14 replies to this topic

[BeefJeRKy]

Kinda late to the party, but I thought I may as well open the topic. Express your opinions and PLEASE no USA bashing. I've seen enough of it on other forums.

I personally believe that while the intention of the Nobel committee seems good in handing Obama the prize as a way to encourage him forward with his plans, it pretty much was given out for no reason as Obama hasn't yet done anything. There were many other good candidates for the prize out there. Even Obama himself said the prize should have been given to someone else. I'll expand on this later as I have class to catch.

[RaiDK]

I think it was a dumb decision, and even Obama thought so going by his acceptance speech.

[Wizard]

I think it says more about what little is being done for peace that they have to give it to someone who hasn't done anything substantial yet.

[Sgt. Nuker]

I found out about two days ago and to be quite honest I find it rather repulsive. Obama's done...nothing, except win the presidential election. Last time I checked, that wasn't grounds for a Nobel Peace Prize (not unless they lowered the standards). Really, the only thing that he could have been given the peace prize for was taking the US out of the nuclear arms race, and quite frankly, there are better candidates for a prize. Pretty sad when the man receiving the award knows it would be better given to someone else.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

I have totally no idea what is based on... First black president? I am really happy for America to move on in race integration, but not sure it really deserve a Nobel Prizes to win a election. Even Obama knows that himself, it's our world really doing that little for peace?

[BeefJeRKy]

Comic relief:

Edited by Viseur, 15 October 2009 - 17:05.

[Rich19]

It's supposed to be for his work towards nuclear disarmament, IIRC. However, he's done little so far except talk about how nice it would be if people didn't have any nukes (at least, that's how it looks to me).

[Sharpnessism]

The Nobel peace prize seems to be moving away from awarding accomplishments and instead, is moving toward awarding people that are doing something, or going to do something. Obama isn't the first person to be given the Nobel peace prize for little reason.

[General]

I think He somewhat deserved it, He ' started ' a lot in the name of peace, I don't care if He is do it from the heart or not, its enough to check news about Him and see , but I think its all about new world order plan anyways, which is another issue.

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 16 October 2009 - 17:14.

[Antonius Maximus]

From what I have gathered Obama has started to rectify many mistakes the previous bush government made in regards to human rights and the way the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were handled. he has made a start on a more peaceful world but hasn't I believe done enough yet to have earned a Nobel peace prize, maybe in the future sure. If the Nobel prize givers cannot find a suitable candidate then save the award for next year, when someone worthy is there to accept it

[amazin]

i know i may be a little biased because im a raving conservative, but still, as many have said, he hasnt done anything yet, except say a few nice words. The problem i see is that his goals are not realistic, i mean, im not comfortable with the US, UK, etc. getting rid of their nukes until we make damn sure that countries like China and Russia will as well, and we prevent places like Iran and NK from expanding their nuclear programs.

[Rich19]

umm not dachamp, on 1 Nov 2009, 22:36, said:

i know i may be a little biased because im a raving conservative, but still, as many have said, he hasnt done anything yet, except say a few nice words. The problem i see is that his goals are not realistic, i mean, im not comfortable with the US, UK, etc. getting rid of their nukes until we make damn sure that countries like China and Russia will as well, and we prevent places like Iran and NK from expanding their nuclear programs.

Of course, this is his goal. However the way to make this happen is probably to be the first side to make concessions, whist stopping short of disarming entirely.

[The Wandering Jew]

Rich19, on 2 Nov 2009, 7:10, said:

...
Of course, this is his goal. However the way to make this happen is probably to be the first side to make concessions, whist stopping short of disarming entirely.

Concessions not only on nuke reduction but on economic terms and less stringent foreign policy as well. Just a thought.

[Sharpnessism]

umm not dachamp, on 1 Nov 2009, 18:36, said:

i know i may be a little biased because im a raving conservative, but still, as many have said, he hasnt done anything yet, except say a few nice words. The problem i see is that his goals are not realistic, i mean, im not comfortable with the US, UK, etc. getting rid of their nukes until we make damn sure that countries like China and Russia will as well, and we prevent places like Iran and NK from expanding their nuclear programs.

Why would any country give up their nuclear arsenal before the USA/Russia? China, Pakistan, India, and all European countries with nuclear weaponry, have a minute arsenal in comparison to the either the USA or Russia.

[amazin]

and that is why i think it is going to be a tough goal to reach

Quote

The problem i see is that his goals are not realistic