TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- President Barack Hussein Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

ala Fark...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ala Fark...

lol @ beer summit!

An interesting take:

quote:

No Doubt Obama Deserves the Nobel! Bernard-Henri L�vy French philosopher and writer Posted: October 12, 2009 05:53 PM It is said that Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize without having any concrete accomplishments. To the contrary, in his eight months in office he has worked for peace in very concrete ways. Take the race question in the United States, still a purulent, throbbing wound that stirs up conflict. Since the eve of his election in his Philadelphia speech until his recent peaceful and pacifying response to the alarmist remarks with which Jimmy Carter evoked the persistence of racial conflict in the Deep South, Obama does not cease repairing, cauterizing, mending, in short, pacifying. Nor have his actions only been in words. When the planet's most powerful man rallies the UN Security Council to the idea of ending nuclear proliferation, it's hardly a matter of mere words. And what about the hand he extended to Islam in his Cairo speech? It's a speech, but more than a speech since it puts an end to eight years of Bushite stupidities and sounds the death knell on the discourse of the clash of civilizations, which was until now the American response to the war launched by bin Laden. When the president of the United States reaches out to moderate Muslims and tells them that America is their ally not their enemy, it's more than just words. It's an event, a historical event that clearly goes in the direction of peace. Does Obama do this, some ask, as a Westerner or as a citizen of the world or even as a Muslim? Plainly, he speaks and acts as a Westerner. The Cairo speech is a great Kennedyesque kind of presidential speech which says straight to the Muslim world: we are your friends, your brothers, but it remains for you to achieve what the West has painfully and painstakingly undergone and what you are the only part of the world not yet to have undertaken: exorcising in yourselves and among yourselves, in your memories and your hearts, the memory of fascism in which in the past you have been steeped no less than Westerners -- and which has its continuation in movements like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. While a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often held up as something the West must give the Muslim world to advance peace, Obama fully grasps that peace is not just tit-for-tat. Dialogue and peace have to be a common, a shared construction. And Obama has done -- again it is a deed, not just words -- an absolutely enormous thing. His predecessors, Clinton as well as Bush, waited until the final year of their second term to suddenly realize the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian war and to concoct a vague solution that might enhance their legacy. Obama himself has done the opposite. He has thrown himself in motion from the first day of his first term. And he has done it to the chorus of Israeli and Palestinian citizens who cry out in one voice, "Peace Now." Consider as well his approach to the Iranian problem. Nicolas Sarkozy asserts -- and he's not wrong -- that Tehran is pursuing its nuclear program under the cover of dialogue and negotiation. I assert in turn that El-Baradei and his teams are going to be able to visit the new nuclear site at Qom. To what do we owe this sudden show of "wisdom" on the part of Iranian leaders who are better known for being arrogant? To Obama's mix of firmness and dialogue, which I believe is the only way of being taken seriously in Iran. In other words, never has the perspective of war seemed less credible than today to the leaders in Tehran, and never has the "exit" door of a diplomatic solution been so open. It is because Obama has made this combination of toughness and dialogue, because he has deftly maneuvered through the diplomatico-miltary trap, that he has begun to make the fanatics step back. Similarly in Afghanistan, Obama is behind a new strategy that goes beyond the idiotic alternative of withdrawal or troop buildup and whose results I think we are going to see very quickly. Isn't the very idea of giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a sitting head of state who makes war, and may do so tomorrow even more so, ultimately strange? Not if you think, as I do, that the war in Afghanistan is a just war whose sole aim is peace. I am of course sad for the Afghan feminist Sima Samar, the Chinese dissident Hu Jia, and the Colombian Piedad Cordoba, all of whom also merit the prize. But isn't there a point on which paradoxically Obama joins them? President though he is, he too is a person who is clearly, concretely, physically threatened. He too in his own country is someone whom a part of America has literally condemned to death. And he is a man who belongs, if I may put it this way, to two families. The family of those singular men and women whose lives are in danger because of their struggle for peace. And the family of the other great heads of state who have won the Nobel before him, two of whom, Rabin and Sadat, it must be said, ended up being assassinated. Let us say that from this standpoint the Nobel contributes to providing him "sanctuary." Sanctuary not sanctification. And it considerably reinforces him in dealing with people like Ahmadinejad, the leaders of North Korea, and the Syrians. How will he arrive at his inevitable meeting with Ahmadinejad? With a Nobel Peace Prize in hand, a timely and formidable trump card. Translated from French by Helene Brenkman.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov An interesting take:

Surely obama's "mere speeches" do much more to advance peace around the world than any actions of an afghan femist. I'm not saying obama should get the award, but it's ridiculous to say he hasn't accomplished anything because what he brings to the table can't be measured with rulers.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Surely obama's "mere speeches" do much more to advance peace around the world than any actions of an afghan femist. I'm not saying obama should get the award, but it's ridiculous to say he hasn't accomplished anything because what he brings to the table can't be measured with rulers.

What's interesting to me is that the primary goal of "change" in Obama's foreign policy was to alter the way that the world looks at the United States. The Nobel to me is the first real sign that there has been a fundamental shift - here we have people in the US saying he doesn't deserve it, and his biggest defenders are all abroad - many of whom the very same people that were so bitter about the United States and its more aggressive role in the world circa 2003-2008. To that extent, it seems Obama's foreign policy has been a big success.

Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations.

We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What's interesting to me is that the primary goal of "change" in Obama's foreign policy was to alter the way that the world looks at the United States. The Nobel to me is the first real sign that there has been a fundamental shift - here we have people in the US saying he doesn't deserve it, and his biggest defenders are all abroad - many of whom the very same people that were so bitter about the United States and its more aggressive role in the world circa 2003-2008. To that extent, it seems Obama's foreign policy has been a big success. Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations. We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

very good point.



Speaking of rush, I got a good laugh out of this. Does Rush (one of the biggest douche bags on earth, obviously) think on any level except republic v democrat:

quote:

CNN) � Rush Limbaugh says he'd gladly sit down for a conversation with President Obama if the controversial talk-radio host ever scored an invite to the White House. "Absolutely," Limbaugh, among the president's fiercest critics, told NBC when asked if he'd be willing to speak with Obama. "I'd be honest with him. The President of the United States is the President of the United States. I want this country to succeed, and if he invited me up there to chat, I would owe him up the dignity of being honest." The comments aired on NBC's Today Show in the second part of an interview that first ran Monday. Limbaugh was also asked to play word association when the interviewer named the following political figures: President Obama: "Disaster" Michelle Obama: "Garden" Jimmy Carter: "An utter disgrace and embarrassment." Sarah Palin: "Misunderstood and underestimated. I admire her. People have tried to destroy her. She has more backbone than any man in the Democrat Party." George W. Bush: "He's just the most decent, down to earth, real man you could ever hope to meet." Hillary Clinton: "Nurse ratchet"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...eak-with-obama/


I can't even fathom what guides this man's morals and ideals. War is decent and trying to help the poor/less fortunate is disasterous? What?

the fact that this douche makes 50M a year is phenomenally ridiculous. Although you can't blame him or clear channel for that, I blame texas, south carolina, and oklahoma.

well said Leb,

here's a great article that looks at the six out of eight hundred and twenty one people that refused the Nobel Prize

quote:

FOCUS: Analysis Saying 'No thanks' to Nobel By Andrew Wander Some have called for Barack Obama to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize [AFP] They are the most prestigous awards on the planet, reserved to recognise those at the very top of their field. It is no surprise that cases of people passing up a Nobel Prize are few and far between. But that is exactly what some critics are saying Barack Obama should have done when he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize last week. Just eight months into the Obama presidency, they believe that refusing the prize on the grounds that he had not yet had time to earn it would have sent a powerful message of intent. Such a refusal would also have seen him join an exclusive club of winners who have turned down the prizes, which are awarded annually for outstanding achievements in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Literature, Economics and Peace. Of the 821 Nobel laureates that have been awarded the prizes since their inception in 1901, just six people have refused them. Four of those were pressured into rejecting the award by their governments- three Germans who Hitler barred from accepting prizes in the run-up to the Second World War, and the Russian writer Boris Pasternak, who refused the 1958 Literature prize for fear of reprisals from the Soviet government. His son collected the medal on his behalf in 1989. Only two people have refused the awards of their own volition, and they did so for very different resons. Peace prize during war In 1973, North Vietnamese negotiator Lu Duc Tho was jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize with Henry Kissinger for their talks to end the violence in South East Asia. He immediately rejected it, pointing out that peace had not yet been established in Vietnam, and the award was therefore premature. His reaction caused acute embarrassment to Kissinger, who had initially accepted the award, and then unsuccessfully tried to return it when news of Tho's refusal emerged. Nobel prizes cannot be returned, nor can they be rescinded; it is simply not possible to be stripped of a prize after it is awarded. With the US military still in Iraq and the prospect of increasing troop commitments in Afghanistan, some claim that awarding Obama the peace prize while his country is at war is a contradiction. But Alfred Nobel himself, perhaps fittingly for the inventor of dynamite, did not specify that peace was a prerequisite for receiving the prize. In his will, he said that the prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Philosophical problems The only other refusal of a Nobel prize came from French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who turned down the literature prize in 1964. He believed that accepting the award would compromise his status as a writer. "It is not the same thing if I sign Jean Paul Sartre or if I sign Jean Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winner," he explained at the time. "A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honourable form." As the author of two bestselling books that helped to launch his political career, Obama has already made the very leap that Sartre rejected; the writer "transforming" into an institution. For Obama it is the addition of "President of the United States", rather than "Nobel Prize Winner" to his signature that makes the difference; the pressures that come with the latter pale into insignificance when set against those of the former. He could hardly, as Sartre did, see accepting a Nobel prize as compromising the integrity of his work. Besides, regardless of a Nobel laureate's feelings about the prize, the committee still records them as the winner. "The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award," the awarding panel noted rather tersely when Sartre tried to turn it down. In the end, he was never presented the award, but remains listed as its winner. The spirit in which this year's award was given would have made refusal even more complicated. "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve," said Thorbjoern Jagland, the head of the committee explained, when asked why Obama had been chosen. He was hinting that aspiration, and not achievement, had swayed the judges' decision. Had Obama refused the prize, he would have been snubbing supporters of the very agenda he has committed himself to pushing, and to some extent, rejecting the values for which he was being rewarded. Deserved or not, his acceptance of the award was almost inevitable. Turning down a Nobel prize is even more difficult than winning one - just ask Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize Winner, 1964. Andrew Wander, a media fellow with legal charity Reprieve, works on Al Jazeera's Public Liberties and Human Rights Desk. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/...2723118884.html

re: Rush, isn't the point of a word association game to come up with one or two words than a pre worded sentence?

how did he become such a mean spirited hate filled man? did an half black / hispanic democrat who was a gay liberal member of FETA kill both his parents not with a gun like its done in the south but by accidentally crashing his French Peugot into his parents Ford on the Sabbath while they were driving to church?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations. We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

His harrowing significance couldn't even sway the Olympic committee. The award basically represents insignificant Norway's ability to influence US domestic and foreign policy, and he's falling for it hook line and sinker. If it's taking you this long to "come around" on Obama being deserving of this award, then you must fully understand that it is not deserved. Effort and intention, not achievement, are now sadly the hallmark for Nobel Peace Prize recognition. So here are a few examples of how the world is reacting to our Pacifist in Chief:

North Korea fired off another 5 test missles 2 days ago, and plan on more next week. After giving concessions to Russia with nothing in return, suddenly they are "hesitant" to put new sanctions in Iran, even though they were just caught having more secret uranium enrichment facilities and detonator construction, and continue to defy one UN resolution after another.... and after a German ship was caught today delivering weapons and ammo to Syria for Hamas via Iranian funding. To appease Iran further, Obama's State Department killed funding for the Iranian Human Rights Watch agency- at a rather odd time given what just happened in their elections. Obama called for Israel to stop building settlements, and they refuse to listen to him. Today, the Palestinians said, "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated" because he supposedly "gave in to presssure from the Zionist lobby". Sarkozy says Obama's ego is too large, and he's "naive and conceited." We've sided against our allies like Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, etc... for the sake of appeasing the hard line dictators. Please angry anti-American leaders, love America! Despite the faulty idea that if we just appease them and make concessions, they'll table their hard line intentions and behavior... well, that's a fool's game. All the sanctions and tough talk has only lead to North Korea getting more brazen and Iran developing the bomb. They're playing Obama like a fiddle.

