2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Barack Obama

OMG people i have read a lot of posts that say he hasn't done anything, They give the award to peoples vision they support, but are on their way doing it, therefore giving him the prize for what he stands for.The_Last_Ride

I stand for good things too, I don't get an award.

Giving him the Nobel prize is like getting those soccer trophies when you were 10 just for being on the team.

Deserving or not, I feel for the president that he is getting all these hate because someone else decided to give him an award that the president himself seemingly had no clue that he was even in the running to begin with.

Has President Obama accomplished a lot since he took office? Probably not, at least not to the degree that many would hope. But I want to direct people's attention to the problem he is trying to deal with. The financial that is gripping the US has been in the making for quite awhile now, the main catalysts were probably the regulators pushing for easy creditsand the financial institutions that endorsed it and many are not around anymore. Couple with the fact that people were spending borrowed money as the mean to boost the economy was definitely not going to be substantiate, as evident by the current economic state of affair. Health care has long been a problem that no one got the guts to fix and the president is trying to overhaul the system by implementing a drastic measure.... though I do still question his method and the probability of it succeeding, nevertheless he is giving it a go at least. The wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going on for awhile and, in my opinion, were quite ill conceived. Bush, with 9/11 as a banner and the world seemingly behind him in condoning theAl Queda for such atrocity, in his infinite wisdom he can still fumbled it. Instead of going in with the entire world, Bush managed to pretty much isolated our force with just a few allied forces that are all but withdrawn now. Indeed, if we managed to storm Afghanistan with more troops frommore countries Al Queda could be eliminated... at least their forces will be significantly weaken.

What is my point of talking about all these? I am trying to point out that, it doesn't matter how capable and charismatic any person is, when facing with the number of problems of such magnitudes, 9 months ain't gonna be enough to solve it all, period. Many seem to underestimate the power of diplomatic relations (as quite commonly seen in the US base on my own experience), what President Obama MIGHT try to do with those improve relationships is, someday down the road these alliedcountries might be able to help the US in fighting the war on terrorism, or at the very least serve as a detergent for the terrorists to try and stir up another war. Think about this, if US does happen to come under another attack (I think it is highly unlikely, but 9/11 serves as a vivid reminder that anything is possible) and President Obama plays his card right, he might be able to summon up the support of the entire world, possibly even China and Russia might join in, to eradicate the terrorists that are causing everyone trouble. If there is any use of "popularity" around the world in a president, it would be his ability to drum up support when it is warranted.

For all he has done for the international community, sure I don't see why he can't have it. For pushing for universal healthcare at home, can't say. He has yet to suceed in that. Mainly becuase of all the morons in congress that think its gonna bring us closer to communism or some stupid crap. But they give the Nobel Peace prize to those that help better the world and the US is just part of that world. Nuclear disarmant is better for the world, better US foreign policy is overall better for the world, Extending a hand of friendship to Iran and other arab nations (even though Iran slapped it away) is better for the world.

All in all I would say he deserves it

Deserving or not, I feel for the president that he is getting all these hate because someone else decided to give him an award that the president himself seemingly had no clue that he was even in the running to begin with.

Has President Obama accomplished a lot since he took office? Probably not, ariz3260

I definitely think people are not giving him enough credit for what he has done so far. It seems like no matter what he does he always ends up the bad guy. I heard someone on the radio today bashing him because he didn't pull every U.S. troop out of Afghanistan and Iraq the minute he got into office, and you know that if he did organize a massive pullout he would have gotten just as much flak for doing that as well. Nobody focuses on the fact that he hasn't committed to a strategy in Afghanistan until he evaluates all angles, it's just he hasn't done what I wanted, so he's a jerk. Or you can look at the gay rights movement criticizing him, but to be less than a year in and already starting the process of dealing with such a polarizing issue as DADT is frankyl unprecedented. The same caller I mentioned before even came out and said that Obama hasn't been critical of Israel when Obama's been the most critical sitting President of Israel ever, with both he and his secretary of state basically calling out Netanyahu. He's also been extremely diplomatic and cunning on the issue of nuclear proliferation, especially in his dealings with Russia, and it could prove to be that he's taking the global issue in a whole new direction. Then there's also my opinion that people who don't like him have a hard time appreciating just how historic his election is. He's the first black head of state of a primarily white country, a country that abolished slavery much later than most other nations.

