Barak Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Overheal

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

The US does not know what the meaning of peace

Thats okay: Ireland doesn't know the meaning of Spine.

Trev M

Just incase it hasnt been said, more proof as if its needed that the NWO Lizards have taken over just as the rightful owner of that prize (Jim Corr) had predicted.

Im ordering more tin foil, the world is nuts.

All hail the commander in cheif

Duiske

Lux23 wrote: »

Awarding the prize to Obama is a political move, it makes the Americans look like angels and could effect how some people who would be marginally anti Obama in the States view him. I think its a bit early though they should have waited till nearer election time.

The worry is though, how will this effect how the rest of the world view him, particularly the Muslim world. Imagine if British PM Edward Heath had been given a Peace Prize in the weeks or months after Bloody Sunday. A lot of Irish people would have been rightly pissed about it.

FouxDaFaFa

Duiske wrote: »

If he is determined to free the world of nuclear weapons, perhaps he should start in his own backyard, then move on to Israel.

Completely agree with that. I always find it a bit ironic that a country with such a huge amount of nuclear weapons themselves gets panicky and alarmist when other countries have some as well.

I'm not sure how open the US are about the number of weapons they have or how many they manufacture but whenever I hear them going on about Iran needing to be more open about their nuclear programme I wonder if they've made theirs available to be analysed.

Back on topic, I have nothing against Obama but it does seem a bit odd to give the Peace prize based on plans and negotiations that have yet to produce anything worthwhile.

Mark200

Duiske wrote: »

If he is determined to free the world of nuclear weapons, perhaps he should start in his own backyard, then move on to Israel.

He has started. Just months ago it was very well publicised that him and Medvedev of Russia signed a new Nuclear stockpile treaty for disarming a third of their nuclear weapons and sets out benchmarks for the rest. Keep up.

Link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/obama-medvedev-agree-to-nuke-cuts-no-deal-on-missile-defense/

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Completely agree with that. I always find it a bit ironic that a country with such a huge amount of nuclear weapons themselves gets panicky and alarmist when other countries have some as well.

What the hell is the point of the two biggest nuclear countries advancing the disarmament of their nuclear stockpile if they're just going to allow other countries to start developing nuclear weapons? The aim is to have no nuclear weapons in the world in case you haven't realised.

Manic Moran

syklops wrote: »

I assume your referring to the Missile Defence Sheild??

Then I guess you haven't seen this then...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html

Erm.. As I said, Polish and the Czech governments weren't too pleased. From said article.

A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.

But my point is that Obama's charisma and conciliatory attitude alone are remarkable.

So all you need to win a Peace prize then is to be a good orator?

The man was nominated for the prize within ten days of being President. He hadn't had enough time to unpack his suitcases in the White House, let alone be conciliatory about anything.

ust months ago it was very well publicised that him and Medvedev of Russia signed a new Nuclear stockpile treaty for disarming a third of their nuclear weapons and sets out benchmarks for the rest. Keep up.

Link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...ssile-defense/

Umm.. You misunderstood that signing. It's basically a memorandum of understanding saying that both sides would like to look at a treaty for further disarmament. It actually commits neither side to disarming a single missile or warhead. So far Bush II has signed away more warheads than Obama has (Moscow Treaty). The US's operational warhead stocks dropped by half between 2002 and 2007.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug08/trebes.html

In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. To comply with this treaty, the U.S. must reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. In 2004, President Bush issued a directive to cut the entire U.S. nuclear stockpile—both deployed and reserve warheads—in half by 2012. This goal was achieved in 2007, five years ahead of schedule, making the total stockpile almost 50 percent less than it had been in 2001.

NTM

Mark200

Manic Moran wrote: »

The man was nominated for the prize within ten days of being President.

Link?

deadhead13

Mark200 wrote: »

Link?

Its being said on Newstalk's news bulletins.

Morlar

Mark200 wrote: »

Link?

It was on the bbc website. The cutoff date for nominations was 10 days after he became president. Bearing in mind at that point his major achievement had been to get the oath wrong.

