Does Barack Obama deserve the Nobel Peace?

[Awesome]

Maybe it was for the pieces prize He'll make pieces out of us by the time hes through.

 

[Omar1984]

Zardari hopes Obama will resolve world issues
​

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday felicitated US President Barack Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize and hoped Obama would draw the world’s attention to fair and just solutions for the outstanding disputes that threaten peace across the globe. In a letter to the US president, Zardari congratulated him on behalf of the people of Pakistan and termed the award “a strong testament to your visionary leadership and dedicated efforts for the promotion of worthy causes of global peace, nuclear disarmament and climate change”. app

 

[Skeptic]

One of the rare issues where we have a cross board consensus. (Well almost)

Anyways, another article I'd like to share:

Meet the heroes passed over for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
President Obama says he will donate the $ 1.4 million that comes with the Nobel Peace Prize to charity. As usual he’s being vague about the details, so I have a suggestion for him. How about the Shuhada Organization which was founded by Dr Sima Samar, MD, one of the also-rans for this year’s prize.

The Shuhada organization runs hospitals, schools and health clinics for girls and women all over Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Dr Samar literally risked her life many times to get this thing, now in it’s 20th year, off the ground. Dr. Samar has a hell of a resume. If I’d been reviewing it as a member of the selection committee it would have knocked my socks off. Then again, I’m not a dweeby Scandinavian former Socialist party intellectual who doesn’t get out much and thus thinks it’s a miracle sent by God if a black man talks in complete paragraphs and graduates from Harvard Law School.

But let’s meet some of the nominees who were blown off the map by President Obama’s miraculous presidency. There is the aforementioned Dr Samar. Now 50 years old, she graduated from a Kabul medical school in the middle of the Soviet invasion. She was forced to flee Kabul for a more central part of Afghanistan, where, though barely into her training she began attempting to treat patients against a background of extreme poverty, war, and harassment by the Taliban, who have virtually criminalised the delivery of reproductive health services to women and girls. In an article for the New England Journal of Medicine she describes having “to walk or travel on horseback or by donkey for three or four hours in each direction” to get to a patient, often finding that she had died before she got there. In her long, but ultimately triumphant career, she has been forced to smuggle birth control supplies under her clothing; she has endured death threats and been jailed; her hospitals have been bombed and looted by Taliban, and her medical director jailed for a year without charges; she was appointed to the Karzai government’s legislature then forced to resign when she was made comments that were critical of sharia law in an interview with foreign journalist.

This is what a hero looks like.

Another quiet hero is Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynaecologist who, according to his Wikipedia entry, works in the Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, where he specializes in the treatment of women who have been gang-raped by Congolese militia:

Mukwege has probably become the world’s leading expert on how to repair the internal physical damage caused by gang rape. He has treated 21,000 women during the Congo’s 12-year war, some of them more than once, performing up to 10 surgeries a day during his 18-hour working days.

There’s also the Chinese activist Hu Jia, now doing a three year jail term for attempting to publicize the plight of the persecuted Falun Gong minority.

True, the Nobel Prize was originally created to honour the person or organisation who has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” But in recent years it has often honored people like Mother Teresa or organisations like Medecins Sans Frontieres for human rights work. (And where was Al Gore supposed to fit in?)

Still, in a way, by ignoring these heroes, the committee may have been on to something. The sad fact is that crusading for womens’ rights in places like Pakistan and the Congo does not bring peace. If you subscribe to the theory that much of the roiling of the Islamic world, the launching of suicide bombers etc. is a reaction by panicked male supremacists to the creeping modernization of women, then “empowering women” with birth control and the like actually, in the short term, encourages war.

So I’m trying very hard to credit the committee with thinking this nuanced. But I keep going back to the thought that patronising attitudes towards the first black president had a lot more to do with it.

 

[bigmoneymaker]

he never deserves it, as all this is just a political show...
but the scientists nominated are also the respectable ones as they indeed make some contribution to the western world tech level, although some tech and discoveries are being kept secret from opponent country and civilizations...
that means the lagging behind countries must pay some price at the expense of important interests in order to share these info otherwise you will remain lagging behind even more and far away from self defending ability...
those scientists who are awarded are actually the ones working more for western development being recognised...and their native countries may even not get a share of the achievements and breakthrough made by the laureates in sciences...indeed a selfish prize carries the highest academic honours which the world fettishly worshipped, none can be done to stop the exploitation anyway...

