Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the taliban-not-happy dept.

News 1721

Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.

cancel ×

1721 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Heh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29690993)

Must be for that PhD of his in Fried Chicken-ology.

personally (5, Insightful)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 5 years ago | (#29691009)

It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.

Re:personally (5, Insightful)

rwv (1636355) | about 5 years ago | (#29691179)

I agree. But then again, Al Gore essentially won the Nobel Peace Prize for making a Powerpoint presentation. If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in, then power to them.

Between the troubles faced in the US domestic economy, the conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, health care reform, and setting a good example for his daughters, Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

Re:personally (1, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 5 years ago | (#29691227)

You ignore the content of that PowerPoint presentation. The software app chosen was a little dicey, but the message was clear.

Re:personally (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29691287)

If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in

Your kidding me, right?

Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

Which accomplishments would those be? Closing Gitmo? Nope, haven't done that yet. Health Care Reform? Nope, haven't done that yet, and it's not really "reform" anyway. Creating a transparent White House? Nope, we gave up on that one [cnet.com] pretty early on.

Re:personally (4, Funny)

Moryath (553296) | about 5 years ago | (#29691345)

Hey, I just won a Nobel Peace Prize too! Says something about my "continued work to end the crisis in Sudan." Don't remember ever going to Sudan.

Then again, I didn't know they were packaging these things in cracker-jack boxes...

Re:personally (1)

Canazza (1428553) | about 5 years ago | (#29691293)

all the bullet points in the article are examples of things he *wants* to do, that he *pledges* to do.
Nuclear Disarmament, he's working with the Russians to mothball more nukes
Climate Change, he's stated his goals for it
Human Rights, he's begining the closure of Guantanamo Bay
Iraq, begun pulling out troops
and no comment has been made on Afghanistan, where the pull is for *more* not less troops.

All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691013)

The end of the world is truly at hand.

Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691055)

All Hail the Anti-Christ! Let the little children sing his praises! Kiss your freedom goodbye.

Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (0, Troll)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 5 years ago | (#29691211)

Bla, bla, bla... Obama is the outbreak of common sence and has done stuff that should have happened all the time. Of course he can't get everything done and needs to make comprimises but he is the best thing since Kenedy. Period.

I don't know what your failing perception of an ideal world is, but it can't be good. Let me guess... You get your information from Fox News?

Yes, pun intended. Flamebait? No.

Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691305)

I want a "-1 Broken English" moderation option.
How can we take seriously opinions of people who have no grasp of spelling or grammar.

Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29691325)

Of course he can't get everything done and needs to make comprimises but he is the best thing since Kenedy. Period.

Let me guess... You get your information from Fox News?

Your spelling and Kennedy worship suggests to me that you get your information from MSNBC. See how easy it is to dismiss someone when you can just stereotype them rather then engage in an actual dialog with them?

Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (1)

Lillebo (1561251) | about 5 years ago | (#29691339)

Please don't procreate.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691015)

Why?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | about 5 years ago | (#29691203)

So that he'll feel obligated to actually do stuff.

For being the opposite of Bush (5, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | about 5 years ago | (#29691021)

This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.

Re:For being the opposite of Bush (5, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | about 5 years ago | (#29691209)

The win was so meaningless and out-of-place that the CBS morning news anchors actually did a double-take and assumed it was someone playing a practical joke on their teleprompter when it ran across the first time.

CBS, who have their lips glued to Obama's butt when it comes to news "reporting."

You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way. This is similar to when they handed it to Al Gore previously, a move widely recognized as having no basis in fact but being merely a slam at Bush because they were still pissed about the way the 2000 elections turned out.

Of course, they're also recognized as much for people they failed to award (such as Gandhi, whose death finally shocked them into saying "oops, no living person exists qualified for the award" for a year because according to the terms of Alfred Nobel's will they cannot award the Peace Prize posthumously) as their routine mistakes (such as Yasser Arafat, awarded a "Peace Prize" and then proceeding to go on to lead over 20 more years of terrorist attacks).

Re:For being the opposite of Bush (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 5 years ago | (#29691315)

It would be difficult, given your obvious alienation, to understand the award for what it is. Richard Lugar, who's also been an advocate for nuclear disarmament was also ignored.

But if building a bridge to the Muslim community across the world-- which numbers one in four inhabitants on this earth-- counts, then the combination of the two is somewhat extraordinary, given the prior administration's complete polarization of most of the world, three wars, and the possible nuclear proliferation of frightening proportions.

