Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Publicus]

Reagan saw that 80% of Canadians were massed along the Canada-US border and ordered DEFCON 1 until the equally senile CIA director Bill Casey told Ronnie the people there were in their houses and in shopping malls.

Reagan would be remembered with real affection if he had shut up the Canucks!

I'd hoist one to that sterling point

[Rumfoord]

Ronald Regan defeated the Soviets without firing a single shot and he got no Nobel prize. Nobel prizes are a joke and are just a fest for clueless academics and Euro trash.

LIE. Gorbachev earned the Prize by realizing Reagan was insane; Gorbachev dismanted the Soviet empire non-violently.

In my pacifist opinion.

yep, a lie.

coming from the other side of the iron curtain, i would say the Ronald Reagan didn't so much in the process how we got rid of the communists.

[PeaceBlondie]

Pardon me for stirring the pot further off-topic.

[Rumfoord]

This is an award that cheapens every other that goes before it, and I am not in any way "Anti-Obama".

Look up controversial Nobel prizes, I think you will find some even cheaper.

of course, there are other awardees that are very controversial too, and in most of this controversial cases, the award was splitted to the opposite sites of a conflict. and all of them had at least done something BEFORE they got the prize instead of just looking hopefully promising and being the US president for a couple of weeks.

[keemapoot]

This is an award that cheapens every other that goes before it, and I am not in any way "Anti-Obama".

Look up controversial Nobel prizes, I think you will find some even cheaper.

of course, there are other awardees that are very controversial too, and in most of this controversial cases, the award was splitted to the opposite sites of a conflict. and all of them had at least done something BEFORE they got the prize instead of just looking hopefully promising and being the US president for a couple of weeks.

I guess it would be instructive to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I suspect they've done this analysis already and determined that awarding to someone like Obama prospectively is within their charter....

[keemapoot]

Obama says he'll accept Nobel as 'call to action'

Call to action

[hobanse]

He got the Noble prize for making the World nuclear free, exczept Israel.

[OxfordWill]

The utilitarians among us will surely recognise that this award was made to improve the world. Ergo, I support it. Look at the bigger picture abd beyond the usual lense of prize-giving.

[Rumfoord]

Pardon me for stirring the pot further off-topic.

exactly. it's the Nobel Peace Prize. here we don't need the opinion of a pacifistic hippie and longhair. he, he.

war is the fight for peace and only warriors and brave soldiers doing it.

[Publicus]

The Vietnam War ended after Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1973 which prohibited the Executive Branch expending any taxpayer appropriated funds on any aspects of the war.

Nixon thus was hamstrung by US Rep Edward Boland (D-MA), then chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the Congress which as we know constiutionally has the power of the purse in all matters. Only after Congress voted to prohibit the Executive expending any further US Government money on the war in Vietnam did Nixon finally, at long last, throw in the towel. Nixon had no choice but to withdraw US troops as the cash pipeline was rapidly drying up.

Nixon didn't know how to end the war with or without anything so in response to the clear demand of national public opinion, Congress acted decisively and firmly to end the war by bringing financing of the war by US taxpayers to a screeching halt. Nixon signed the documents, that's all.

Boland Amendment? in 1973? i think you got here a couple of facts wrong.

anyway, what a bizarre and wacky bricher style point of view on the war that the US of A fought in vietnam and south east asia.

heroic taxpaxyers ended the Vietnam war? okay, there was of course a opposition to the US involvement in the Vietnam War. growing from year to year. out of many different reasons and arguments from the left to the right. and the average american. the public opinion became less supportive. the body count grew, lots of ugly pictures in the news and for the war-monger politican that adventure become more and more difficult to justify.

in the (north) vietnamese view the war ended in 1975 and thats because they won the war and kicked the americans out.

My statements and the post are true and accurate. You simply add hyperbole to them ("heroic taxpayers" and the like).

The Boland Amendment of 1973 took effect in phases at the beginning of the 1974-75 fiscal year, or in this particular instance Oct 1, 1974. After the House and the Senate enacted the Defense Appropriations Act of that fiscal year, which prohibited the Executive Branch spending any further monies to pursue the Vietnam war, Nixon had until 1975 to get out of Vietnam (by 1975 Ford had become prez), so the Executive Branch had some modicum of time to deal with the cutoff of war funding by the Congress.