Appeasement should not be justification for a nobel peace prize. Appeasement, to show the world how much he isn't George Bush, will make the world more dangerous, not less; and this stupid peace prize is simply a reward by the world to Obama for neutering the United States.

Take it away, Mr. Hitchens!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss His harrowing significance couldn't even sway the Olympic committee. The award basically represents insignificant Norway's ability to influence US domestic and foreign policy, and he's falling for it hook line and sinker. If it's taking you this long to "come around" on Obama being deserving of this award, then you must fully understand that it is not deserved. Effort and intention, not achievement, are now sadly the hallmark for Nobel Peace Prize recognition. So here are a few examples of how the world is reacting to our Pacifist in Chief: North Korea fired off another 5 test missles 2 days ago, and plan on more next week. After giving concessions to Russia with nothing in return, suddenly they are "hesitant" to put new sanctions in Iran, even though they were just caught having more secret uranium enrichment facilities and detonator construction, and continue to defy one UN resolution after another.... and after a German ship was caught today delivering weapons and ammo to Syria for Hamas via Iranian funding. To appease Iran further, Obama's State Department killed funding for the Iranian Human Rights Watch agency- at a rather odd time given what just happened in their elections. Obama called for Israel to stop building settlements, and they refuse to listen to him. Today, the Palestinians said, "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated" because he supposedly "gave in to presssure from the Zionist lobby". Sarkozy says Obama's ego is too large, and he's "naive and conceited." We've sided against our allies like Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, etc... for the sake of appeasing the hard line dictators. Please angry anti-American leaders, love America! Despite the faulty idea that if we just appease them and make concessions, they'll table their hard line intentions and behavior... well, that's a fool's game. All the sanctions and tough talk has only lead to North Korea getting more brazen and Iran developing the bomb. They're playing Obama like a fiddle. Appeasement should not be justification for a nobel peace prize. Appeasement, to show the world how much he isn't George Bush, will make the world more dangerous, not less; and this stupid peace prize is simply a reward by the world to Obama for neutering the United States. Take it away, Mr. Hitchens! Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If we'v learned anything from the last 4 years, it is, America is no longer going to play the policeman of the world under this administration. Frankly, who cares if North Korea launches a few of their shitty missiles. Or if Iran has a nuke bomb? Yea, they'r violating treaties, but America isn't the one charged by the world to enforce them. We have too much debt to be worrying about other people's problems. That's why we have to the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's why we have to the UN.

Possibly one of the more corrupt and impotent bodies in the world, which can't even sustain without U.S. funding.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss His harrowing significance couldn't even sway the Olympic committee. The award basically represents insignificant Norway's ability to influence US domestic and foreign policy, and he's falling for it hook line and sinker. If it's taking you this long to "come around" on Obama being deserving of this award, then you must fully understand that it is not deserved. Effort and intention, not achievement, are now sadly the hallmark for Nobel Peace Prize recognition.

What? How are the Olympics even close to relevant to this conversation? Because people look at the United States differently as a political actor doesn't mean that the Olympic committee is going to award a poor bid. I don't know why conservatives are so hell-bent to make everything about Obama. It's some strange personality cult I simply don't understand.

It took me a while to come around to understanding the logic behind the award. Now I do. You evidently don't, and that's ok. I'm not sure what you're looking for in achievement, but it would be interesting to see you throw out some benchmarks. I think a reconfiguration of global politics and the re-emergence of American soft power as a legitimate source of leverage is a pretty significant achievement in its own right.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Possibly one of the more corrupt and impotent bodies in the world, which can't even sustain without U.S. funding.

Why is it that conservatives view the UN as a monolithic entity? My guess is that you have issue with what, two or three of the below UN institutions?

