President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I guess I don’t begrudge him the victory; who am I to suggest who should or shouldn’t win.
Given the criteria, though, I am not sure he is the correct prizewinner. According to the Nobel Foundation Statutes, the Peace Prize is given 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.” The statute has been interpreted to allow organizations to win the Prize.
Personally, though, I wonder if the Prize was not given to the wrong guy. See, President Obama really hasn’t done all that much yet. He’s travelled around the world and given speeches which, depending on your frame of reference, either denigrate the USA or atone for past sins.
The real leadership of President Obama, though, is symbolic. The fact that an African American was elected President of the United States is what inspires some people to think he might be the harbinger of a ‘new era.’ It isn’t so much President Obama, as the idea of President Obama.
In that respect, the Prize should have been given to the American electorate. (Present company excepted.)
Don’t you dare say the President hasn’t done much yet in the field of peace! Have you already forgotten the Beer Summit?
The fact that Obama replaced Bush,Cheney, and there murderous ways was enough of an accomplishment in the eyes of the world.Hell, if we would of elected a yellow dog to replace them it would of been at least in the running for the prize , You still don’t get it.
No, you still don’t get it Ken. Obama didn’t “replace” Bush, Cheney, he was elected to the position by the American people. Hence my post.
(By the way, glad to see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. Whew. Good thing we got rid of President Bush.)
Gregg-
I think you get to the heart of the matter here. I think to the rest of the World, Obama represents a symbol of peace if nothing more. Of course, the reality of it is much different, but perceptions are important – and they do make a difference.
I guess it reminds me of one of the reasons I voted for the guy – which have been easy to forget lately. I always said that even if he didn’t accomplish anything and ended up being a weakling (both coming to pass so far), you can’t underestimate the importance of changing the perception of the U.S. around the world. So if the Europeans want to stay starry-eyed about Obama, I don’t think that can be bad for us.
Right. So shouldn’t guys like you have gotten the award? He’s the vessel, the voters filled it.
Symbolism, the new Nobel prize. How sweet.
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. … I will accept this award as a call to action.”
–Barack Obama
I agree, Gregg.
My own guess is that the moment of Barack Obama’s election, as a black man, will be the greatest “accomplishment” (and a purely symbolic one) of his presidency.
One could argue that our change in world perception is based on emasculation not new found respect. Exactly where are we maintaining leadership in the world today?
They lost me long ago, when they awarded the prize to Arafat. It’s been a comedy skit ever since.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
–Nobel Prize Committee Statement
I agree with that statement. I suppose that it’s hard to understand the value of that contribution if you’re looking at it from the perspective of an American Republican.
Because it’s so obviously true that majority opinions are good opinions.
Not to mention the fact that he is the President of the world, not President of the U.S.
Don’t you know it’s evil for us to hold our interests over those of other countries? Because they’re not putting their interests over ours.
Funny how the Nobel committee cited in particular Obama’s goal of a nuclear-free world. Bush, meanwhile, actually reduced nuclear stockpiles by significant margins and, naturally, not an eyebrow of acknowledgment was raised.
Gregg and Dave, are you seriously surprised that a committee that’s not American would value the United States working with the world instead of only in it’s own best interests? Add to that the fact that we’re coming off of eight years of a President who’s foreign policy seemed to be equivalent to “you’re either with us or against us.”
Travis Kavulla:
It might have had something to do with the fact that he started two wars where the best justification was that the government of one of them was apparently hiding someone we wanted captured. We just attacked the other one for no good reason. It could have been due to the fact that his foreign policy was basically the equivalent of pointing a gun at the world and telling them to dance. If there is an American President in the last 40 years that doesn’t deserve this award, it’s George W. Bush.
I’m only surprised that anyone thinks the Nobel Peace Prize means anything. But that wasn’t my point above.
Interesting statement “values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population”
Americans elect their US president to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. A constitution with personal liberty and restriction of government often diametrically opposed to the greater population of the world. The Nobel selection committee is not the American electorate nor do their voting members necessarily share the values of American citizens.
Nice for Obama on a personal level, but down the road history will decide how the Americans view the results.
A rare thing has just occurred. I agree with LT.
Mihalis — I’m not saying Bush deserved the award. Anyways, I doubt he cares. I’m merely observing that one of the major cited reasons for Obama’s receiving the award — nuclear disarmament — is something which Bush, more than Obama, has done something about.