Congress wouldn't ever have cut off funding of the US military during a war unless it had had its voting constituents banging down its doors, as the US public in fact were doing. In the Nov 1974 off year election the Republicans lost about six dozen seats in the House and several in the Senate as the body politic relieved itself of Repugnicans who were unsympathetic to it.

So what part of Congressional government do you not understand?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Publicus

[Rumfoord]

I guess it would be instructive to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I suspect they've done this analysis already and determined that awarding to someone like Obama prospectively is within their charter....

Excerpt from the Will of Alfred Nobel

"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

. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part

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.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/sh...testamente.html

okay, thats a very short definition.

on the nobel prize website is an interesting and worth to read article about the Nobel Peace Prize: "Controversies and Criticisms"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/a...sies/index.html

[Publicus]

I guess it would be instructive to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I suspect they've done this analysis already and determined that awarding to someone like Obama prospectively is within their charter....

Excerpt from the Will of Alfred Nobel

"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

. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part

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.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/sh...testamente.html

okay, thats a very short definition.

on the nobel prize website is an interesting and worth to read article about the Nobel Peace Prize: "Controversies and Criticisms"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/a...sies/index.html

It's commonly and widely known and recognized the Nobel Peace Prize Committee organically has expanded its reading of the language written by Dr. Nobel. Now there are recipients for environment protection and conservation, climate change, democracy leaders in oppressed and repressed countries, Muslim women who challenge the ancien regime and more. As the 20th century developed in economics, society and culture, so did the committee which continues to do so now in the 21st.

The Committee is continually breathing new life into that stiff document you consider to be so precious. I couldn't help but notice the words and sentiments are not exactly chisled in stone.

[Rumfoord]

My statements and the post are true and accurate. You simply add hyperbole to them ("heroic taxpayers" and the like).

The Boland Amendment of 1973 took effect in phases at the beginning of the 1974-75 fiscal year, or in this particular instance Oct 1, 1974. After the House and the Senate enacted the Defense Appropriations Act of that fiscal year, which prohobited the Executive Brqanch spending any further monies to pursue the Vietnam war, Nixon had until 1975 to get out of Vietnam (by 1975 Ford had become prez), so the Executive Branch had some modicum of time to deal with the cutoff of war funding by the Congress.

Congress wouldn't ever have cut off funding of the US military during a war unless it had had its voting constituents banging down its doors, as the US public in fact were doing. In the Nov 1974 off year election the Republicans lost about four dozen seats in the House and several in the Senate as the body politic cleansed itself of Repugnicans who were unsympathetic to it.

So what part of Congressional government do you not understand?

can you recommend any sources where i can read more about the "Boland Amendment of 1973"

and yes as you said, the public got tired and sick of that war, war mongers lost votes and seats. losing an ugly war isn't good for election outcomes.

don't confuse cause and effect.

and don't insist on your biased narrow minded viewpoint of the war. what you mention above is just one of the many aspects that brought the war to an end.

other people have other opinion and would recall and name many other aspects and reasons why and who it came to that war and why and how this war came to an end.

what part of 'the USA lose their ugly war in Vietnam' do you not understand?

[Jingthing]

He got the Noble prize for making the World nuclear free, exczept Israel.

Which makes perfect sense to me. It's only fair that the one and only Jewish state be the one and only keeper of the magic genie of mass destruction, if for no other reason than to eternally annoy certain unnamed persons.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Jingthing

[Rumfoord]

It's commonly and widely known and recognized the Nobel Peace Prize Committee organically has expanded its reading of the language written by Dr. Nobel. Now there are recipients for environment protection and conservation, climate change, democracy leaders in oppressed and repressed countries, Muslim women who challenge the ancien regime and more. As the 20th century developed in economics, society and culture, so did the committee which continues to do so now in the 21st.

