Obama has won a Nobel

[texas*princess]

Personally, I think the win was a bit premature. I'm not one to say "he didn't deserve it!!!!!" or "PROVE TO ME WHY HE DESERVED IT!!" It already happened. There's nothing anyone can do about it. The committee members thought he was the best for whatever reason, and they're the ones who decide who wins, so whatever.

[SWTXBelle]

Just because those in a position to award a prize chose someone does not mean they necessarily earned it - I'm reminded of the good ol' days of the Olympics when Russian and other Soviet Bloc judges could be counted on to blatently favor their athletes. Certain Academy Award winners have surprised me - and not in a good way. Emmys, Grammys, Tonys, heck, MTV Music Awards - Debating the winners of subjective awards is the American way!

No one that I've read has advocated taking the award away, draw and quartering the judges, or really anything in terms of "doing something" about it. I've requested (both here and in my newspaper column) that those who feel he deserved the award let me know what it is they feel qualifies as Obama having done the "best and most" in promoting peace but no one does.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I've requested (both here and in my newspaper column) that those who feel he deserved the award let me know what it is they feel qualifies as Obama having done the "best and most" in promoting peace but no one does.

Perhaps that is because in light of the circumstances, we aren't obligated to do so. No one has to answer to you or anyone else who disgrees with the decision because the committee has the discretion to do what they feel is best. The fact that they felt this way is enough for me and should be enough for you.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Perhaps that is because in light of the circumstances, we aren't obligated to do so. No one has to answer to you or anyone else who disgrees with the decision because the committee has the discretion to do what they feel is best. The fact that they felt this way is enough for me and should be enough for you.

Obligated? Strange choice of words. No, you are not obligated to answer me, but the failure to do so indicates that you have no valid answer to a very fair, logical question - what has Obama done to deserve the award? No answer would seem to indicate that you have, well, no answer to that question. Fair enough. But who are you to tell me that I cannot feel he was given the award for reasons other than those specified in Nobel's will? I've felt no need to tell those who feel he earned it that they are wrong or that anything that is "enough for me" must needs be enough for them. I would honestly like to know what it is that Obama has achieved since becoming president (never mind within the 9 days between his becoming president and being nominated) that merits the Nobel Peace Prize. And just as an FYI - he is hardly the first controversial award winner.

If, as you have done, you wish to criticize those who feel that he does not deserve the award then you have in fact demonstrated that "the fact that they felt this way is enough for me" is not true. If it were, you wouldn't be as invested in this thread.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Obligated? Strange choice of words. No, you are not obligated to answer me, but the failure to do so indicates that you have no valid answer to a very fair, logical question - what has Obama done to deserve the award? No answer would seem to indicate that you have, well, no answer to that question. Fair enough. But who are you to tell me that I cannot feel he was given the award for reasons other than those specified in Nobel's will? I've felt no need to tell those who feel he earned it that they are wrong or that anything that is "enough for me" must needs be enough for them. I would honestly like to know what it is that Obama has achieved since becoming president (never mind within the 9 days between his becoming president and being nominated) that merits the Nobel Peace Prize. And just as an FYI - he is hardly the first controversial award winner.

If, as you have done, you wish to criticize those who feel that he does not deserve the award then you have in fact demonstrated that "the fact that they felt this way is enough for me" is not true. If it were, you wouldn't be as invested in this thread.

No, it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer. You should know that from many of the discussions that have taken place on here. More than likely it is the presumptuous tone of your question.

And since, as you pointed out, he ISN'T the first controversial award winner, that should remove some of the shock and surprise.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

No, it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer. You should know that from many of the discussions that have taken place on here. More than likely it is the presumptuous tone of your question.

And since, as you pointed out, he ISN'T the first controversial award winner, that should remove some of the shock and surprise.

If it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer, do tell why you (or anyone) who has a valid answer would play coy and not give it.

