• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Makes Nobel A "Mockery"

Mike

Well-known member
Let's see someone try to defend his receiving the prize on achievement rather than intentions........................................

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.


Times Archive, 1973: Worldwide criticism of Nobel peace awards
The choice of Dr Henry Kissinger and Mr Le Duc Tho as joint winners of the Nobel peace prize continued to provoke criticism today

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

uktimes online
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Shoer asks me if I wanted to hear a joke when I called to wake him up this morning...I said sure ok.
He goes obama wins the peace prize ...I go ok and.......
He says thats the punch line :???: OK I am still half asleep I figgure I will get it after coffee and my run.
Pull up Foxnews WTF??????????????????????????????????????????
ITS NOT A JOKE :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

All I can think about is the lady who smuggled 2300 babies and children OUT of a german neighborhood before thier parents were sent to the gas chambers.......I guess I can only rest in the fact God sees all and is rewarding her for her works.

Please dear GOD bless and protect my country in spite of the leardership
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I keep saying the Nobel peace prize is a council of foreign relations award the MSM touts as being a coveted award so I looked up what I had posted last year about it.......... the whole thing is a numnut award
-------------------------------------------------------

One wonders if the Nobel Committee is made up of comedians.

It's not, but that's not far off the mark. The Committee is made up entirely of politicians.

The Nobel Committee consists of five people appointed by the Norwegian parliament, or Storting, who serve for six-year terms. Its membership is supposed to reflect the relative strengths of Norway's political parties.9 This has meant the Norwegian Labor Party has had enormous influence over the Committee for decades, as it has been dominant since World War II.10

To ensure the committee has at least a thin veneer of independence, no active member of government is permitted to serve on the committee.

This hasn't always been the case. The Storting banned government officials from serving on the Committee in 1936 after controversy erupted over its selection of Carl von Ossietzky,11 a German-Jew peace activist languishing in a German concentration camp, as the 1935 Nobel laureate. The choice didn't sit very well with Adolph Hitler, who viewed the selection as a statement of Norwegian foreign policy.12

The Norwegian government didn't flinch, of course. It exhibited unwavering courage and pretended it no longer had anything to do with the Nobel Prize.

The Norwegians' cowering did them precious little good. Hitler's fleet and paratroopers paid Norway a visit in 1940 anyway.

Today, the Nobel Committee's membership includes one representative each from the Christian Democrats, the Socialist Left Party, the Labor Party, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party.13

All but one member is a former Norwegian parliamentarian and all five have held elective office.14 To suggest that the Nobel Committee is anything other than a reflection of the Norwegian government's opinion (albeit a delayed one, due to staggered terms) is as absurd as suggesting that Al Gore's work is what Alfred Nobel meant by the contribution of "greatest benefit to mankind."15

At first glance, the Nobel Committee's present composition appears favorable to rational decisions. Three of five members come from what are - for Norway - center-to-right parties.

But, as Paul Harvey says, here's the rest of the story.

Norway's Christian Democrats are more green than even Norway's Labor Party.

In 2000, Kjell Magne Bondevik, a Christian Democrat, allowed his three-party minority government to fall over its opposition to construction of new gas-fired power plants in Norway. Bondevik argued that construction should be delayed until new technology could be developed to remove 90% of carbon emissions - effectively delaying construction indefinitely.16

The Labor Party joined Conservatives in supporting the power plants to meet the country's growing energy needs, defeating Bondevik and sending his government to the bench.

Bondevik had a second chance to form a coalition government in 2001. He opted to form a minority three-party coalition government rather than a majority three-party one by including the left-leaning and environmentally-activist Liberal Party17 instead of the free-market oriented Progress Party.18 The Liberal Party had won just 2 seats in parliament while the Progress Party had won 26.19 That's a statement.

With three votes essentially locked in for the radical environmentalism, it's not surprising that Al Gore received the Nobel Committee's endorsement. Since the Nobel Committee's rules specify that its proceedings remain secret20 and members abstain from speaking publicly, we may never know how the vote came down, but it is all but certain to have been a divided one. Where are the left's cries of censorship when you need them?

Americans now recognize that the Oscars and the Emmys are self-serving and inconsequential. They are abandoning their annual awards broadcasts in droves.

It's time they do the same with the Nobel Peace Prize.

The honor is not in being nominated, but in losing.
 

Steve

Well-known member
when one considers that "When the past nominations were released it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939" , "Other infamous nominees included Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini."

and now Obama joins the ranks of known terrorist Yasser Arafat..


after considering those nominated and some who received the peace prize.
it seems that "peace" is more violent then the prospect of war...
 
Top