The Committee is continually breathing new life into that stiff document you consider to be so precious. I couldn't help but notice the words and sentiments are not exactly chisled in stone.

no question, the Will of A. Nobel was just that what i could found in a short time. the question was: to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I

can you come up with some better source, text, a statute, the rules and guidelines the Committee use to make its decision? you are welcome to contribute.

i didn't say that the short fragment of his Will is a fixed definition. i also didn't wrote a comment to it. just quoted it to have some material, some text to look at, to have something that is a concrete reference and not just a speculation.

anyway, you still have to live with it and accept the fact that others call the selection of Obama as this year awardee controversial. and that the most asked question and common reaction is: Eh? He got the prize FOR WHAT?

[Publicus]

My statements and the post are true and accurate. You simply add hyperbole to them ("heroic taxpayers" and the like).

The Boland Amendment of 1973 took effect in phases at the beginning of the 1974-75 fiscal year, or in this particular instance Oct 1, 1974. After the House and the Senate enacted the Defense Appropriations Act of that fiscal year, which prohobited the Executive Brqanch spending any further monies to pursue the Vietnam war, Nixon had until 1975 to get out of Vietnam (by 1975 Ford had become prez), so the Executive Branch had some modicum of time to deal with the cutoff of war funding by the Congress.

Congress wouldn't ever have cut off funding of the US military during a war unless it had had its voting constituents banging down its doors, as the US public in fact were doing. In the Nov 1974 off year election the Republicans lost about four dozen seats in the House and several in the Senate as the body politic cleansed itself of Repugnicans who were unsympathetic to it.

So what part of Congressional government do you not understand?

can you recommend any sources where i can read more about the "Boland Amendment of 1973"

and yes as you said, the public got tired and sick of that war, war mongers lost votes and seats. losing an ugly war isn't good for election outcomes.

don't confuse cause and effect.

and don't insist on your biased narrow minded viewpoint of the war. what you mention above is just one of the many aspects that brought the war to an end.

other people have other opinion and would recall and name many other aspects and reasons why and who it came to that war and why and how this war came to an end.

what part of 'the USA lose their ugly war in Vietnam' do you not understand?

The Vietnam War was terminated after the Congress voted to prohibit the Executive Branch further spending any approprated monies on the war. Period.

My response is to the guy who kept insisting Nixon ended the war. Nixon said in his 1968 election campaign he had a "secret plan" to end the war. However, the US wasn't out of Vietnam until 1975 and was out because Congress voted to prohibit the Executive Branch expending any further funds on the war in any way, shape or form.

The major aspect of anything is that you can't do it if you can't get the money. Nixon was denied access to appropriated monies. All roads lead to that end result. Nixon didn't end the Vietnam War.

www.house.gov Try: Edward Boland. I remember because at the time I was professional staff there that Eddie was a fromage grand on the House Appropriations Committee, so you might click that particular committee and search for Boland by name or the Boland Amendment by name.

In short, one or all of:

Edward Boland

Appropriations Committee

Boland Amendment

__________________________

Get back to me to let me know. I got gassed and bashed on the streets for five years raising hel_l against that fukcing war. I eventually got drawn into being professional staff in the Congress to do something about it, even if it was too far on.

[Publicus]

It's commonly and widely known and recognized the Nobel Peace Prize Committee organically has expanded its reading of the language written by Dr. Nobel. Now there are recipients for environment protection and conservation, climate change, democracy leaders in oppressed and repressed countries, Muslim women who challenge the ancien regime and more. As the 20th century developed in economics, society and culture, so did the committee which continues to do so now in the 21st.

The Committee is continually breathing new life into that stiff document you consider to be so precious. I couldn't help but notice the words and sentiments are not exactly chisled in stone.

no question, the Will of A. Nobel was just that what i could found in a short time. the question was: to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I

can you come up with some better source, text, a statute, the rules and guidelines the Committee use to make its decision? you are welcome to contribute.

i didn't say that the short fragment of his Will is a fixed definition. i also didn't wrote a comment to it. just quoted it to have some material, some text to look at, to have something that is a concrete reference and not just a speculation.

anyway, you still have to live with it and accept the fact that others call the selection of Obama as this year awardee controversial. and that the most asked question and common reaction is: Eh? He got the prize FOR WHAT?