 

[faisal4pro]

somehow he deserve it! but there are several more who deserve more!

 

[beginner]

Its to early to tell whether Obama deserved the peace prize so far he did. If he can maintain his performance long term he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

 

[SandsofTime]

This is going to attract more attention to his mediocrity. It is only natural that people, including those who voted for him, to wonder about his accomplishments, if any. Behind closed doors, they will examine his record as a public figure and they will finally admit to themselves that he has a mediocre record as an attorney, as a state legislator, as a US Senator, and so far mediocre as the President. There is going to be a lot of "buyer's remorse". Privately, of course.

While I don't agree with handing the peace prize on a platter, Obama is still an intelligent chap. I think he is good at getting the right sort of experts to work for him and also ability to influence others. Also he likes to take time to decide a strategy, a hallmark of a good leader. I think Americans will have a better time with this guy.

 

[gambit]

While I don't agree with handing the peace prize on a platter, Obama is still an intelligent chap.

B43 was also an 'intelligent chap'. More intelligent than most would give him credit. My observation is that B43 prefer to be 'misunderestimated' by everyone, including those close to him. It is the preferred tactic in business when dealing with recaltricant customers, who usually are, and hostile competitors, as they also usually are.

I think he is good at getting the right sort of experts to work for him and also ability to influence others.

Obama is an empty suit. He has no experience in all things people look for when crucial decisions must be made: management, finance and organizational leadership. As an empty suit, he is vulnerable to subtle manipulations, not persuasion, by those who have their own agendas. Obama is serving as a conduit for those agendas. His naivete prevents him from seeing how he is/will be used.

Also he likes to take time to decide a strategy, a hallmark of a good leader.

No one like a wishy-washy leader and requests for time is an implied character trait of being indecisive. Not just Americans but people the world over appreciate decisiveness in a leader. May be Americans appreciate that more than most. Make that -- demand.

 

[SandsofTime]

Decisiveness is good when the strategy is clear. However its certainly bad when strong headedness is applied to the situation without having a clear idea of what needs to be done - Bush being a prime example. Political world is complex now and things need to be thought through properly before strong action can be taken. I think Obama has been good at least on the economic front.

Can you perhaps explain how other more experienced candidates for the job would have handled the situation. Here McCain and Hillary were shouting "bomb bomb iran", whipping up war hysteria. Does this show their experience really working. Atleast Obama took time to understand the issues, for instance he was able to grasp Pakistan's point of view and decided to help improve our relations with India. Its important for a good leader in my book to analyze different views and then take a decision. Being deliberate here is important.

In the end its nothing personal. People in the center take flak from both left and right while trying to balance out the situation.

 

[gambit]

Decisiveness is good when the strategy is clear. However its certainly bad when strong headedness is applied to the situation without having a clear idea of what needs to be done - Bush being a prime example. Political world is complex now and things need to be thought through properly before strong action can be taken. I think Obama has been good at least on the economic front.

Can you perhaps explain how other more experienced candidates for the job would have handled the situation. Here McCain and Hillary were shouting "bomb bomb iran", whipping up war hysteria. Does this show their experience really working. Atleast Obama took time to understand the issues, for instance he was able to grasp Pakistan's point of view and decided to help improve our relations with India. Its important for a good leader in my book to analyze different views and then take a decision. Being deliberate here is important.

Decisiveness is best when the GOAL is clear but the strategy is uncertain.

Say I want to get to the office but the radio inform me that there is a large water main broken on 1st Street, an accident involving a large truck on 2nd Street and most of Main Street is blocked off for the holiday parade. My goal is clear -- office. But the usual route is now filled with obstacles so which back roads should I take that would give me the shortest time to the office, the strategy -- uncertain. The goal for NASA was to get Apollo 13 home, preferably with all three men alive. The strategy was uncertain. In either situations, decisions must be made if the goals are to be accomplished.

There is nothing in life, not even with international politics, that is totally uncertain. We humans do not operate in a moral and intellectual vacuum. Everything we must do before we do them we seek justifications and precedents, within ourselves and in the advice of others and we conveniently label these justifications and precedents -- experience. Is there any among us who is endowed with perfect wisdom and all possible experience? Absolutely not. Sometimes we encounter a situation that require us to adopt a new strategy to meet the same goal. I recently purchased a house. An apartment is the same goal as a standalone house -- a structure to give me shelter and a place to have some satisfying sex. But the strategy for each seriously diverge beyond a certain point and that point is looking at the real estate adverts. I have plenty of experience looking FOR apartments but none at looking AT houses. So to compensate for my lack of experience at home buying in general, I enlisted the assistance and advice of family members and friends. Each person have different reasons for the house he/she currenly live in. I dissected their experiences to find any commonality between them and my own reasons. And sooner or later, I must make a decision.

