enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Who should have won?
by gvg

There were 172 individuals and 33 organization. Unfortunately we will have to wait 50 years to see the nominees .


Re: Who should have won?
by kalaresh

The prize is supposed to go to the individual or organization who has done the most for world peace in the preceding year.

Question: What was the most positive development on the geopolitical stage in the last 12 months?

Answer: The fact that the United States is now represented on that stage by someone who is engaging the world in a constructive dialogue that will make it possible for a lot of nations wary of each other to come together and address the global challenges of the present and future. It also helps that he openly repudiates the policies of the recent decades that have alienated the US from the rest of the world. It also helps that his skin color shows that America is truly overcoming its shameful history and gives comfort to non-white-majority nations that their voices will be heeded by world leaders. And it helps most of all that he isn't a smug hypocrite that lectures the world on democracy and values while engaging in imperialistic military and economic actions that kill and oppress innocent people.

Obama richly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re: Who should have won?
by dmac225

"...he isn't a smug hypocrite that lectures the world on democracy and values while engaging in imperialistic military and economic actions that kill and oppress innocent people."

Really? I had not heard that Obama had brought all of our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact I understand he is going to send even more troops to the area. He has also requested more Predator strikes be carried out in Pakistan.

As for the rest of the fantasies you posted....you have to be a complete idiot to think his speeches have that kind of influence. It sounds as if you think Obama was awarded this "prize" simply because he is not Bush. Hell, I am not Bush either and I talk about peace and a world free of nuclear weapons all the time. Where's my Nobel?

Re: Who should have won?
by kati

Do you realize how frightening to anyone with a modicum of common sense to have Bush-Chenney's warmongering itchy fingers on the red button?

Between the US and Russia, we have enough hydrogen bombs piled up to blow up the world 100 times over. Once a US president or a Russian Premier pushes that button, the rest will be automatic. The nuclear bombs stocks of India, Pakistan, Israel, France and the US are minimal in comparison but just as deadly.... And hopefully, Obama will persuade Iran and North Korea from developing nukes, something Bush seems to have encouraged with his constant saber rattling and "going it alone" policies. Now Obama has for the first time gotten major countries to go along with sanctions should diplomacy fail and Iran not let inspectors in by the dealine he has given Iran.

Obama, by nixing Bush's decision of installing a whole string of new missiles in Poland got Russia to change its plans about retaliating by lining up new missiles on its border with Poland has defused an outcome that would have catastrophic consequences for the whole world (you know, even if a few bombs were sent back and forth the nuclear fallout would have gotten to all of us. We do live on a tiny windy planet....)

Obama has also gotten the prize for changing the tenor of international discourse into diplomacy first, war at the last resort. Don't you want a president who'd use all means available before sending our young men and women into harms way?

Re: Who should have won?
by thewolf05827

"a whole string of new missiles in Poland"

What kind of missiles, exactly?

"Don't you want a president who'd use all means available before sending our young men and women into harms way?"

Yep. Because after 12 years of deception and defiance, Saddam Hussein was just one more feel-good meeting away from coming clean.

View as RSS news feed in XML