Well, good luck in satisfying your particular pursuits. For decades the Committee as a matter of practice and policy has been moving in a clearly defined direction. If you believe you can come up with something their lawyers have missed, or can expose to the world some sort of extra-jurisdictional reach by the Committee that could bring their competency into question, then be the one who rings the bell.

This prize anyway is a mixed blessing for Obama. He'll have his health care bill before too much longer and other of his programs will wriggle their way thru Congress, but presently he's shown only so much promise that he's now received a Nobel Prize for promise/promises. He'll deliver because now he's learned the ropes of Washington better. But because his changes are fundamental and radical, the slogging is just that, and is tuff. As we say in the US, the difficult takes some time and the impossible takes a while longer.

[Rumfoord]

can you recommend any sources where i can read more about the "Boland Amendment of 1973"

www.house.gov Try: Edward Boland. I remember because at the time I was professional staff there that Eddie was a fromage grand on the House Appropriations Committee, so you might click that particular committee and search for Boland by name or the Boland Amendment by name.

In short, one or all of:

Edward Boland

Appropriations Committee

Boland Amendment

as previous assumend, you got your facts wrong.

you can not name a single source for your fictional "Boland Amendment of 1973".

and your are not able to admit your mistakes and errors or even recognise them.

it's all off topic and get boring. please check next time your facts, before making some false statements. better for your credibility. and as long it is accurate, there s no need for a correction and/or be at lest prepared to answer further questions. thank you.

[Publicus]

can you recommend any sources where i can read more about the "Boland Amendment of 1973"

www.house.gov Try: Edward Boland. I remember because at the time I was professional staff there that Eddie was a fromage grand on the House Appropriations Committee, so you might click that particular committee and search for Boland by name or the Boland Amendment by name.

In short, one or all of:

Edward Boland

Appropriations Committee

Boland Amendment

as previous assumend, you got your facts wrong.

you can not name a single source for your fictional "Boland Amendment of 1973".

and your are not able to admit your mistakes and errors or even recognise them.

it's all off topic and get boring. please check next time your facts, before making some false statements. better for your credibility. and as long it is accurate, there s no need for a correction and/or be at lest prepared to answer further questions. thank you.

What are you on about? I was there. Where were you? You're saying I'm making all of this up, that it's "fictional"?

I beg your pardon, sir, but I'll not be called a purveyer of "false statements," knowingly or otherwise.

Any interested and the many computer literate forumists could visit the site www.house.gov which I'd also entered in a post above.

Click "Appropriations Committee" then write in "Boland Amendment."

Edited October 9, 2009 by Publicus

[Rumfoord]

no question, the Will of A. Nobel was just that what i could found in a short time. the question was: to look at the Committee's charter. Are they restricted to awarding the distinction for past acts or the potential for future acts? I

can you come up with some better source, text, a statute, the rules and guidelines the Committee use to make its decision? you are welcome to contribute.

i didn't say that the short fragment of his Will is a fixed definition. i also didn't wrote a comment to it. just quoted it to have some material, some text to look at, to have something that is a concrete reference and not just a speculation.

Well, good luck in satisfying your particular pursuits. For decades the Committee as a matter of practice and policy has been moving in a clearly defined direction. If you believe you can come up with something their lawyers have missed, or can expose to the world some sort of extra-jurisdictional reach by the Committee that could bring their competency into question, then be the one who rings the bell.

it was an other member that brought up the question for the 'Committee's charter', for a clarification.

that question or the recommendation to have a look at it is reasonable. it would make the decision of the Committee more comprehensible.

i like to have facts and references instead of speculations. and facts bring speculations easy to an end.

[Rumfoord]

What are you on about? I was there. Where were you? You're saying I'm making all of this up, that it's "fictional"?

I beg your pardon, sir, but I'll not be called a purveyer of "false statements," knowingly or otherwise.

Any interested and the many computer literate forumists could visit the site www.house.gov which I'd also entered in a post above.

Click "Appropriations Committee" then write in "Boland Amendment."

i guess you don't check your facts before making statements.