Ganhi might have been a good recipient. Posthumously, he can't get it. Bummer. I doubt he'd have accepted it anyway.

Re:For being the opposite of Bush (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#29691359)

I'd agree that the allocation of Nobel peace prizes is pretty shoddy; but blaming left-wing bias seems silly. Henry Kissinger got one, after all, and he isn't exactly a lefty hero. So did mother Teresa who(despite some well publicised, if somewhat ghoulish, charity work) was about as far right as they come.

No ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691333)

This win was to show that trolls come from Sweden.

Re:For being the opposite of Bush (-1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29691335)

Look at the source -- it's a British newspaper. Personally, if Tony Blair had won the peace prize, I'd want to see what British papers said, rather than the Chicago Tribune. Slashdot seems to be linking dubious sources lately -- yesterday they linked Network World's badly written and error-filled story about astronomy. I'll have to keep checking astronomy today for news about the latest ethernet.

The AP story about Obama winning the Nobel makes no such steatements. The closest it comes is

Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

The award appeared to be a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.

In other words, it isn't how liberal Obama is or how Conservative Bush is, it's about competence.

Lowering of standards? (5, Insightful)

stevev007 (887227) | about 5 years ago | (#29691025)

I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.

Re:Lowering of standards? (2, Insightful)

muckracer (1204794) | about 5 years ago | (#29691057)

> I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it
> many years after tremendous accomplishments.

At least for the Peace Nobel Price that all finished the latest, when Henry
Kissinger was awarded wih one. Still boggles my mind.

Re:Lowering of standards? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691107)

If Yasser Arafat won a nobel prize then anyone can.

Re:Lowering of standards? (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | about 5 years ago | (#29691219)

Every day he becomes a little more like Jimmy Carter.

Remember kids, Carter only had one term.

Re:Lowering of standards? (1, Insightful)

robinsonne (952701) | about 5 years ago | (#29691073)

I remember the same thing...the Peace Prize was for someone that brought an end to conflicts, years of diplomacy and work around the world. My thoughts when I saw the news on TV this morning that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize was "What the hell for?!?!!"

Re:Lowering of standards? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691267)

You remember nothing. Do you remember when Peres, Arafat, and Rabin won it? For what? How much peace did they bring?

Well, that was only fifteen years ago. Maybe we need to go back to Gorbachev, or when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won it. Tho declined it on the grounds that there was no peace in his country and the award was bogus. That was almost 40 years ago, IIRC.

Maybe you're older than that and we need to go back to when you "remember" Martin Luther King Jr. winning it back in the mid 60s?

You don't remember anything of the sort. You made up a ridiculous comment to rag on Obama and hoped that nobody would go to Wikipedia and look up the list of Nobel prize winners, which already has a smattering of nobodies and dubious characters, or the "controversy" section of the article which covers more than half a century of criticism.

You don't know anything about most of the people who've won it, so you dismiss them, and then you use that as grounds for bashing the current decision in the hopes that nobody would see how obviously ignorant you are on the whole thing.

Re:Lowering of standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691133)

But you see, he DID do something tremendous--many things, in fact!

*He apologized to the world on behalf of the United States
*He promoted the U.S. as Non-Christian country
*He opened the door for negotiations with criminals and terrorists
*He put the U.S.A into greater debt than ANY prior president giving other countries the chance to prosper
*He put his generals in their place by not making any military decisions
*He is on his way to socializing health care and not actually fixing the root problems

Hell, from a world perspective, the guy's a hero.

Re:Lowering of standards? (1)

spaanoft (153535) | about 5 years ago | (#29691151)

Reminds me of this comic:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2007/10/14/steady-decline/

Re:Lowering of standards? (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#29691181)

I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.

Hey, compared to recent standards being president of the USA for eight months without invading another country is a real achievement. Standards are getting lower.

Re:Lowering of standards? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 5 years ago | (#29691241)

Is there, next to compaining, a suggestion from your part, for somebody else who deserves it? I do agree with you on your last sentence...

By whose standards? (1)

P0ltergeist333 (1473899) | about 5 years ago | (#29691311)

This was simply compare and contrast. After Bush's supreme idiocy, Obama coming out and endorsing intelligence, diplomacy, and common sense looked genius.