It's hardly presumptuous (presumptous of what, exactly?) to say I don't feel he fits the criteria (which I quoted, just in case) and to ask that if you do, please tell what he has done that would qualify him to win. If, for whatever reason, you chose not to disclose why you think he qualifies - what are we to think?

When did shock and surprise enter the conversation? I will say that Obama himself said he was surprised - did you expect him to win? Really? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Perhaps that is because in light of the circumstances, we aren't obligated to do so. No one has to answer to you or anyone else who disgrees with the decision because the committee has the discretion to do what they feel is best. The fact that they felt this way is enough for me and should be enough for you.

No, it absolutely should NOT be enough for everybody - under similar logic, we would never question decisions by Congress, judges, juries, police officers, and others who may do what they think is "best" to disastrous ends.

It's fine if it's enough for you, but I see no reason why it is wrong or improper to feel differently.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

No, it absolutely should NOT be enough for everybody - under similar logic, we would never question decisions by Congress, judges, juries, police officers, and others who may do what they think is "best" to disastrous ends.

It's fine if it's enough for you, but I see no reason why it is wrong or improper to feel differently.

The difference is that a foreign country is "in charge of" this award. I certainly do question things...when the US is "in charge of" it. I'm not arrogant enough to tell folks in a foreign country what they should or should not do. That attitude is why other countries have so much hatred towards the US anyway. Instead I leave my questioning for things that occur HERE.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The difference is that a foreign country is "in charge of" this award. I certainly do question things...when the US is "in charge of" it. I'm not arrogant enough to tell folks in a foreign country what they should or should not do. That attitude is why other countries have so much hatred towards the US anyway. Instead I leave my questioning for things that occur HERE.

In case you missed it - the U.S. is a part of the world, and what happens in one country, affects another. The award is decided upon by 5 Norwegians, but it is an international award specifically designed to have a worldwide impact. So you are concerned about what other countries would think of us exercising free speech? Is your solution to shut out criticism of Obama (or in this case, really the Nobel committee)? You've said you won't give an answer to the question of why he qualifies - so are you just interested in being critical of those who quite simply don't think that he was the BEST choice - notice in my earlier post I went to the trouble of looking up other nominees, who I felt were better qualified.

The fact that you are so concerned with how criticism of the award might feed into international opinion of the U.S. is ironic given that one reason given for Obama's being given the award is the fact that his election changed the perception of the U.S. by other countries. If we are going for the whole isolation thing, then why should we be concerned with anything we are not "in charge of"? For that matter, using your "logic", why should any other country criticize the U.S. if they are not "in charge of " it? Iraq? Guatanamo Bay? Should the world have no say in these things because they are not in charge of it? The U.N. would have to shut down in every country were only in a position to have an opinion of those things they were "in charge of".

I honestly hope that Obama lives up to the opinion of the committee and is able to bring about a peaceful, non-nuclear world. That would obviously be a great thing. I just don't think he's done it yet or made enough progress towards it to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize.

(Smilies inserted at request of 7 yr. old son who is looking over my shoulder- )

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

People who ask what has he achieved probably don't recognize how difficult it truly is to organize such a large number of extremly diverse supporters [a group of supporters that crosses boundaries of race, religion, region, language, etc.] around a message of hope, positivity, humanity and ultimately love. No one else has ever been able to do that. I know its a small achievement to some, but comparatively speaking it is quite large.

Now, he won the Prize because he can actually do what he has set out to do and is in the process of making it happen. Yes, its political, but I wouldn't say he is not at all deserving. Glad he won it!

"Why put off for tomorrow what you can accomplish today?" Guess the Prize committee took this one to heart! lol!

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

If it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer, do tell why you (or anyone) who has a valid answer would play coy and not give it.

It's hardly presumptuous (presumptous of what, exactly?) to say I don't feel he fits the criteria (which I quoted, just in case) and to ask that if you do, please tell what he has done that would qualify him to win. If, for whatever reason, you chose not to disclose why you think he qualifies - what are we to think?