[Publicus]

What are you on about? I was there. Where were you? You're saying I'm making all of this up, that it's "fictional"?

I beg your pardon, sir, but I'll not be called a purveyer of "false statements," knowingly or otherwise.

Any interested and the many computer literate forumists could visit the site www.house.gov which I'd also entered in a post above.

Click "Appropriations Committee" then write in "Boland Amendment."

i guess you don't check your facts before making statements.

I was there my friend. You're OTT at this point.

There are many references to the Boland Amendment of 1973 but the amendment itself, which I'd assumed after many years of my own disinterest in it would be readily available, is not so. I'll research futher and get back to you.

There are more ways than one to skin this cat.

Still, I reiterate you're OTT in your response in this matter.

[sokal]

He got the Noble prize for making the World nuclear free, exczept Israel.

If Palestinians put down their rockets there would be peace, if Israel put down its weapons there would be another Haloucost.

[jazzbo]

PeaceBlondie -- good for you on the mention on M. Gandhi oversight (Thomas Pynchon and Saint-Exupery in Literature as well)

For all those who disagree with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Award, put them here:

comments(at)nobelprize.org -- I'm sure they will love to hear from you... also TG has non-stop flights to Oslo.

[ding]

He got the Noble prize for making the World nuclear free, exczept Israel.

If Palestinians put down their rockets there would be peace, if Israel put down its weapons there would be another Haloucost.

Good point.

But Hamas was ELECTED because they built schools and started social aid programs. Bush Republicans tried to BOMB people into order.

Obama winning a prize for basic common sense shows us how INSANE the Bush Republicans were.

[Scott]

I don't know that Obama has done one thing in particular for which he should receive the Peace prize. Many of the things he's done and accomplished are subtle. First, he engages in dialogue--even with leaders and groups that most thing he shouldn't. Second, he has risen above the race issue and this has had a knock-on effect in race relations. As soon as Obama was elected, I noticed a lot more ordinary white people talking with blacks. This was simple things--like in the line at the grocery store, asking directions etc. It was small and it was simple, but it was an example set by the President.

Will he create world peace. No. Will he affect change. I hope so. If he doesn't, it won't be because he didn't try.

Getting people to sign big agreements isn't always productive. They can go home and not follow them. Getting ordinary people to acknowledge others, that's a big step forward.

[harleyclarkey]

Giving Obama the Noble peace prize for things that he may make happen in the future is like giving a celebrity film maker an Oscar for the film he is currently making that may be a classic when finished.

It's rubbish.

[puyaidon]

The committee must have ordered "yaa baa" by the ton before they met with this decision. What were they thinking? They could not have been sober.

[venturalaw]

The committee must have ordered "yaa baa" by the ton before they met with this decision. What were they thinking? They could not have been sober.

They love what BO is doing. He gives speeches trashing the US. The elites of the world are urging him not to continue in Afghanistan, and not to pursue US interests. He is destroying the US as a super power. A weakened US - just what the commission wants, and BO is spot on.

[jayboy]

I don't know that Obama has done one thing in particular for which he should receive the Peace prize. Many of the things he's done and accomplished are subtle. First, he engages in dialogue--even with leaders and groups that most thing he shouldn't. Second, he has risen above the race issue and this has had a knock-on effect in race relations. As soon as Obama was elected, I noticed a lot more ordinary white people talking with blacks. This was simple things--like in the line at the grocery store, asking directions etc. It was small and it was simple, but it was an example set by the President.

Will he create world peace. No. Will he affect change. I hope so. If he doesn't, it won't be because he didn't try.

Getting people to sign big agreements isn't always productive. They can go home and not follow them. Getting ordinary people to acknowledge others, that's a big step forward.

Great post Scott which well summarises my views at least, in other words probably a premature award but recognising a leader of extraordinary promise who has set many initiatives in the right direction.

I don't intend to say more on this because the thread is already showing up some of the illiteracy and insanity (or so it appears to foreigners) that plagues American right wing politics, eg the accusation that in his speeches Obama is "trashing" the USA.A pity really because there is a decent conservative case to be made criticising Obama but it's being lost through the disintegration of an intelligent Republican argument.