I’ll bet Bill Clinton is pissed……
Travis – Your comparison is invalid because Bush counteracted any positive contributions he might have made with overwhelming negatives. That is something Obama has not done. Maybe if Bush’s foreign policy had been similar to Obama’s foreign policy, he would have won as well.
What, pray tell, is “Obama’s foreign policy”?
I’m pretty sure Obama won it because 1) He’s Black and 2) He sucked up to “old Europe”…. Those 2 things, plus being POTUS, makes a sure winner.
Travis Kavulla:
Travis, it’s Friday, and I’m in a fairly decent mood, so I’m not going to ruin that by wasting my time trying to come up with an answer that meets your requirements when I’m sure you can just go look up the answer yourself.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I’m sure you’ll hold mine in equal estime. I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.
Have a good weekend.
You too Mihalis. Hope your spin is recharged by Monday…
And, in fact, I really don’t understand what Obama’s foreign policy is. He is all over the place, alienating reliable allies like Poland, remaining undecided on a war he said was central to American foreign policy, and playing nice to people who smile at Barry and then go about doing what they’ve always been doing. Maybe his foreign policy is “I’m not Bush”…
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. … I will accept this award as a call to action.”
So …who gets the cash?
Maybe his foreign policy is “I’m not Bush”…
And that’s enough for folks like Mihalis –and the Nobel Commission. Shades of grey in all other areas of discussion, but black and white on that one.
ajtooley:
Who do you think?
That’s far from enough for me, and I’m seriously doubting it’s enough for the Nobel Commission. For example, Dick Cheney is “not Bush”, and he doesn’t deserve to be awarded for it.
I liked this article about it too. Good read.
“I’ll bet Bill Clinton is pissed……
Bill? Hillary is livid. Shit, she’s Secretary of State for chrissakes!
A quote from the article Mihalis cites: “…I learn that in a CNN-commissioned poll of viewers, Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader of Zimbabwe, had been the preferred choice for the prize. Given Tsvangirai’s actual record to date, I can see why Obama’s potential might appear more attractive.”
Um, I have no idea why Obama would be a more attractive candidate. Morgan Tsvangirai is a man whose supporters as well as himself have literally been tortured for speaking for democracy. He has been on trial for high treason for daring to oppose Robert Mugabe. He has put so much more on the line than Obama has or even could in the American political setting… If anything, the Peace Prize should be going to people who are the “anti-Mugabe” or the “anti-Ahmadinejad” or anyone who is so brave as to make actual sacrifices to do what they do. The spate of Jimmy Carter, Algore, and Obama receiving this prize only shows how narrow-minded the Nobel people are.
Mihalis, my guess is either ACORN or SEIU.
Narrow minded because they haven’t chosen people that you think deserve it?
These people deserved it M.
Chinese Human Rights Activist Hu Jia – imprisoned for campaigning for human rights in the PRC, not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.
Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. — not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama. (Not to mention the symbolic value of awarding a Chinese dissident on the 20th Anniversary of the Tianenmen Square Massacre.)
Greg Mortenson, founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years – not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.
Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims, also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.
Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar. She currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur and is apparently also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.
Mortenson is from Bozeman MT.
Mihalis — would you actually read what I write sometime, and try to respond to the point? Out of curiosity, do you think a person like Tsvangirai *doesn’t* deserve it?
I’m just observing that the Nobel committee can’t seem in recent years to get outside the box of issuing the award with America in mind. More than half of their awards in the past decade could be read as evidence of the Nobel commission’s allergic reaction to George W. Bush. Meanwhile, there is a whole world out there, and a lot of people suffering and struggling more in their quest for democracy and peace than President Obama is.
Travis Kavulla:
I read what you wrote Travis. Don’t take this as a personal insult, but too often you echo the usual Conservative whining I read everyday. I’m not just talking about here either. Quite honestly, all this Conservative “Outrage” is starting to fade into the white noise in the background.
Do I think that Tsvangirai doesn’t deserve it? I’d say he probably doesn’t. It looks like you’re making the mistake of assuming that because someone opposes a violent dictator, they’re a good person. Being “anti-Mugabe” or “anti-Ahmadinejad” doesn’t mean anything. Is a person deserving of a Peace Prize if they kidnap Ahmadinejad’s family and torture and murder them? That’s a fictional scenario, but I’m using it to illustrate a point. Being “anti-Mugabe” or “anti-Ahmadinejad” isn’t enough. Tsvangirai has publicly advocated violent overthrow of the government of his country. Not exactly something I’d say was overly “peaceful”.
