Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Crushdepth]

If Obama delivers on the promises and manages to stabilise world politics/improve international relations a bit over the next couple of terms in office, I could understand him being given the peace prize. But after nine months in office? It makes a mockery of the award. This award should more properly go to people who have spent *decades* pursuing the cause of peace.

What were the selection criteria? Not starting a new war in the first week on the job?

[baht&sold]

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.

Kudos to Scott for a thoughtful post (in a sea of 'reactions')

-Just watching the 'blow by blow' on FOX news via Tvunetworks.com (ch 79544) and what a display...

One gets the impression from FOX that President Obama nominated and anointed himself...

Best reason to watch FOX news: O'Reilly (and the 'Stepford' babes, er, anchors as they're known on reg networks...

Worst reason to watch FOX news: Hannity (for sanity sake;)

One wonders if President Obama may see out a 4 year term...

President Palin awaits to return things 'the way they was darn tootin' (along with hillbilly's, WWF and Nascar fans - oh, and Saturday Night Live;)

[animatic]

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.

Well I do have the image of Yeltsin on the tank waving at the parliament.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

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?

Publicus was there then, that's why he knows the facts. I believe he knew Mr. Boland at the time.

They didn't just pull the plug, and thus harm the soldiers on the ground,

but drew a fiscal line in the sand and said it ends here. Nixon had no choice.

And the same for Ford, keep the withdrawal happening till it's done.

[PeaceBlondie]

Yes this Peace Prize was premature. Let's hope it inspires President Obama (not Bo Derek) to learn the long hard sacrificial work of MAKING peace.

[Starlifter]

It is my understanding that the cutoff for nominations was only 12 days after he had been in office. The one who nominated the president will remain anonymous for 50 years (unless they decide to come forward themselves). The judging committee is a small group of about five individuals. While it is possible the decision was close ( I heard an estimate of about 200 plus nominees) it just as well could have been decided as far back as the November presidential election of 2008. If it is believable for some to think during the Bush years a handful of individuals made decisions to change policies, start wars and generally make life miserable for some than the same can be said of this administration and a handful of individuals. There are cooks on both sides and sometimes even in between. I wish him success if he (and those who surround him) really are interested in peace and not just some realignment of power to please a small group of puppet masters. Of course, the world is full of competitive and sometimes just plain crazy individuals who just love to "stir the pudding" so I wouldn't put much stock in the Nobel Peace award.

Of course he could start by buying the world the first round of free drinks

[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.

why don't choose a monkey face photo to show the range of your emotion and your ability to express them.

if you an illiterate and have to communicate with signs and icons, a monkey face photo would make much clear what you are up to.

like this one:

[PeaceBlondie]

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.

He he, ha ha, 55. It's the Nobel Peace Prize, not a warrior's prize. When the pacifist long-haired Hippies were nonviolently protesting against several insane, immoral wars in Southeast Asia, I was retired USAF/disabled veteran/Baptist minister, blessing the boys as they marched off to war. Then I found the Prince of Peace, right there in my New Testament. Now my hair is the longest ever.

Peace works. War destroys. Have a nice peace-full eternity.

[Donnyboy]

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.

Regan was not insane,Regan was the man. He knew that the communist system was flawed so he got into an arms race with them because he knew they would go bankrupt trying to keep up. That is the tactic that ended the war.

agreed.

[Donnyboy]

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

nuclear free~ yeah right!!

[PeaceBlondie]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

[webfact]

Back in the 70s in Oakland, CA, I shook hands with Jimmy Carter... He got the Nobel price too

[Rumfoord]

Publicus was there then, that's why he knows the facts. I believe he knew Mr. Boland at the time.

errm. the next one. blabber, statements without checking the facts.

in case of Mr. Boland and the Boland Amendment, publicus gets his facts wrong, and id did not make to a true statement if you are going on to repeat it.

he fail to recognise his mistakes and error, fail to admit them and fail to apologise.

if publicus told you he was there, he probably lied to you. in the internet there are a lot of people out there who made-up stories. lot of thin air.

easy check is to ask them to elaborate or substantiate their fiction with facts, they can not answer and thier story collapse like a house of cards.

you should know that from your own experience or learned it by now. why keep telling BS if you can not defend it resonable?

[toptuan]

Current and former winners.

Cool. What an honor.

Edited October 10, 2009 by toptuan

[SM7WGP]

Nothing to argue about , The Nobel Peace price its just a big Joke Thats why its handed over in Norway.