Secretariat
Security Council
General Assembly
International Court of Justice
Economic and Social Council
Trusteeship Council
The International Labor Organization (ILO)
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO)
The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
The World Health Organization (WHO)
The World Bank
The International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
The World Food Programme (WFP)
The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR)
The United Nations Peacekeeping Commission (UNPC)
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The Universal Postal Union (UPU)
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
The UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
The UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO)
International Trade Centre (ITC)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)
United Nations Volunteers (UNV)
United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

Research and Training Institutes

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)
United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW)
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)
International Computing Centre (ICC)
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
United Nations System Staff College (UNSSC)
United Nations University (UNU)

quote:

Originally posted by tathi how did he become such a mean spirited hate filled man? did an half black / hispanic democrat who was a gay liberal member of FETA kill both his parents not with a gun like its done in the south but by accidentally crashing his French Peugot into his parents Ford on the Sabbath while they were driving to church?

that's funny!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What? How are the Olympics even close to relevant to this conversation? Because people look at the United States differently as a political actor doesn't mean that the Olympic committee is going to award a poor bid. I don't know why conservatives are so hell-bent to make everything about Obama. It's some strange personality cult I simply don't understand.

I don't see how it's not relevant. If your claim is that Obama's place as U.S. president has changed the way the world looks at the U.S., and he flew to Copenhagen with Michelle and Oprah to make a push for it, one would surmise that he would have had more pull and it would be a reflection of the foreign policy success you say he's had.

But uh... how is this NOT about Obama? We're on a subject that is exactly about him; I'm not blaming him for the price of eggs in China. But you do make a good point about the cult of personality... because that is exactly what Obama represents; soaring, rosey sounding rhetoric based on very little achievement with a band of followers in lock-step with whatever he says.

quote:

It took me a while to come around to understanding the logic behind the award. Now I do. You evidently don't, and that's ok. I'm not sure what you're looking for in achievement, but it would be interesting to see you throw out some benchmarks. I think a reconfiguration of global politics and the re-emergence of American soft power as a legitimate source of leverage is a pretty significant achievement in its own right.

No no... I read your post and I fully grasp the logic behind the award in theory and where you're coming from. But it is illogical to give it out based on intentions; I don't know how you can defend otherwise... nothing he has done has lead to any tangible peace agreement. And, the award finalists were locked in after he had been in office FOR 12 DAYS. Therefore, you must conclude that it is about his lefty belief system that the lefty Nobel committee stands for and certainly not anything he had achieved.

Usually, awards are given out when something has been achieved, no? If this is how the Nobel committee wants to do it, then they should be honest about it. Why don't we just wax poetic about military plans still on the shelf rather than accomplished victories, and pre-season football rankins rather than crowned national champions?

Edit: do you really want me to dig up the scores of documented corruption, theft, and unethical things that have happened internally with UN officials and agencies in recent times? Not sure if I have the energy for that.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Possibly one of the more corrupt and impotent bodies in the world, which can't even sustain without U.S. funding.

And America is what? Heaven on earth? If we can't even provide universal healthcare and college education to our own citizens, what are we doing policing the world? Again, the UN is tasked with that function. Not us.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I don't see how it's not relevant. If your claim is that Obama's place as U.S. president has changed the way the world looks at the U.S., and he flew to Copenhagen with Michelle and Oprah to make a push for it, one would surmise that he would have had more pull and it would be a reflection of the foreign policy success you say he's had. But uh... how is this NOT about Obama? We're on a subject that is exactly about him; I'm not blaming him for the price of eggs in China. But you do make a good point about the cult of personality... because that is exactly what Obama represents; soaring, rosey sounding rhetoric based on very little achievement with a band of followers in lock-step with whatever he says.

I really don't understand how trying to promote Chicago's Olympic bid has anything to do with foreign policy.

quote:

No no... I read your post and I fully grasp the logic behind the award in theory and where you're coming from. But it is illogical to give it out based on intentions;

Re-read the Levy piece - I don't think it was given on the basis of intentions at all. There has been real change, and while it may not be based on empirical data, it is a pretty hard charge to refute. You can't claim that the world doesn't look at the United States differently, and that the leverage the US can exert hasn't increased. I know you have two tried and true anecdotes of leaders doing their own thing despite US requests, but even in Iran and North Korea there's some shift. Take recent Iranian concessions on enriched uranium, for instance. Or North Korea's willingness to discuss the recent hostage release. Neither of those events happened in a vacuum, but the re-positioning of American soft power is the key ingredient to having made both possible.

I know you're a fan of big stick diplomacy; but what Obama has done is to have supplemented that stick with imbuing the United States with the legitimacy of once again acting on behalf of morality and justice. And that's pretty tangible, in my opinion.

quote:

And, the award finalists were locked in after he had been in office FOR 12 DAYS. Therefore, you must conclude that it is about his lefty belief system that the lefty Nobel committee stands for and certainly not anything he had achieved.