So basically you’re just adding more verbiage to your statement from earlier. You don’t feel that Obama deserved it, and you think they should have looked at other candidates. I’m sure next time around, they’ll give you a call and verify that their candidates meet your criteria when they’re giving away their prize.
Big Swede:
OK. There are many people across the globe that deserve it. I would argue that Obama is one of them. They’re not all going to get one. The Nobel Committee makes that call, not you, not Travis, not Gregg, not Professor Natelson. Their values aren’t always going to match yours or mine.
They gave the prize to Arafat years ago. The Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a popularity contest now.
There are at least 100,000 Iraqees dead(its hard to say how many more than that, because official Bush policy was not to count cizilian deaths) because of our invasion of that country because we were scared to death that Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, oh gee he didn’t. The world is scared to death of idiots like Bush and Cheney because they cause a lot of misery in the world. Who can blame them for doing what ever they can to help sane, decent leadership in this country.
Mihalis — I’m not saying the Nobel committee should follow my advice, because my advice would be to dis-establish the Peace Prize altogether. It is a ludicrous institution. Rather, I am saying they could do a better job of holding up their own values if they’d get over their American myopia.
I will say, merely because I know a little something about African politics, that you are badly misinformed about who Morgan Tsvangirai is or why he would or would not deserve the award. There are few other things which would do greater justice to more people than Robert Mugabe’s ouster, by force or no.
Moreover, it’s not “overly peaceful” (Mihalis’s words) to go into the Rose Garden and puff up your chest about how you’re commander-in-chief and not just a peaceable patsy, like Obama did today in his acceptance remarks.
The prize to Arafat was a joint prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for at least having the guts to attempt peace talks. There again the nobel committee was trying to incourage something good (Peace Talks) not Arafat, of course that doesn’t fit your sad world veiw
Travis Kavulla:
Funny, because that looks exactly like what you’re saying. Maybe it’s not what you’re intending to say, but the mere fact that you’re even concerned about who the prize went to seems to fly in the face of your stated belief that the institution is “ludicrous”.
Yes, I know all about your knowledge of African politics. I’ve read your articles. I think it’s probably because of your intimate involvement with African politics you find more importance in it than there likely is. “Few other things which would do greater justice to more people?!?” Really? How about this, instead of me telling you why he doesn’t deserve it, why don’t you enlighten us with your vast knowledge of why he does deserve it. Maybe you can even put it into essay form and mail it to the Nobel Committee.
I’m sure you didn’t just compare the speech Obama gave today to Tsvangirai calling for the violent overthrow of his government. At least he didn’t use the words “I’m the Decider”.
Folks here have had a difficult time defining Obama’s foreign policy. One aspect of it that is often ignored is his decision to send drones over Pakistan that drop missiles, some of which have killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent women and children.
Peace to all.
Tsvangirai’s a man of his conditions. I hope Obama, were he living in an oppressive regime, would follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson about the blood of patriots and all that. I think far more than my being Afrocentric — which is a funny thought — you are blinded, Mihalis, by the fact that you live in America, probably haven’t left it much, and apparently think the whole world can be boiled down to Left vs. Right, if not Republican vs Democrat. Be a bit more worldly, won’t you?
“OK. There are many people across the globe that deserve it. I would argue that Obama is one of them. They’re not all going to get one. The Nobel Committee makes that call, not you, not Travis, not Gregg, not Professor Natelson. Their values aren’t always going to match yours or mine.”
Well, there’s some tautological baloney for you.
Travis Kavulla:
If that’s your version of an answer as to why Tsvangirai deserves this prize, it’s pretty sad.
To borrow your phrasing, you are badly misinformed about who I am Travis. You know nothing about me, and your ability to guess doesn’t seem to be one of your better traits. You should probably stick to a subject you know something about. Now, how about you impress us with your vast knowledge of Africa and African politics and explain to poor, unworldly souls like myself why Tsvangirai deserves this award.
Mihalis:
If there is an American President in the last 40 years that doesn’t deserve this award, it’s George W. Bush.”
Mihalis: “A rare thing has just occurred. I agree with LT.”
A rare thing has just occurred – I agree with Mihalis re: GWB
Mihalis is right. The Nobel people are free to give their prize to anyone they want, without taking into account what Americans think (or at least what conservative Americans think).