I think he may possibly deserver the prize (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#29691027)

I think he may possibly deserver the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (4, Insightful)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 5 years ago | (#29691067)

I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it).

I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29691175)

I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it). I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.

But to get the Peace Prize for it?

Do you honestly think what he's done is on the level with Martin Luther King? Or Mother Theresa? Or Linus Pauling?

Please, this prize is getting cheaper by the year.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (1)

muffen (321442) | about 5 years ago | (#29691191)

They have done this before, for example they gave the price to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 because he was trying to open up the Soviet Union.

Then of course you can say what a lot of in people in Sweden says, Norwegians are giving out the award, what did you expect? :)

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (0, Troll)

Hynee (774168) | about 5 years ago | (#29691161)

I think he may possibly deserver [sic] the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.

That's what a lot of people are thinking. The Nobel Prize is famous for being conservative, waiting decades after the achievements of individuals before they give the prize, and then only if they're still living!

The concensus of the nay-sayers is that Obama doesn't have any achievements, he's only 8 months into his first term.

I think this is populist sh*t, same with the prize for the inventors of the CCD--the photodiode was physics, the CCD was a superb engineering effort based off the photodiode. The CCD in combination with fibre optics made it possible for us to see thousands of photos of teenage girls taken in their bathroom mirror. All hail the Internet.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (5, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | about 5 years ago | (#29691297)

> he's only 8 months into his first term.

It's worse than that. The deadline to be nominated is Feb 1. Even assuming he was nominated right near the deadline, he had been in office barely _10 days_ when someone, impressed with all that he has accomplished, nominated him for this award. Jeez. Obviously, someone clearly thought the election of an Democrat/African-American with good oratorial skills was a major contribution to world peace in and of itself.

This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (5, Interesting)

thePig (964303) | about 5 years ago | (#29691169)

It could be construed in another way. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, now Obama will have to think twice before going to any war from now on. Basically by increasing the load of expectations on him, I think the committee is trying to direct his hand to a carrot when both carrot and stick are viable alternatives.

Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (4, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | about 5 years ago | (#29691271)

I think my 9 year old son may possibly deserve the prize, but it's too early to say.

Seriously? 8 months in to an administration which has failed to do most of what it promised? With a supra-majority? After a senate "career" which to be GENEROUS would be to claim it was nearly worthless (how many "present" votes did he cast? How many did he miss?)

Obama will no more bring "peace" to the middle east than Nixon brought peace to Vietnam and Cambodia -- but I agree, if he DOES pull this particular hat out of a rabbit, then yes -- he would deserve it.

If the award was about intentions, why not award it to Lenin, Hoover or the Pope? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

proletariat (-1, Troll)

narfman0 (979017) | about 5 years ago | (#29691031)

Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.

Re:proletariat (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | about 5 years ago | (#29691137)

Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.

I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.

And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?

Re:proletariat (4, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | about 5 years ago | (#29691173)

Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane" but blowing billions of dollars on a war is business as usual? Where do you people come from?

Re:proletariat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691257)

incite the US to civil war.

Study your history and think deeply about what happened the last time a bunch of mostly southern hot-heads decided to secede. Then, as now, there is no way in hell the conservatives would ever win anything, and the only thing that would happen is another bloody struggle that leaves the rebellious states/people as decades behind the winners. If you think you're oppressed now, wait until you start and lose a civil war. Idiot.

Re:proletariat (5, Insightful)

nutshell42 (557890) | about 5 years ago | (#29691261)

Yeah, with private insurance for all we've done the first step that leads to being a socialist hellhole like the Soviet Union, or Germany. If this goes on there will be a public option, the US is gonna end up like Cuba, or the UK.

France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches.

Thankfully the insurance industry is ready to pay billions to upstanding Congressmen and selfless community organizers so they can spread the truth.

Re:proletariat (1)

rwv (1636355) | about 5 years ago | (#29691269)

I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.

Obama's sticking point throughout the health care debates and in regards to tax reform is that nobody making less than $250k per year will be worse off than before. With health care, he's published research showing that only 5% of the population would find any "public" care option to be relatively worthwhile. For the rest of the population, it'll be business as usual.

Presuming your opposition to reform is because you're in the magical "makes more than $250k per year" group.... FUCK YOU FOR YOUR COMPLAINING RICHNESS.

Joke (5, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | about 5 years ago | (#29691033)

Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.