I'm not saying for sure that he deserves the prize, though I'm certainly not one of the people who's going to come out and say he doesn't deserve it, but I think the people who are saying he's done nothing are WAY out of line. First because how many of those people can say they've been supporting his efforts, not hindering them? That seems to be a recent motif of the Republican party, that they're going to fight him on each and every thing he does, and when they actually win they're going to criticize him for not accomplishing his goal, circular logic much? Second, and most important, because he HAS done things in office, the media just chooses to focus on some things over others. I can see how if the only thing you think he's done is healthcare and Guantanamo you don't think he deserves this, but he has been a VERY active President so far, probably the most ambitious since FDR.

has he actually done much?lonewolf604

Yes, watch it happen now:

This is called the unemployment rate. Notice how the end of 2008 and so on, it's been rising? That's what our president calls "Change". And if you ask if he can make it worst, his reply is "Yes We Can".

Obama's a terrorist dream come true. A unexperienced clown that can destroy America from the inside, and I think it's on accident. This is what America gets when it votes with a crappy party system. Your choices are Republicans or Democrats: both will eat your lunch. Solution? Eliminate the broken party system and do what George Washington wanted: just vote for the guy you effin' like.

I definitely think people are not giving him enough credit for what he has done so far. It seems like no matter what he does he always ends up the bad guy. I heard someone on the radio today bashing him because he didn't pull every U.S. troop out of Afghanistan and Iraq the minute he got into office, and you know that if he did organize a massive pullout he would have gotten just as much flak for doing that as well. Nobody focuses on the fact that he hasn't committed to a strategy in Afghanistan until he evaluates all angles, it's just he hasn't done what I wanted, so he's a jerk. Or you can look at the gay rights movement criticizing him, but to be less than a year in and already starting the process of dealing with such a polarizing issue as DADT is frankyl unprecedented. The same caller I mentioned before even came out and said that Obama hasn't been critical of Israel when Obama's been the most critical sitting President of Israel ever, with both he and his secretary of state basically calling out Netanyahu. He's also been extremely diplomatic and cunning on the issue of nuclear proliferation, especially in his dealings with Russia, and it could prove to be that he's taking the global issue in a whole new direction. Then there's also my opinion that people who don't like him have a hard time appreciating just how historic his election is. He's the first black head of state of a primarily white country, a country that abolished slavery much later than most other nations.

theone86

Are you kidding about him backing Israel? You should probably read all the articles about him and Israel. His peace process' are recycled garbage we tried years ago. And because he gave a speech about not creating war with nuclear power, you honestly believe these egotistic UN members are listening? Ok, let's say he did all the things above. I didn't like George Bush, but here's things he managed to do: almost triple aid went to Africa for food and supplies, he freed millions of people from Iraq who were under dictatorship, sent the US Navy for Tsunami relief.... so, do these ACTIONS measure for something? These weren't just fancy speeches, these were things done. I can write a speech must better than the one someone wrote for Obama for nuclear weapons, so does that mean I get a free cookie too?

No, Obama doesn't deserve a medal for 'promises not fulfulled', which is esentially what happened. He was nominated Feb. 10th. How can you be nominated if you haven't even began to do anything? He won because he isn't George Dubya Bush. What about Bono from U2? The guy is on tour right now, making money to give money for AIDs medication in Africa RIGHT NOW.

Also, do you agree with some of the previous awards given to such great peace bringers? Arafat won one. Al Gore won one for a movie. A guy in prison for murdering people won an award for writing a kid's book. C'mon. These awards are bullcrap and shouldn't be considered seriously for people who really love peace.

USA! USA!

He's done more for peace than anyone here...who are we to say if he deserves it or not?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

I didn't give them any credit. The point was that they waned the US in a wasteful campaign and Bush played into that. They don't get any credit for Bush's stupidity. After all, they didn't push anybody's hand. The whole point was that Bush didn't scare the crap out of our enemies. Rather, he did something foolish that they wanted him to do. I'm not saying it was their influence that caused him to do it.

Instead of dismissing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia, you should clearly dispute the figure with another. That's all I'm interested in. I don't care what source you think is better than Wikipedia unless you're proving Wikipedia's data wrong.