But I think they’ve actually done Republicans in the US a favor. Giving Obama the Nobel provides fuel for the perception that he’s more interested in making the international community happy than he is in looking out for the strategic interests of the United States. I’m sure that’s why the Democratic National Committee put out a press release that was designed to show how Obama is still hated by America’s foes. It pointed to comments from the Taliban condemning the award as “unjust,” and from Hamas calling it “too early.”
The Obama Nobel also provides the useful service of letting many people know just how politicized the prize has become, and how divorced it is from its original purpose. I think a lot of people started to realize that when Arafat won the award, but this year’s antics will make the situation even more clear.
Mihalis, it’s really not my role to explain something to you which should be obvious. I’m going to refer your questions on Morgan T. to Wikipedia.
Travis, apparently your role is to make snarky comments about public events and whine gratuitously about the Tribune, and occasionally the ECP.
I read the Wikipedia page, yesterday, after which you stated that I was “badly misinformed about who Morgan Tsvangirai is or why he would or would not deserve the award.” I’ve also read several other sources as well, and still don’t find it “obvious” in any way, shape, or form. All I’ve seen from you is posturing. I’ve seen nothing that would sway my opinion away from what my own reading would suggest, or the conclusion reached by Professor Fuller, or the conclusion reached by the Nobel Committee. I suppose they’re all Americanized and unworldly as well?
Mihalis — find a dictionary, look up ‘gratuitously’, read the Trib, get back to me on that. Moreover, what’s a blog for if not snark? I try to focus on local issues b/c I don’t think local outlets do them justice. You, meanwhile, troll on issues like these, staking out what is, frankly, an absurd position.
Morgan T may have called for the ‘violent’ overthrow of Mugabe — but how otherwise would you overthrow him? Certainly Mugabe deserves to go. In any case, MT’s now joined the govt in a last-ditch attempt to save Zim from violence. and after reading about how he’s been persecuted, literally tortured, for his belief that Zim should be a free country, you still think him undeserving? You’re choosing to be stubborn and blind on this one Mihalis
People that call for the violent overthrow of governments don’t deserve a PEACE PRIZE. This isn’t complex math here. Whether Mugabe deserves to go or not isn’t relevant. There are people right now in Guantanamo that have been persecuted, and literally tortured for their beliefs. Maybe we should give them Peace Prizes too?
I’d suggest you do some actual research and find out what a Peace Prize is for. The fact that you’re calling me stubborn and blind, and my position absurd is comic to say the least.
I’m done with this Bullshit.
Mihalis, you are getting preachy. Whatever one can say about Morgan T., he is not even responsible for as many deaths as your beloved Pres Obama, who as commander-in-chief bears responsibility for a policy whereby hundreds of innocents have been killed by predator drones in Afghanistan. To summarize this in language you might understand: OMG HOW CAN THEYZ AWARD THE PEAS PRIZE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO IS A MURDERER?! It is obviously not disqualifying for the Peace Prize for a nominee to preside and support an ongoing war, much less to call for unrest.
The relevant distinction between Morgan T and Gitmo detainees is the substance of their beliefs: what are they suffering for? Morgan’s cause is valorous. The detainees’ is not.
Finally — and this really will be my last comment on this matter — please learn how to use commas. Your misuse of them in your last comment annoys me.
Travis, you also could have mentioned that Obama put out the order to shoot bullets into the brains of the Somali pirates — without giving those pirates the benefit of a trial! I’m shocked that his European allies weren’t livid at his bloodthirsty actions!
As for the notion that the Nobel Peace prize people should not go to Morgan T because he has called for the violent overthrow of Mugabe, the Nobel folks pretty much negated that argument by giving the award to Arafat, who didn’t just advocate violence, but actually used violence as a means to achieve his ends.
Methinks Mihalis needs to study his Wikipedia a bit more before delving into the intricacies of African Politics.
I had this crazy thought that maybe Morgan Tsvangirai actually tried to run for office before advocating any kind of violent overthrow. In fact, I’m pretty sure he also won the damned election before advocating any kind of violent overthrow. I also had the impression that he’s part of an attempt at a unity government now. He’s a pretty amazing person. I’m not saying he deserves the award, but it strikes me that trying to rail on the guy just because Travis brought him up and you’d never actually heard of him before is remarkably stupid.
Is this really the path that this argument needs to take? Your knee-jerk reaction to everything the proprietors of this blog says gets a little old, Mihalis – but not nearly as old as your complete ignorance of the stuff you’re commenting on. You oughta measure the depth of the water before you jump in. You really seem to relish in getting in over your head.