Mark200

Manic Moran wrote: »

Umm.. You misunderstood that signing. It's basically a memorandum of understanding saying that both sides would like to look at a treaty for further disarmament. It actually commits neither side to disarming a single missile or warhead. So far Bush II has signed away more warheads than Obama has (Moscow Treaty). The US's operational warhead stocks dropped by half between 2002 and 2007.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug08/trebes.html


NTM

Well the agreement ('treaty' obviously was incorrect) they signed outlines their aims, the actual treaty will just go into greater detail... but the aims will be the same.

And if you're going to compare it to what GWB did, a line from the article I linked:

If the new agreement takes effect, it will accelerate an ongoing reduction of U.S. and Russian stockpiles

And it actually gives a link in that article to a New York Times article that writes how, as a college student, he wrote about his desire for a world without nuclear weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html?bl&ex=1246939200&en=9c6e7530c1a524cf&ei=5087%0A

Manic Moran

Mark200 wrote: »

Link?

OK, you are correct. I have no proof that he was nominated ten days after entering office. But the 'strictly enforced' rules of the Nobel Committee are such that he could not have been nominated any later than ten days after entering office. So it could have been nine days. Or the day of. Or even before he entered office, I guess.

And if you're going to compare it to what GWB did, a line from the article I linked:

It probably will accelerate it, as the US decomissioning process has stopped since the US after reaching the targeted goal of (apparently) decomissioning some 2,100 warheads ahead of schedule . The article you link to says that they proposed reduction is a further 600-700 warheads. Doubltess this will result in the rate increasing, but in terms of raw numbers, not as impressive.


NTM

Mark200

Morlar wrote: »

It was on the bbc website. The cutoff date for nominations was 10 days after he became president. Bearing in mind at that point his major achievement had been to get the oath wrong.

1) He did not get the oath wrong, it was the person who he had to repeat after that got it wrong... Obama noticed this, paused in the middle of the oath, so that the person other person could correct himself

2) He issued the executive order to ban torture and to close Guantanamo bay in his first or second day in office.

But yeah they just said on Sky News there that nominations closed in February. But just because he was nominated in February does not mean that the decision was made in February. They discussed the nominations between February until August like....

Morlar

Mark200 wrote: »

1) He did not get the oath wrong, ....
But yeah they just said on Sky News there that nominations closed in February.

Ok so we have now established that at the point in time when he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize he had gotten the presidential oath right (on his second attempt) and said 'torture is bad we are not doing that anymore & we are closing gtmo' - (which is still open btw).

Does that really qualify someone for a Nobel Peace Prize ? By those standards Angelina Jolie should have 3 or 4 by now.

Mark200

Morlar wrote: »

Ok so we have now established that at the point in time when he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize he had gotten the presidential oath right (on his second attempt) and said 'torture is bad we are not doing that anymore & we are closing gtmo' - (which is still open btw).

Does that really qualify someone for a Nobel Peace Prize ? By those standards Angelina Jolie should have 3 or 4 by now.

But now you're complaining about the reason why he was nominated, not the reason why he won. Big difference.

FouxDaFaFa

Mark200 wrote: »

What the hell is the point of the two biggest nuclear countries advancing the disarmament of their nuclear stockpile if they're just going to allow other countries to start developing nuclear weapons? The aim is to have no nuclear weapons in the world in case you haven't realised.

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm far from an advocate of nuclear weapons and the last thing I want to see is an increase in production of them. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy in a country which has a large amount of nuclear weapons themselves condemning a country for producing them. I'm not agreeing with Iran or saying that everyone should now produce nuclear weapons.

Mark200 wrote: »

The aim is to have no nuclear weapons in the world in case you haven't realised.

Found that a little condescending for my taste but I guess you're trying to make a point.

Back on topic, does anyone know when he's presented the award?

Mark200

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm far from an advocate of nuclear weapons and the last thing I want to see is an increase in production of them. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy in a country which has a large amount of nuclear weapons themselves condemning a country for producing them. I'm not agreeing with Iran or saying that everyone should now produce nuclear weapons.



Found that a little condescending for my taste but I guess you're trying to make a point.

Back on topic, does anyone know when he's presented the award?