Er, not sure about the conclusion. Yes, the nomination was certainly premature. But are we to believe that the committee also made the decision in February? Because that simply isn't the case.

quote:

Those candidates are then reviewed by the Nobel Institute's director, research director and a team of advisers, usually university professors. Those advisers draw up reports on each candidate, a process that takes a few months, and present those reports to the committee. And then the committee "embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates." They sometimes request more information, especially when, like Obama, candidates are involved in current affairs. The committee usually makes its decision by mid-September, but has been known to take until the final meeting in early October. The decisions are almost always unanimous. But when committee members can't get a consensus, they use a simple majority vote to determine the winner. So while Obama was indeed nominated less than two weeks after becoming President, the decision was made several months later. We won't know who nominated him, however, unless that person (or people -- thousands of nominators have been known to gather behind one candidate) comes forward. The committee keeps details of nominations secret for 50 years.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...l-laureates.php

quote:

Usually, awards are given out when something has been achieved, no?

Like? I would put forth the argument (again) that Obama has achieved a great deal in re-ordering global politics and America's relative standing in world affairs.

quote:

Edit: do you really want me to dig up the scores of documented corruption, theft, and unethical things that have happened internally with UN officials and agencies in recent times? Not sure if I have the energy for that.

Go for it, and I'll compile a list of the ways in which they've fostered technological innovation, improved standard of living, furthered the cause of social justice, and saved lives. While you're at it, exclude anything from the Secretariat and General Assembly and we'll compare lists. That gives you roughly 40 other agencies and institutions that get 90% of UN funding, so I'm sure you'll have plenty of examples.

Also, I'll try not to laugh when you get to Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And America is what? Heaven on earth? If we can't even provide universal healthcare and college education to our own citizens, what are we doing policing the world? Again, the UN is tasked with that function. Not us.

It's a lot better to live here than many alternatives man... including those with the entitlements you crave so much. Not sure why you are so anti America all the time.

Yeah, I agree with the17sss on this one (remarkably). The new tone of blaming the US for all the world's woes doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I really don't understand how trying to promote Chicago's Olympic bid has anything to do with foreign policy.

Are you serious?

quote:

Re-read the Levy piece - I don't think it was given on the basis of intentions at all. There has been real change, and while it may not be based on empirical data, it is a pretty hard charge to refute. You can't claim that the world doesn't look at the United States differently, and that the leverage the US can exert hasn't increased. I know you have two tried and true anecdotes of leaders doing their own thing despite US requests, but even in Iran and North Korea there's some shift. Take recent Iranian concessions on enriched uranium, for instance. Or North Korea's willingness to discuss the recent hostage release. Neither of those events happened in a vacuum, but the re-positioning of American soft power is the key ingredient to having made both possible. I know you're a fan of big stick diplomacy; but what Obama has done is to have supplemented that stick with imbuing the United States with the legitimacy of once again acting on behalf of morality and justice. And that's pretty tangible, in my opinion.

As Hitchens said in that video clip, it's the Nobel's first "virtual award"... based on affect, not effect. So while the perception may be that there has been real change, I fail to see any hard evidence to support it, especially in terms of deserving a Nobel Peace award. What Iranian concessions are you referring to by the way? As I said, just a couple weeks ago they were found to have secret uranium enrichment facilities and today, were found sneaking weapons/ammo to Hamas via a German ship... they are moving full steam ahead as always, with their plans. The N. Koreans hooked up Bill Clinton which was cool... but we can't say they wouldn't have done it if Clinton went over there while Bush was president. They'd probably be more likely to do that because it would have upstaged Bush even more.

I'm not a hard line "big stick" only guy- I'm all for diplomacy and negotiations if they work, and with conditions of couse. I still think it's too early to tell if supplementing the stick completely with precondition-less diplomacy is/will work. History tells us it does not. But we'll see. So far, there have been no real results worth mentioning IMO.

quote:

Er, not sure about the conclusion. Yes, the nomination was certainly premature. But are we to believe that the committee also made the decision in February? Because that simply isn't the case.