Travis Kavulla:
First of all, thank you for correcting my grammar (even though you appear to have edited that part out anyway). It’s nice that you finally went out on a limb and proved that you know something about something. It’s unfortunate that it’s relevance amounts to virtually nothing.
I think you’re confusing inheriting two unfounded wars from your predecessor and doing your best with an already bad situation with trying to instigate a civil war. There is a significant difference.
In whose opinion? Oh yea, your opinion is the only one that matters. In the eyes of the people who hold the same beliefs as those detainees, their cause is more than “valorous”, just as in your eyes, Morgan’s cause is “valorous”. The only difference you managed to point out is whose side you’re on.
Just to clarify, before some moron tries to claim that I’m “siding with the terrorists”, I don’t believe that their cause is “valorous” either. I’m just pointing out that what constitutes “valorous” is subjective.
Really? Did my use of those two commas annoy you? Bummer. I’ll have to keep that in mind when I’m doing my best to care what annoys you.
I have to admit that I’m a little confounded by this response Steve. Seems very odd.
Steve T.:
Morgan did try to run for office. Several times in fact. Depending on which one you’re talking about, the results are different. He did manage to be appointed as the head of the MDC, but that’s not really surprising since he pretty much founded it. In 2002 he ran for President against Mugabe and lost. In 2008 he also ran for President against Mugabe (and Simba Makoni). In that election, none of the candidates got the required 50% + 1 votes required to actually “win”, so the two with the highest number of votes, Mugabe and Tsvangirai, were going to have a run-off, but Tsvangirai withdrew before that run-off occurred. That’s pretty much a loss by default. None of that’s really relevant, since since Tsvangirai threatened to remove Mugabe violently in October of 2000, two years before he ran against him for President the first time. Maybe you were talking about a different office?
I love how Mihalis has found himself defending the legitimacy of Robert Mugabe’s gov’t and the last Zimbabwean election, widely thought to be corrupt. Morgan T, who took the most votes in the first round, withdrew from the run-off only because his supporters were literally being dragged out of their homes and killed, Mihalis. I’ve met an MDC supporter whose mother, for instance, was doused with gasoline and lit on fire. That’s the type of thuggery Morgan Tsvangirai has been fighting against. If you think that’s not valorous, fine. But in my book, that pretty much renders you a moral pervert. And your insinuation that Tsvangirai’s the one who is the cause of Zimbabwe’s civil unrest might as well have come straight from Mugabe’s propagandists. This is a low point, even for you, Mihalis. I would be disgusted by your point of view, but I think you only hold it only out of profound ignorance.
Travis Kavulla:
Really? Because I’m not that big of a fan of it. I’m aware of the claims of electoral corruption. Tsvangirai claimed that he actually won 50.3% of the votes in that first round, and I’d say that’s just as likely as the “official” results. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to prove that claim.
I’ve never claimed that Mugabe is a good person. He’s not. He’s committed many heinous crimes. I’m sure it’s convenient for you to try to paint me as a supporter of this individual, but it’s just not the truth.
Hm, struggling to give a shit about your “book”. You’ve got a total man-crush going on with Tsvangirai, and that’s fine, but I’m not sure that his motives are any more pure than Mugabe’s. Land seizures have continued since Tsvangirai became Prime Minister, and just today Tsvangirai amended the Constitution giving himself unlimited terms. While his supporters were being dragged out of their homes and lit on fire, he was out of the country, fearing for himself. Valorous. Not sure about that.
Blah blah blah. Whatever you say Travis. Hey, by the way, like how I used my commas?
The heinous things in Zim’s gov’t have continued largely in spite of Tsvangirai, who has little control over the security forces or land redistribution program in the country. And he was out of the country beforehand because Mugabe’s Central Intelligence Organisation had promised to assassinate him if he returned (a threat which was only rescinded after his return was brokered by South Africa). But perhaps your standards are as such that he should’ve submitted to this threat. Glad you feel comfortable making that call, Mihalis.
And, yes, I do have a “man-crush” on Tsvangirai; happy to say so. He’s not perfect; no politician, especially no politician in Africa, is. But, again, he is a decent individual who has led the fight against one of the basest, most tyrannical regimes on the planet, and has put himself in continuous danger in the course of doing so.
I’m struggling to understand why you’re so adamant about taking down a man who most people would unreservedly call a hero and think deserving (moreso than Obama) of the Nobel. Most people who actually know something about Zimbabwe, Mihalis, would be pretty quick to call bullshit on you. Not just me. But feel free to continue making an ass of yourself; I think it’s all quite funny.