Yeah right (2, Insightful)

vikhyat (1593841) | about 5 years ago | (#29691037)

The Nobel *Peace* Prize was always a joke.

Waitaminute. Didn't we just bomb (5, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | about 5 years ago | (#29691043)

the moon? How is that peaceful? The Raelians are going to be pissed!

Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.

Re:Waitaminute. Didn't we just bomb (1)

Tlosk (761023) | about 5 years ago | (#29691317)

War on drugs and all that. We were eradicating the Mooninite's Moonajuana crop.

Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? (4, Insightful)

Lester67 (218549) | about 5 years ago | (#29691045)

That is one hell of a first 11 days.

(Or one hell of a consolation prize for not scoring the Olympics.)

(Or an ironic thing to give a man who declared war on the moon.)

(Or one hell of a band-aid for being satirized on SNL)

Re:Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? (3, Interesting)

Churla (936633) | about 5 years ago | (#29691301)

Yes, the cut off is Feb 1st.

Which means he was nominated while people were still in the international post-coital bliss of his inauguration.

As for the moon, I think the last thing we want to do it bomb them, they've been known to throw rocks back at us....

I'm an Obama supporter but... (4, Insightful)

arkham6 (24514) | about 5 years ago | (#29691047)

What exactly has he done to deserve the prize? Would it not have been better to wait until he got done with his presidency first?

As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.

Re:I'm an Obama supporter but... (0, Troll)

dr_d_19 (206418) | about 5 years ago | (#29691171)

And it is. The world has announced sternly how much the USA loathing rised during the Bush presidency.

Greetings from Sweden, the land of Nobel.

Re:I'm an Obama supporter but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691245)

Much like how the 14th Dalai Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama deserves the award for speaking out against an evil, boneheaded tyrant.

Of course, I'm referring to the September 13th massacre [mtv.com] and Obama's scathing comments about the topic and the dictator. [youtube.com]

Clearly, he deserves more than one Nobel Peace Prizes for his courage.

For what? (4, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about 5 years ago | (#29691051)

Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.

For all his talk his biggest accomplishment so far is bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars - if anything that would be economic. I'm no W supporter, but what possible cause is there for this other than anti-W sentiment?

Re:For what? (5, Funny)

bheer (633842) | about 5 years ago | (#29691113)

> Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize?

He has delivered some very good speeches, you insensitive clod!

For happiness and rainbows, that's what (5, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 5 years ago | (#29691189)

Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.

But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.

You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.

Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.

Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.

Re:For what? (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 5 years ago | (#29691309)

he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan

I took this news as a sign that the Nobel committee determined that the ongoing lengthy engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan are a bloody means to a peaceful end. I don't really share this opinion and I think a lot of people in the world would (similarly) support the removal of the Taliban but not whatever you want to call Iraq right now. The interesting thing is that they should have given Bush the Nobel Prize for Peace if they felt this way last year ... he started those wars after all. The only other explanation is that these wars were largely overlooked. I only draw dangerous discrediting conclusions if I look at the situation logically.

Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.

I think every president discovers this. Obama's Responsible, Phased Withdrawal from Iraq [barackobama.com] (biggest of many reasons I voted for him) reads thusly:

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

I honestly have heard no word of this. I guess he got into office and things got too real too fast for him? No word on that although I haven't been scouring his speeches. Now if that's why they gave him the Peace Prize, I'd agree with them. But that was a paragraph buried in his campaign promises (and not in progress yet), not something he's done.

I'd suspect this award was given out for the purposes of sparking controversy or to put the onus on Obama to become what they want him to become -- a peacemaker. I agree this was not a prudent decision although I don't see it as critically as most people. It is just an award after all.

What a Croc OF Shit (-1, Troll)

axor1337 (1278448) | about 5 years ago | (#29691053)

HE has yet to do anything but spend me out of a job. he is the worst president ever and he got the peace prize. i am ashamed to be an american with him as president.

Re:What a Croc OF Shit (3, Insightful)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about 5 years ago | (#29691193)

Well, I am never ashamed to be an American, even if I find the behavior of some of us to be an embarrassment, and I think it is too early to call Obama the worst President Mi>ever, but I do agree awarding him the Peace prize is bullshit.

A little Chinese wisdom (5, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 5 years ago | (#29691059)

"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang

Re:A little Chinese wisdom (4, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | about 5 years ago | (#29691197)

Or rise.