???

quote:

Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1, only 12 days after Obama took office.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...rize/index.html

quote:

Like? I would put forth the argument (again) that Obama has achieved a great deal in re-ordering global politics and America's relative standing in world affairs.

Come on man... EVERYONE was surprised, including the Democrats, that he got the award because he has not achieved anything. For a day, the entire blogosphere was united. What you are talking about, in terms of achievement, are actually aspirations, intentions, and things in the abstract. It's easy to say he has re-ordered global politics and improved our standing in the world, but where are the results to back this up outside of words, hope, and philosophical discussions?

quote:

Go for it, and I'll compile a list of the ways in which they've fostered technological innovation, improved standard of living, furthered the cause of social justice, and saved lives. While you're at it, exclude anything from the Secretariat and General Assembly and we'll compare lists. That gives you roughly 40 other agencies and institutions that get 90% of UN funding, so I'm sure you'll have plenty of examples. Also, I'll try not to laugh when you get to Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

Give me some time on this one... I may have to just PM you or start its own thread

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yeah, I agree with the17sss on this one (remarkably). The new tone of blaming the US for all the world's woes doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument.

man I need to make this my new sig.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It's a lot better to live here than many alternatives man...

That doesn't give us the right to police the world.

quote:

including those with the entitlements you crave so much.

Entitlements? No no. See, our government is supposed to work for us. It's called, "equality of opportunity". In those countries with so-called "entitlements"... That is their government actually returning tax dollars to the people through universal benefits. They aren't using tax money and deficits to spend 50% of the entire world's military expenditures trying to police the world.

quote:

Not sure why you are so anti America all the time.

I'm not anti-American just because I don't believe America is heaven on earth. Our country is crumbling from the inside. The government is debt-ridden, indecisive, and ineffectual. More content spending trillions on wars and military muscle, than healthcare and college education. If we put the money we'v spent in Iraq and Afghanistan into universal college education, hell, this country's economy would fucking explode. I'm advocating our tax dollars being used for us.

$1 trillion defense budget. Meanwhile, I have am tens of thousands deep in student loans and...and without health insurance. I get nothing back for my tax dollars. Why the fuck should I be proud of my government?

http://opencrs.com/document/RL34473/2008-08-01/

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm not a hard line "big stick" only guy- I'm all for diplomacy and negotiations if they work, and with conditions of couse. I still think it's too early to tell if supplementing the stick completely with precondition-less diplomacy is/will work. History tells us it does not. But we'll see. So far, there have been no real results worth mentioning IMO.

I think we're viewing events through drastically different lenses (unsurprisingly), but I don't see Obama's diplomatic efforts as being devoid of conditions at all. But you can't deny that dialogue is a more effective agent of change than sanctions.

quote:

??? http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...rize/index.html

I'm not disputing the nomination date (or that it was a bit premature as nominations go). I was merely supplying the information that the Nobel committee collects information on all nominees through October, when the final decision is voted upon. So while Obama was nominated after 12 days in office, there were roughly 9 months of his Presidency used in making a decision.

quote:

Come on man... EVERYONE was surprised, including the Democrats, that he got the award because he has not achieved anything. For a day, the entire blogosphere was united. What you are talking about, in terms of achievement, are actually aspirations, intentions, and things in the abstract. It's easy to say he has re-ordered global politics and improved our standing in the world, but where are the results to back this up outside of words, hope, and philosophical discussions?

There may not be many, but we do have different benchmarks here. Shirin Ebadi won a Nobel for blazing a trail for women in Iran. Note that very few people are making the argument that Obama is winning it for blazing a trail for minorities, though one could certainly be made for his transformation of race relations in (some segments of) this country.

That said, I'll agree to disagree on this one.

quote:

Give me some time on this one... I may have to just PM you or start its own thread

Hehe, the UN is flawed, yes. But I will defend its existence to my death by virtue of the contributions of the UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEP, and (recently, at least) World Bank alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why the fuck should I be proud of my government?

http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm

For starters.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yeah, I agree with the17sss on this one (remarkably). The new tone of blaming the US for all the world's woes doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument.

So policing the world is what? Great? No adverse effects from it? At home and abroad? Pointing out the consequences of it, and its opportunity costs, is not "blaming the US for the world's woes".

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.