When did shock and surprise enter the conversation? I will say that Obama himself said he was surprised - did you expect him to win? Really? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

Please see above.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

In case you missed it - the U.S. is a part of the world, and what happens in one country, affects another. The award is decided upon by 5 Norwegians, but it is an international award specifically designed to have a worldwide impact. So you are concerned about what other countries would think of us exercising free speech? Is your solution to shut out criticism of Obama (or in this case, really the Nobel committee)? You've said you won't give an answer to the question of why he qualifies - so are you just interested in being critical of those who quite simply don't think that he was the BEST choice - notice in my earlier post I went to the trouble of looking up other nominees, who I felt were better qualified.

The fact that you are so concerned with how criticism of the award might feed into international opinion of the U.S. is ironic given that one reason given for Obama's being given the award is the fact that his election changed the perception of the U.S. by other countries. If we are going for the whole isolation thing, then why should we be concerned with anything we are not "in charge of"? For that matter, using your "logic", why should any other country criticize the U.S. if they are not "in charge of " it? Iraq? Guatanamo Bay? Should the world have no say in these things because they are not in charge of it? The U.N. would have to shut down in every country were only in a position to have an opinion of those things they were "in charge of".

I honestly hope that Obama lives up to the opinion of the committee and is able to bring about a peaceful, non-nuclear world. That would obviously be a great thing. I just don't think he's done it yet or made enough progress towards it to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize.

(Smilies inserted at request of 7 yr. old son who is looking over my shoulder- )

Obama's election changed the perception of the US because other countries know how racist this country is...even today. THAT is what changed. They were finally able to see the election of a Black president in a country that is known for its horrendous and despicable treatment of Blacks. Still, other countries have long felt that we have a "savior" mentality and think that OUR way is the best way. That perception hasn't changed much, but other leaders appreciate the fact that Obama shows proper respect and doesn't throw his weight around like many of our past presidents.

In reference to the comment about whether we are in "charge" of something, the examples you gave are far different. The Nobel Prize doesn't have the same effect as our involvement in Iraq or the situation with Guantanamo. But I think you know that.

And with respect to your question of why some of us "play coy"..............
Some of us are NOT playing coy. I just don't feel I need to tell you why I am glad that he won the award. It's fine if you want to list everyone you felt was more entitled. So what? That means absolutely nothing. IT WASN'T YOUR CALL TO MAKE. What part of that are you having trouble comprehending? The difference between us is that I am satisfied that these people chose the person THEY felt was best. They chose the person THEY wanted. I respect their right and privilege to do so.

[MysticCat]

I've avoided this thread for days because I knew where it was going to go. I wasn't disappointed, but here I dive in anyway.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The difference is that a foreign country is "in charge of" this award. I certainly do question things...when the US is "in charge of" it. I'm not arrogant enough to tell folks in a foreign country what they should or should not do. That attitude is why other countries have so much hatred towards the US anyway. Instead I leave my questioning for things that occur HERE.

Interesting approach. So, I guess all of us who protested apartheid should have kept our American traps shut, since we shouldn't tell folks in a foreign country what they should or shouldn't do. Let's stop all the complaining about Darfur while we're at it and keep our opinions about the Middle East to ourselves. And we won't even start on why the French think Jerry Lewis is so funny.

Look, I voted for Obama, I support Obama and I'd vote for him again. I actually felt bad for him when I heard he won the Nobel Peace Prize, because I could see exactly the sort of distracting criticism that would ensue. The criticism is not unfounded -- he hasn't had time to do anything. Pure and simple, I think they gave him the prize because he's not GWB, and in parts of the Europe and the world, that's enough reason right there.

It is what it is. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've avoided this thread for days because I knew where it was going to go. I wasn't disappointed, but here I dive in anyway.

Same.

Did "racism" really get brought up again? Variety is apparently the spice of life.

/sarcasm