All in a week's work.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691069)

One week after Obama was elected, the possibility to nominate someone for the nobel prize was closed.

So he basically got nominated for a week's work.

Why not? (2, Interesting)

CSHARP123 (904951) | about 5 years ago | (#29691071)

But looking at it, this is not the worst selection by the committee. If they can give it to Arafat, why not Obama? Until now he hasn't started any war. He is only continuing the war that was started by his predecessor.

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | about 5 years ago | (#29691153)

So by somehow not stumbling into a war after 8+ months of being president and keeping the current wars going with no signs of an exit means he's worthy of the peace prize?

A Bold Move (5, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | about 5 years ago | (#29691077)

"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.

This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.

In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.

Re:A Bold Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691201)

I don't think Obama lacks profile though. And it sort of re-enforces the belief that he is a man of talk, not action.

Not to say that he is all talk, but 9 months isn't a lot of time to nail anything down in politics.

Huh? (1)

tychovi (1221054) | about 5 years ago | (#29691079)

So do you think he looks so good just because he came after GW? Since when do we give out Nobel prizes for intentions?

What? (4, Insightful)

StayFrosty (1521445) | about 5 years ago | (#29691081)

How can they give someone the Nobel Peace Prize for something he has not done yet? The US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are no closer to pulling out than we were 8 months ago. From Wikipedia: "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'" What has Barak Obama done (not talked about doing) in the last 8 months that makes him worthy of the prize this year?

strange (4, Funny)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 5 years ago | (#29691085)

does this graph
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/189342-LC02FT150W995AC4HSAOQWU8WZACL1&crt=4&rspid=46741811 [sgizmo.com]
seem just a little odd? its from the washington post poll about Obama deserving the nobel prize.

Re:strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691215)

I thought the linked graph was a joke, but this strange graph really is linked from the washington post:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2009/10/obamas-nobel-prize.html?hpid=topnews

Re:strange (2, Funny)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 5 years ago | (#29691275)

exactly. it keep changing, but when i first saw it, the top bar (yes) was labeled 50%, was about, 1/5th the length of the bottom bar (no) , also labeled 50%, and the scale on the bottom read (i kid you not) 49%, 50%, 50%, 51%

Turning back the doomdsday clock (3, Insightful)

Feef Lovecraft (1231264) | about 5 years ago | (#29691087)

However, I would love if President Obama showed the world how good he is by refusing to accept it stating he has so much more work he still needs to do. However isn't Will Smith giving out the award? I don't think I could refuse an award by Will Smith so I can't blame President Obama if he reluctantly accepts. For what it's worth I still think he is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, even this soon in as long as he can deliver on the good strong start he has made.

A Nuke-free world... (2, Insightful)

gravyface (592485) | about 5 years ago | (#29691097)

cannot be taken lightly, but I think his best strategy yet might be to decline the Nobel.

Bizarrre (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 years ago | (#29691111)

I'm relatively neutral towards the guy but really I don't think he's done enough to deserve this.

Re:Bizarrre (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | about 5 years ago | (#29691319)

I'm extremely positive towards the guy but really I don't think he's done enough to deserve this.

Obama Ghandi? (4, Insightful)

Giometrix (932993) | about 5 years ago | (#29691117)

I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi. What a joke.

Re:Obama Ghandi? (1)

CSHARP123 (904951) | about 5 years ago | (#29691183)

His name is spelled Gandhi NOT Ghandi So you know

Wait for it... (0, Offtopic)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 years ago | (#29691119)

... criticisms of KDawson for posting this article start in 3...2...1...

Nobel Foundation is hemorrhaging reputation. (3, Insightful)

mayko (1630637) | about 5 years ago | (#29691123)

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."

I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)

I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.

Missed opportunity (5, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | about 5 years ago | (#29691127)

Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.

Ill-considered (2, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | about 5 years ago | (#29691129)

Striving for peace (and the public good) is a wonderful thing, as is good diplomacy. However, these are things that we should expect of national leaders, not rare things to be celebrated.

While I'm far to the left of Barack Obama, I have a certain respect for him. Nontheless, I don't think he merits the prize - he has not done anything amazing towards it, and a prize that's made of combined forward-looking and acknowledgement of someone doing their diplomatic job properly isn't much of a prize. We may be less of a diplomatically wayward nation now, but each president we've ever had (and probably ever will have) reinvents our foreign policy - BushSr and Clinton, despite both of then being very well-informed and capable in foreign policy, still reinvented it during their office.

