richardson, or McCain. Obama isn't even the best homegrown candidate.

Would you oppose giving George Bush Jr. the Nobel Peace Prize?

After all, Obama is just continuing the two wars that Bush started.

And for one, I think there are far more world leaders that are deserving of the Noble Peace Prize. Hugo Chavez, for example.

"Beyonce should have gotten the award for her efforts to unite all the unwed women of the world"

I think I would've given it to Clinton for his help in freeing those hostages. He got results!

Yes. For example, Bill Clinton has done tons more for peace in the last 12 months, if only because of the whole North Korean hostages thing. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that he does not at all deserve the peace prize.

I'd agree with Dr. Roffles - Tsvangirai has been absolutely deserving of the prize, although Thabo Mbeki would get a really close second for actually arbitrating the peace process between Tsvangirai and Mugabe.

I think we should have given it to Glenn Beck.

I'd like to believe he brings peace by having the entire world come against him.

Hell, if bringing home two asian girls was grounds for winning the Nobel Peace Prize...

My vote is for Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. That guy has done so much for South America than Chavez could ever dream of... and he's done it without manipulating the constitution to get unlimited terms.

But, congrats to President Obama. At least he was graceful in his acceptance, how many people would say it's basically for the world?

BARACK I'M REALLY HAPPY FOR YOU AND IMMA LET YOU FINISH, BUT MORGAN TSVANGIRAI HAD ONE OF THE BEST PEACEMAKINGS OF ALL TIME

ALL TIME.

Oh, Dr. Roffles...you are a hot-headed one. Just because I made the merest suggestion that Obama might have deserved the prize - and not once did I say he was more deserving than any of the people you mentioned - you accuse me of blind partisanship against Republicans, even though from years of my posting on this board you know this not to be the case. It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.

If I were on the committee, I probably wouldn't have thought of Obama as the most obvious choice...but I'm not.

He was directing that more at Ian. What he's saying to you is that just because he's not on a special committee, that doesn't mean that he doesn't know something about world affairs.

Anyway, I'm pretty much with the crowd on this one. Didn't deserve it. Hopefully he'll earn it in the future.

He's the Steve Nash of peace awards.

Lula oversaw the privatizing of state enterprises and the enforcing of fiscal austerity. I wouldn't be too crazy for him.

Chavez, on the other hand, has enacted bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements, while also providing cheap oil to poor neighbors. In fact, Venezuela has recently oversaw the building of a pipeline to Colombia for cheap natural gas, to Argentina for discounted dairy and meat products, and has also given oil to the isolated Cuba. The historic role that nationalism has played in Latin America has made Chavez a more significant man than Lula, because his efforts to build Mercosur and to break the dependency on US trade has shown that there is an alternative (a 'pole') to the neoliberal policies that most Latinos have come to despise.

I am actually not going to refute this. On a side note, I do have friends who absolutely despise Chavez, if not for his rule now, then for his attempt to take over Venezuela.

As for my pick for Lula, my viewpoint can be augmented by the fact that Brazil has worked closely with the BRIC Bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China), which is the bloc that is essentially a "think-tank" for the four fastest growing economies. To be able to work peacefully and with regards of a world focus is largely my viewpoint, which I spared until now and add only as something of substance, to refund your efforts.

Argument this is not. Just a statement, I think any such argument is moot and a pointless waste of time, as Obama is the pick, and thus any more discourse on the 2009 selection of the Nobel Peace Prize is simply justia on a decision we had no direct weight upon.

um. isn't he in charge of venezuela?

Yes, but he is attempting to consolidate power and remain in office after his term limit expires.