Sorry if it sounded condescending but I did understand your post... my point was that while America and Russia are attempting to reduce their nuclear stockpile with the aim of ridding the world of nukes, it'd be a bit stupid to just sit back and allow other countries to continue to produce nukes or to bring more nukes into the world.

Can't remember when he'll be presented it, but it's not for a few months anyway.

arybvtcw0eolkf

This is a great day for all African-Americans.

I bet everyone opens this spoiler expecting something more - up yours

.

Morlar

I don't often agree with skynews but they hit the nail on the head here :


"But next year let's give it to Miss World. Every year Miss World comes on and says I want world peace and the world free of nuclear weapons. It's a hope, an aspiration.

"The deadline for nominations for the peace prize was February 1, so someone nominated the President of America for his achievements 11 days into his presidency.

"This is a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George Bush. And I think it has been devalued."

d0gb0y

FFS hes allowed NASA to bomb the moon, who knows what that will start:rolleyes:

Mark200

d0gb0y wrote: »

FFS hes allowed NASA to bomb the moon, who knows what that will start:rolleyes:

It was going for Iran, he diverted it when he found out he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

d0gb0y

Or maybe it was to stop the invasion of the CLANGERS:eek:

metaoblivia

I like Obama, and I do believe that one day - when his policies become more than rhetoric and promises - he may be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

But today was not that day.

Lirange

Overheal wrote: »

B-man is waking up today feeling like he has already done everything while he has his morning screw of missus B-man. That mentality is going to cost everyone dearly.

Is he? Normally I'd only attribute that degree of galactic smugness to people such as his predecessor. Don't tell me it was just the smirk.

As much as I think the award going to him was ridiculous I don't actually feel it's necessary to pillory Obama as a result. He seems as surprised as anyone and recognises it wasn't for anything he's accomplished more an expression of international aspirations for improving the rock we live on. I think the Obama backlash brigade are nearly as bad as his starry eyed adulators. The peace prize has always been a different kettle of fish from the other Nobel awards and as much as he wouldn't have been my choice it's not some shock outrage that some indignant people are making it out to be.

King of Kings

totally racist..

Overheal

Lirange wrote: »

Is he? Normally I'd only attribute that degree of galactic smugness to people such as his predecessor. Don't tell me it was just the smirk.

As much as I think the award going to him was ridiculous I don't actually feel it's necessary to pillory Obama as a result. He seems as surprised as anyone and recognises it wasn't for anything he's accomplished more an expression of international aspirations for improving the rock we live on. I think the Obama backlash brigade are nearly as bad as his starry eyed adulators. The peace prize has always been a different kettle of fish from the other Nobel awards and as much as he wouldn't have been my choice it's not some shock outrage that some indignant people are making it out to be.

That reminds me, Fox News Radio misrepresented his statement this morning at 10AM Eastern:

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize,"

Granted he should no better than to make trap-quotes like that. Still I'd be concerned it will go to his head - or worse yet try and confuse war efforts. In order to get out of Afghanistan for example we may have to put more troops in, a move that will not be recognized by the int'l community.

Leprachaun

Ba ba black sheep,have you any wool?

Lirange

Leprachaun wrote: »

Ba ba black sheep,have you any wool?

You're to clever for us. Such a beacon of enlightened free thinking you are.

Leprachaun

Lirange wrote: »

You're to clever for us. Such a beacon of enlightened free thinking you are.

Sorry,I just thought of that right there and thought I'd post it in the hopes of thanks-whoring. I don't really care about Obama one way or the other. :P

Overheal

After winning the Not Bush peace prize we received this breaking news: Barack Obama has just Won the upcoming season of American Idol.

Riddle101

d0gb0y wrote: »

Or maybe it was to stop the invasion of the CLANGERS:eek:

Leave the Clangers out of this. They have enough trouble as it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s

jumpguy

It slightly annoys me how American news broadcasters have their own agenda. How can Americans get access to unbiased information, when their own broadcasters have political allegiances? It's a factor is why the country is so politically divided among it's general population.