And yes you did use a strawman. You said that they attributed the collapse to the war, which is something they didn't say. That's a strawman.

Tragic_Kingdom7

No, that was my interpretation. Their lack of clarity isn't my responsibility. That isn't a strawman. This is you trolling. In fact, what you're doing here is arguably a strawman. Why don't you look up strawman on Wikipedia too.

Now you're using the"you're trolling me" trick. What rules am I breaking? If I'm trolling, why haven't I gotten a moderation? It's kind of lame to cry "troll" when someone merely accused you of a logical fallacy. It's not like I insulted you.

This has nothing to do with their lack of clarity. It has to do with you responding to an argument they never made. They said that our ventures in Iraq caused us economic harm. They did not say that the wars directly caused the collapse, which is what you attributed to them. Like it or not, your "interpretation" is a strawman. You are arguing against an argment that was not made.

Also, why are you not responding to what I said about Wikipedia? You complained about the source yet have not refuted the figure. What good does it do to cry about the source and say you have all this wonderful research if you can't debunk the numbers? You dismissing Wikipedia immediately because it is Wikipedia is the equivalent of an ad hom fallacy. Just focus on the figure. It doesn't matter if you think Wikipedia is a crappy source.

I like Obama and all, but this is a complete joke, and I am not buying their "logic", either.

Not even.

Clear case of Nobel playing politics.

Go Head obama. gettin an award

I definitely think people are not giving him enough credit for what he has done so far (A). It seems like no matter what he does he always ends up the bad guy. I heard someone on the radio today bashing him because he didn't pull every U.S. troop out of Afghanistan and Iraq the minute he got into office, and you know that if he did organize a massive pullout he would have gotten just as much flak for doing that as well. Nobody focuses on the fact that he hasn't committed to a strategy in Afghanistan until he evaluates all angles, it's just he hasn't done what I wanted, so he's a jerk. Or you can look at the gay rights movement criticizing him, but to be less than a year in and already starting the process of dealing with such a polarizing issue as DADT is frankyl unprecedented. The same caller I mentioned before even came out and said that Obama hasn't been critical of Israel when Obama's been the most critical sitting President of Israel ever, with both he and his secretary of state basically calling out Netanyahu. He's also been extremely diplomatic and cunning on the issue of nuclear proliferation(B), especially in his dealings with Russia, and it could prove to be that he's taking the global issue in a whole new direction(C). Then there's also my opinion that people who don't like him have a hard time appreciating just how historic his election is. He's the first black head of state of a primarily white country (D), a country that abolished slavery much later than most other nations.

I'm not saying for sure that he deserves the prize, though I'm certainly not one of the people who's going to come out and say he doesn't deserve it, but I think the people who are saying he's done nothing are WAY out of line. First because how many of those people can say they've been supporting his efforts, not hindering them? That seems to be a recent motif of the Republican party, that they're going to fight him on each and every thing he does (E), and when they actually win they're going to criticize him for not accomplishing his goal, circular logic much? Second, and most important, because he HAS done things in office, the media just chooses to focus on some things over others. I can see how if the only thing you think he's done is healthcare and Guantanamo you don't think he deserves this, but he has been a VERY active President so far, probably the most ambitious since FDR.

theone86

(A) Yes I agree. We might be judging President Obama on what we want him to have achieve, but never really appreciate how much work and effort needed to put in behind the scene before anything can materialize. As I have stated, 9 months time is not enough to solve the issue we have at hand, ie: wars in Iraq and Afganistan, Healthcare reform, Economic recovery, Nuclear disarmament.

(B) It is actually quite refreshing to have a president that focus as much as President Obama on improving diplomatic relations, I would say this will come in handy eventually when dealing with the international community.

(C) Especially on the issue of terrorism and war.

(D) This is monumental not only in the US, but also to the world at large. The lone fact that President Obama was elected as the president of the United States signified a change to the US foreign policy and, perhaps more importantly, he became a symbol of hope to everyone.

(E) I remember hearing some commentary soon after President Obama took office. The main point of the piece was that the Democratic party essentially got everything going on while the Republican party was being shunned by the general populace and the media, the only way for the Republican to redeem itself is by opposing everything President Obama and the Democrats put forth and hope that they would somehow make a mistake. Seems like now we are approaching that critical juncture....