I will say, since you asked, that your grammar in the last comment is much improved, and significantly better than your reasoning.
Travis Kavulla:
This is what you think, not what you know Travis. According to the power-sharing agreement that put Tsvangirai in his current position, all the real power lies with him. That includes the security forces and the land redistribution program. Mugabe is still President, but as President, he chairs a cabinet, which is “a largely consultative body”. You have no facts.
Oh, I thought we were talking about Valor here. That was your word, right? We’ve already established that Mugabe is a “bad man”. Maybe you can point out where the valor is in running to another country when your supporters are getting burned alive because someone threatened you.
Don’t pretend that you don’t feel just as comfortable making that call, Travis. You’ve just reached a different decision than I have. The call has still been made.
Bullshit. You’ve made no effort to understand things from my perspective that I’ve seen, let alone struggled at it. All I’ve seen out of you is “This person disagrees with me, so he must be profoundly ignorant. If he wasn’t, obviously he’d agree with me.”
See, this is where you go right off the tracks. I don’t want to “take him down”. Fine, he’s a hero, but being a hero doesn’t earn you a “Peace” Prize. The purpose of the Peace Prize is, and this is according to Alfred Nobel’s will, “during the preceding year [...] 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.” Has Tsvangirai done the most or best work for fraternity between nations? No, he’s focusing on his own nation. Fine. He’s a hero, but he doesn’t meet this qualification for a Peace Prize. Has Obama? Yes. He’s done quite extensive work to repair the United States reputation and work with countries all around the world. Has Tsvangirai worked for the abolition or reduction of standing armies? No. Has Obama? I’d say no on this one as well, though he’s working on getting the United States out of at least Iraq. Has Tsvangirai worked towards the promotion of peace congresses? Maybe. Has Obama? Yes.
It’s easy to see when you look at what the Peace Prize is actually for that Obama is the better candidate. That doesn’t take away from Tsvangirai’s accomplishments, or mean that those of us that don’t think he deserves this award are trying to take the man down.
Really? Have you talked to “most people who actually know something about Zimbabwe”? You’ve pretty much made agreeing with you a qualification for “knowing something about Zimbabwe”. I’m seeing a lot of you assuming facts that you don’t have, Travis. These are the facts, Travis. When you look at the actual qualifications for a Nobel Peace Prize, Obama matches those qualifications better than Tsvangirai does. If you want to give Tsvangirai a “Hero of the Millenium” award, knock yourself out, but I think that the Nobel Committee made the better choice.
There is such a thing as losing gracefully, Mihalis.
Gregg, I was going to answer with a snarky comment, but thought the better of it. I mean this with all honesty.
I have yet to see anything from Travis that makes me think that I’m wrong.
If I feel that I’m wrong, I’m more than capable of admitting it.
I feel that I’m right in this case.
If I were to stop speaking when you, or the majority of the people on this blog, think that I’ve lost, I’d never speak at all.
It’s not in me to admit defeat when I feel that I’m right.
Greg Mortenson is a Bozeman resident and a truly worthy nominee for thr prize. His efforts, building schools for girls in Afghanistan, started out as repayment for the care he had received after a mountain climbing accident. His efforts have created a groundswell of goodwill and really helped some people.
Mortsenson is helping people, uniting Americans and Afghans. Obama is bombing the place. This award is truly a travesty.
Possibly all of the contestants for the Miss America pageant should have won. They all want to solve world hunger and support global peace.
[...] a YouTube there, here a link, there a link, everywhere a link link … put up the following post at Electric City Weblog in a thread about OBama’s receipt fo the Nobel Peace Prize: Chinese [...]
In reguards to the Abolition or Reduction of standing Armies: It does not mean moving troops into or out of any place. It means “Standing Down” in otherwords, “No more Army at all ever in peace time or war.” A standing Army is not one deployed to combat, it is an active or reserve force in readyness to deploy at a moments notices. Do you people understand what that means? If every weapon (gun or other) were destroyed then the guy holding a letter opener can overpower any person at any time. I admit that is a silly alalogy but the point is that as long as there is one person who wants what someone else has and wants it for free, then there will still be war, and as long as there is war, we still need troops.
To this I have three things to say, “Sic vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war). That means peace is a cause worth fighting for. Fortuna favet fortibus (Frotune favors the bold). In other words, “Hope for the best, and plan for the worst.” Tantum inferi finem belli viderunt (Only the dead have seen the end of war). If you need me to explain this one to you then you have no bussiness here.”