As for Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, certainly he has done great things, he's inspired the world and brought it closer (the Western World, at least). But he has yet to do anything actually concrete. I think this will end up being more detrimental to him than beneficial, politically and perhaps personally. Certainly, it's going to put another serious dent in the plausibility and the respectability of the Nobel commitee, and hence the Noble Prize itself.

Basically, I think this will do more harm than good all around.

Overheal

Radio Personalities can be switched off. I still have 104.5 Classic Rock (because Barracuda is still a ****ing awesome sound), and Chuck, and Way FM (my boss likes it, fair play to him) but when I heard this Peace Prize crap you can bet your ass we all were thinking on the same wavelength and in moments of opening had switched on 94.3 to listen to Glenn Beck then Rush Limbaugh's take: simply because, they were putting into words what we were all thinking, and quite well this time.

For example, did you know Ronald Reagan doesn't have a Peace Prize? The man ended the Cold War and is attributed for tearing down the Wall (even though that was really Gorbachev) (and of course frequent use of The Wall is another reason to love 104.5). That event has helped shaped the last 22 years of Human History and ended arguably the most terrifying era of the modern age. Where does Obama stand up against that exactly?

Duiske

Mark200 wrote: »

He has started. Just months ago it was very well publicised that him and Medvedev of Russia signed a new Nuclear stockpile treaty for disarming a third of their nuclear weapons and sets out benchmarks for the rest. Keep up.

Link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/obama-medvedev-agree-to-nuke-cuts-no-deal-on-missile-defense/

The new treaty would set the bar lower, limiting the number of strategic warheads to between 1500-1675, and reducing delivery vehicles to a range of 500-1100.

Ah sure thats grand. Only 3,000+ multi-megaton nuclear warheads between them. I feel alot safer now.

Mark200

Overheal wrote: »

Radio Personalities can be switched off. I still have 104.5 Classic Rock (because Barracuda is still a ****ing awesome sound), and Chuck, and Way FM (my boss likes it, fair play to him) but when I heard this Peace Prize crap you can bet your ass we all were thinking on the same wavelength and in moments of opening had switched on 94.3 to listen to Glenn Beck then Rush Limbaugh's take: simply because, they were putting into words what we were all thinking, and quite well this time.

For example, did you know Ronald Reagan doesn't have a Peace Prize? The man ended the Cold War and is attributed for tearing down the Wall (even though that was really Gorbachev) (and of course frequent use of The Wall is another reason to love 104.5). That event has helped shaped the last 22 years of Human History and ended arguably the most terrifying era of the modern age. Where does Obama stand up against that exactly?

No offence but if you value Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's opinions then I don't value yours. Their biasness is so incredible it's unbelievable.


If Barack Obama had single handedly brought about permanent world peace they'd still criticise the fact that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

DigiGal

Leprachaun wrote: »

Ba ba black sheep,have you any wool?

If I was to say what I thought right now Id be permabanned

OPENROAD

Great day for Ireland in particular Offaly.

Lirange

Overheal wrote: »

Radio Personalities can be switched off. I still have 104.5 Classic Rock (because Barracuda is still a ****ing awesome sound), and Chuck, and Way FM (my boss likes it, fair play to him) but when I heard this Peace Prize crap you can bet your ass we all were thinking on the same wavelength and in moments of opening had switched on 94.3 to listen to Glenn Beck then Rush Limbaugh's take: simply because, they were putting into words what we were all thinking, and quite well this time.

For example, did you know Ronald Reagan doesn't have a Peace Prize? The man ended the Cold War and is attributed for tearing down the Wall (even though that was really Gorbachev) (and of course frequent use of The Wall is another reason to love 104.5). That event has helped shaped the last 22 years of Human History and ended arguably the most terrifying era of the modern age. Where does Obama stand up against that exactly?

Oh no you didn't!