I don't think the prize means as much when it's used this way.

Here we go again. (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 5 years ago | (#29691143)

This is not news for nerds. It's news for CNN, Fox, etc. Please stop trying to turn this site into Digg.

Re:Here we go again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691205)

Feel free to filter out politics, noob.

This is a joke. Right? (0)

dysmey (1165035) | about 5 years ago | (#29691145)

How is it that the Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded for good intentions? Or is the prize in fact a parting shot at Bush the Younger, Dick Cheney, and their merry band of losers, whose mess Obama is still trying to clean up.

In fact, this is going to make his job a whole lot harder. With the Arabs saying "It was too early to award him" and the Israelis saying "This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking" and both looking at him with incredulity, Obama will have a harder time at a Middle East peace than any other U.S. president.

Too bad for him.

But I thought . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691149)

This is Slashdot. Obama is supposed to be exactly the same as Bush. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss, and all that.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691167)

Don't get me wrong, i like the dude, and i probably would have voted for him if i lived in the States. But to award him a Nobel is a monumental joke -- he's accomplished absolutely NOTHING to this day.

Hillary? (4, Funny)

bckspc (172870) | about 5 years ago | (#29691187)

Wait, isn't the Secretary of State responsible for US foreign policy?

Hillary Clinton screwed again!

bullshit (4, Funny)

smoker2 (750216) | about 5 years ago | (#29691199)

I for one consider the Nobel shark, jumped.

Please tell me this is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691231)

He is going to send more troops in Afghanistan where nearly every week unarmed civilians are killed by "friendly" fire and they give him the Nobel Peace Prize? WTF?!?
Obama will surely be better, much better, than the criminal George Bush, but until the day he orders the troops to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan, then cease all operations abroad related to that lie called "war on terrorism", he will just be a better US president from the US side and just another bad one from the rest of the worlds' point of view.
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism - in fact if was brought there after the US invasion - and it's pretty clear now that war in Afghanistan is dragged in order to last as long as possible to justify the foreign force presence. If he doesn't bring all troops home he's not much different from GWB. Now someone explain to me how could this guy get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately Obama, like every other US president, is a puppet controlled by the Congress. This means he will never ever bring all troops home.

Thanks to Bush (1)

harris s newman (714436) | about 5 years ago | (#29691247)

After 8 years of pure hell, Obama should thank Bush for making him look so good.

Amnesia? (1)

dumeinst (664891) | about 5 years ago | (#29691249)

I mostly LIKE barack but I seriously had to sit here for about 10 seconds and try to come to grips with fact that I just lost almost 6 months of my life and that today was April 1st. Honestly - wtf were they thinking. If this is some kind of political maneuvering Obamas part then it's deserves to backfire on him. I wonder if he could refuse to accept the aware. Of course that too would have it's on political consequences

Nobel for wishful thinking.... sign me up. (1)

space_hippy (625619) | about 5 years ago | (#29691283)

I wish the world was a better place.
I wish people would get along.
I wish people would help each other when needed.
I wish people would let others live their own lives.
I wish people wouldn't force their beliefs on others.

Ok, where is my Nobel?

Had to be said....... (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about 5 years ago | (#29691291)

Mother Theresa, I'm very happy for you, and im'a let you finish, but Obama did the most peaceful works of all time!

WTF (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#29691307)

WHAT the fuck? If they're giving out prizes for not being George Bush, then I want one too.

Obama hasn't had time to wipe his ass yet, let alone deserve a Nobel Prize. That bar is awfully high, or at least it should be. WTF.

Today is October! (2, Informative)

TheDarkNose (1613701) | about 5 years ago | (#29691329)

Wait, is it April Fool's/Fools' Day already? I thought it was in October...

This is the.... (1)

dosilegecko (1609441) | about 5 years ago | (#29691337)

biggest joke I have ever seen. He is doing the exact same thing Bush did with the war efforts. Apparently, you can win the Nobel prize through words, not actions. The Nobel peace prize has forever lost any meaning to me, it is another liberal pedestal.

Jimmy Carter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691353)

Jimmy Carter has won one too and he's the worse US President there has just about ever been.

my comment on that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29691355)

nobel prize lost all credibility when algore was given the peace prize. this is laughably fun, sick, and stupid.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?