Is there any among us who can always balance out his incomplete experience with others incomplete experiences? Absolutely not. In %99.999 of our lives, in any situation, there is always a lack of experience from anyone we call upon for assistance and advice. Say I want to buy a French chateau, can I balance out my inexperience at home ownership with those of my family members and friends? Absolutely not. I would have to travel far and wide to find someone who has experience in manor ownership and maintenance. May be the former butler of Blenheim Palace could help. He was not its owner but he certain was in charge of its maintenance. Sometimes we found out we have more experience for a particular situation than from those whom we sought out for assistance and advice. Evidence -- Did NASA consult with anyone else in the Apollo 13 disaster? No one else in the galaxy could give Earthers advice. NASA had to rely upon its own incomplete experience and devise a strategy to get the men home alive. Decisiveness is most needed when the strategy is unclear and filled with potential negative consequences. Or as Rumsfeld famously put it...

...because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

So between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, as far as foreign relations goes, who offers US, our allies, potential allies, adversaries and potential adversaries, the most experience in the comprehensive context of the word? Obviously, for those who belongs in each category, each would have different self interests. For our adversaries and potential adversaries, they want the most clueless US President possible. During the Cold War, our allies, especially those that live next door to the Soviets, they want as strong a leader as possible for the alliance and we got Ronald 'Star Wars' Reagan, who as governor of California, was in charge of one of the world's larger economies, has a diverse population base, technologically trendy and filled with military interests. Raygun may not had complete wisdom and experience but he certainly had a strong enough foundation to seek out those who could complement his and would best serve US interests. The result was the spectacular and ignoble collapse of the Soviet empire that even though Raygun was not its instigator, he certainly did huge damages to speed the collapse. The more experience we can amass in the face of strategic uncertainty, the better the decision making process and probably the sooner we will accomplish that clear goal.

Obama's experience foundation is sorely lacking. Not to say that his Cabinet and various advisors are totally clueless in their assigned posts but that compared to past administrations, the recent ones at least, the Obama administration leans towards the inexperienced side in that few actually had any management or finance or military experience, for a few examples. The word 'inexperienced' here is meant to be comparative, not absolute. The time period in our lives where we can best reflect upon and exploit our experiences is adulthood where we had to be responsible for finding our own shelter, food and sex partners. In politics, especially in international politics, everyone is at one time or another -- the pimp, the prostitute and the customer. Obama is a virginal child and so far he is the bytch to highly experienced pimps like Castro, Chavez and Putin. The US is lucky in that past administrations who were highly experienced pimpsters themselves built this country strong enough to where those three men could only screw Obama over, not US. Obama has yet to turn US into the prostitute for their customers.

 

[ultimate.struggle]

Yes He Deserves It! Simply for his initiative to make this world a better and peaceful place. Being the President of the USA his one small step may turn into a giant leap down the road.

Congratulations to President Obama and his family and to the American people (of course those who agree with it)

Yes he deserves the noble price for PEACE....

1. For sending 30K troops to Afghanistan to kill innocent people….
2. For maintaining a war in IRAQ (still searching WMD)
3. For killing people in Pakistan (Drone attacks)

Congratulation Mr. Obama!


--- Ultimate Struggle

 

[BlackenTheSky]

FOR WHAT..we have to admit that since he became pres,America has not been that much aggressive which in bush era it was..but still he dont deserve it....when guanta jail will be closed,army will be pulled out from iraq..and then it could be

 

[Gene_with_LaRouche]

December 11, 2009 (LPAC)—Lyndon LaRouche today stated that President Barack Obama's comments in Oslo, Norway, on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, call into question his sanity. Either he is lying, or he is insane. There is no possible reasonable doubt that these are the options. You can read the entire statement at LaRouche: Is The President Sane? | LaRouchePAC

 

[Dawkins]

The committee wanted 2 convey the following message: "f u George Bush u redneck cowboy a-hole!" and hence the nobel to his successor.