Wait yes you did. Oh dee iwony!! Dwarfs any hyperbole about Obama. Saint Reagan didn't "end" the Cold War. It's some weird concoction of self flattery and right wing fable folklore. It was as much if not more internal factors of the U.S.S.R. than it was external pressures. An implosion. Yes it's true that the U.S. had more flexibility for defence spending sprees than the Russians and this did take a toll over the years. But the inherent structural flaws and peculiar political climate of the Soviet Union were the primary factors. Someone other than Gorbachev likely would have reacted much differently to those set of circumstances. Those circumstances mind you are much different than seen in other Communist systems such as China which are not quite analogous. The role of the US, Western Europe, and others in the west is not to be discounted. But remember other leaders in America such as Truman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower weren't any less vital than Reagan.

He told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. He did. End of story. It's a fairy tale. It takes a lot more than putting up a piece of the Berlin wall in front of your wankfest library to make a sound argument that "the man ended the Cold War."

Overheal

Mark200 wrote: »

No offence but if you value Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's opinions then I don't value yours.

See what youve just done there is known as an Ad Hominem attack and if this was in the Politics forum, I'd have already reported your post for a possible banning.

Im not a stranger to the personal bias of either of those two personalities. And Schnit. Schnit is just an angry man. But just because theyre opinionated and angry and arguably racist doesnt mean they can't make valid arguments from time to time: are you saying Ronald Reagan does in fact carry a Nobel Peace Prize in his closet somewhere?

I know who to turn on when I want to hear what I want to hear. Conservative Talk Radio is just as important a viewpoint as watching The Daily Show to me. And I am curious to hear as many opinions on todays top story as I can, be they Hannity's, Stewart's, O'Reilly's or Colbert's or Blitzer's. So far, the thing I can agree with most is I can think of plenty of other people more deserving of that accolade.

Lirange

Overheal wrote: »

But just because theyre opinionated and angry and arguably racist doesnt mean they can't make valid arguments from time to time:

I'm assuming that didn't sound as funny and squirming when you typed it as it did when I read it. Imagine the possibilities. While on the face of it this statement is correct I probably wouldn't cite discredited pariahs in forwarding any opinions if I should have the unfortunate occasion to agree with these individuals. Reality is those that fall back on foul sources tend to wear the stench.

jumpguy

Mark200 wrote: »

If Barack Obama had single handedly brought about permanent world peace they'd still criticise the fact that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I agree with this point. The Republicans hate Obama with a passion. While certainly alot of this is politically motivated (the Democrats cleant the floor with the Republicans in the last election) but I must agree with Jimmy Carter's point, an untold amount of it is racially motivated.

For example the "You Lie" exclamation incident. Such disrespect for a Head of State is amazing, even for the Republicans.

Overheal

Lirange wrote: »

I'm assuming that didn't sound as funny and squirming when you typed it as it did when I read it. Imagine the possibilities. While on the face of it this statement is correct I probably wouldn't cite discredited pariahs in forwarding any opinions if I should have the unfortunate occasion to agree with these individuals. Reality is those that fall back on foul sources tend to wear the stench.

You make it sound as though i need to use them as a citation in a wikipedia article over some statistic. I merely agreed with an opinion about reagan, based on his efforts to bring about an end to the cold war.

Lirange wrote: »

Saint Reagan didn't "end" the Cold War. It's some weird concoction of self flattery and right wing fable folklore. It was as much if not more internal factors of the U.S.S.R. than it was external pressures. An implosion. Yes it's true that the U.S. had more flexibility for defence spending sprees <sound economic reasoning grant you,>

He told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. He did. End of story. It's a fairy tale. It takes a lot more than putting up a piece of the Berlin wall in front of your wankfest library to make a sound argument that "the man ended the Cold War."

By your same criticism why give Obama the award? He talked to some people? Made a few friends in the middle east? Went to Ahmed's place for a game of craps? How is what Obama is doing/has done since Before February 1st 2009 to deserve that award?

Come to think of it know that im thinking about cold war and nukes: START I. START II was Signed by George H W Bush in 1993 but admittedly, Gulf War 1 was in 1990 sooo I wont even go there, good or bad.

But guess who first proposed the idea of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty way back in 1982?

Then President Ronald Reagan

.

And for the kids tuning in at home, what was Nobel's original stated intention for the Nobel Peace Prize?

"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."

Hiyooo!

Joey the lips

Why?

Mark200

Overheal wrote: »

By your same criticism why give Obama the award? He talked to some people? Made a few friends in the middle east? Went to Ahmed's place for a game of craps? How is what Obama is doing/has done since Before February 1st 2009 to deserve that award?

Come to think of it know that im thinking about cold war and nukes: START I. START II was Signed by George H W Bush in 1993 but admittedly, Gulf War 1 was in 1990 sooo I wont even go there, good or bad.

But guess who first proposed the idea of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty way back in 1982?

Then President Ronald Reagan

.

And for the kids tuning in at home, what was Nobel's original stated intention for the Nobel Peace Prize?

I don't think Lirange was arguing that Reagan was less deserving than Obama to get it. But I think it's a pretty pedantic argument to go back and pick out a person and say "Hey, why didn't he get one if Obama got one?". That ridiculous argument does not mean that Obama was not deserving of it... it just concludes that others were also deserving.

And you can joke about how at first glance Obama has achieved nothing except shook a few hands, but you're greatly underestimating the importance of "making a few friends in the middle east" and opening up relations with Iran. It's a huge step in the world of international dialogue.

And although this thing was only announced this morning I'm already sick of people taking out the illogical stance of "oh he was nominated by 1st Feb therefore he was judged based on what he did before then". What a ridiculous claim to make. The panel discussed the nominations for months. He was judged based on what he has done up to now.

Lirange

Overheal wrote: »

You make it sound as though i need to use them as a citation in a wikipedia article over some statistic. I merely agreed with an opinion about reagan, based on his efforts to bring about an end to the cold war.

That'll do then. I'll merely criticise you for agreeing with an opinion that is utter nonsense. In my subjectively objective opinion of course. See with Reagan you go a step further. It's not really the idea that he should get the award or that he's more deserving. It's the embellished dross about Reagan used to justify the idea.

Overheal wrote: »

By your same criticism why give Obama the award?

I didn't think Obama was deserving of the award. Read my earlier posts.

Overheal wrote: »

But guess who first proposed the idea of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty way back in 1982?

Then President Ronald Reagan

.

Sounds ever so slightly more reality based than the "man that ended the Cold War" puffery. Concerning his "efforts to bring about the end of the Cold War" that's not really an apt description. He like his predecessors was trying to contain communism not end it.

mink_man

talk about poo!

Overheal

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't think Lirange was arguing that Reagan was less deserving than Obama to get it. But I think it's a pretty pedantic argument to go back and pick out a person and say "Hey, why didn't he get one if Obama got one?". That ridiculous argument does not mean that Obama was not deserving of it... it just concludes that others were also deserving.

And you can joke about how at first glance Obama has achieved nothing except shook a few hands, but you're greatly underestimating the importance of "making a few friends in the middle east" and opening up relations with Iran. It's a huge step in the world of international dialogue.

And although this thing was only announced this morning I'm already sick of people taking out the illogical stance of "oh he was nominated by 1st Feb therefore he was judged based on what he did before then". What a ridiculous claim to make. The panel discussed the nominations for months. He was judged based on what he has done up to now.

Thanks Mark. I honestly can say I agree with all of that.

Concerning his "efforts to bring about the end of the Cold War" that's not really an apt description. He like his predecessors was trying to contain communism not end it.

Unfortunately I must concede that argument too, about ending the Cold War.

I still think for his efforts on the START initiative he should be recognized however. And if you're wondering, I didnt get that particular talking point from the radio either

uprising

Nobel Peace Prize 1973
Henry Kissinger

Lovely Man,
WAR CRIMINAL

kryogen

dont agree with the decision tbh, what has he done in 9 months to earn it? its a surprise to say the least, and debateable at best

Manic Moran

If Barack Obama had single handedly brought about permanent world peace they'd still criticise the fact that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Although this may well be true, there's little denying the fact that he hasn't brought about permanent world peace, and the award of the prize has raised a lot more eyebrows than simply those of American Republicans.

NTM

Min

Talk is cheap, giving a prize based on talk and not actions makes the prize cheap.

It was only the other day at the UN we had Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama issuing statements together regarding Iran. Barack Obama said all options were open.

It is very premature to give an award before we see results.