The more serious prices are giving away in Sweden

[Bolo]

Well, after seeing all the bashing I just have to post something. For the last 8 years we have been lied to constantly, ignored and watched suspected criminal activity. It's been a terrible feeling sitting and watching this all happen with no way to correct it till now. Obama was fresh air to the USA and people actually felt a sense of the real America again. People felt proud again and I don't think it matters whether there was an economic meltdown either. Clinton and even Regan were those types of people. Their presence was undeniable. I think most of you in other countries can at least feel that he is trying to mend those ties with your countries. That's what Amercans really want and are. He represented that during his campaign and showed the good side of the American people. That is why they voted for him because he mirrored them.

It's not about party lines even though some want to drag it into that. It's about being human beings and doing the right things. He's trying to do that. Give him the credit he deserves. Just think about the last administration.

[toptuan]

Former nobel peace prize winner embraces another international icon for peace--Saddam Husssein. 1980

Yes, the committee's selection rational seems quite straightforward, crystal-clear, etc.

[Bolo]

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.

Kudos to Scott for a thoughtful post (in a sea of 'reactions')

-Just watching the 'blow by blow' on FOX news via Tvunetworks.com (ch 79544) and what a display...

One gets the impression from FOX that President Obama nominated and anointed himself...

Best reason to watch FOX news: O'Reilly (and the 'Stepford' babes, er, anchors as they're known on reg networks...

Worst reason to watch FOX news: Hannity (for sanity sake;)

One wonders if President Obama may see out a 4 year term...

President Palin awaits to return things 'the way they was darn tootin' (along with hillbilly's, WWF and Nascar fans - oh, and Saturday Night Live;)

Watching one sided news reporting will brainwash you my friend. Or is it too late?

[toptuan]

Give him the credit he deserves. Just think about the last administration.

It's pretty pitiful when the value of the current guy has to be measured by the worthlessness of the former guy. Thanks for the iron-clad logic. You should have been on the selection committee as well.

[jayboy]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?

My politics are left leaning and if I had been an American voter my choice would always have been the Democrats.Nevertheless historians will conclude that Reagan played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the end of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe.Millions of people who lived under those discredited totalitarian regimes recognise Reagan's major role.Not an intellectual at all but a communicator of genius.His domestic economic policy was flawed but that's another matter.

At the time of British appeasement of Nazi Germany there were those who used almost identical language as you of Winston Churchill.Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

[Rumfoord]

Current and former winners.

Cool. What an honor.

Arafat got the Nobel Prize together with two other people. why you don't mention them? they aren't so kosher neither, in tems of peace.

Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli atom spy would be a good candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. but i think he said that he would not accept this prize because he don't want stand in a line with certain former awardees.

[chuckd]

Well, after seeing all the bashing I just have to post something. For the last 8 years we have been lied to constantly, ignored and watched suspected criminal activity. It's been a terrible feeling sitting and watching this all happen with no way to correct it till now.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's vote those rascals that have been lying to us out of the House of Representatives and Senate in 2010 (or whenever the Senators come up for reelection).

Several strange thoughts came to my mind when I heard the news about the award.

1. I immediately picked up my calendar to check the date wasn't April First.

2. I suddenly realized that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the same day that he became the first President of the United States to bomb the moon.

3. I then recalled that a friend recently told me that Tiger beer is now available in Oslo. The Tiger made me do it!

This is all really a Saturday Night Live skit.

[animatic]

Publicus was there then, that's why he knows the facts. I believe he knew Mr. Boland at the time.

errm. the next one. blabber, statements without checking the facts.

in case of Mr. Boland and the Boland Amendment, publicus gets his facts wrong, and id did not make to a true statement if you are going on to repeat it.

he fail to recognise his mistakes and error, fail to admit them and fail to apologise.

if publicus told you he was there, he probably lied to you. in the internet there are a lot of people out there who made-up stories. lot of thin air.

easy check is to ask them to elaborate or substantiate their fiction with facts, they can not answer and thier story collapse like a house of cards.

you should know that from your own experience or learned it by now. why keep telling BS if you can not defend it resonable?

I have met Publicus face to face and have read his writing going back 35+ years.

You I have no clue about, but he is real, and I know that for a FACT.

I suspect he was up too late in Bejing when he posted this, and mixed up War Powers amendment with Boland.

'73 -'83 dates He also is on a completely different time zone, and so can't correct in your time frame. Tough.

Boland was

"amendment to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 passed on December 8, 1982."

During the early years of the Reagan administration, a civil war raged in Nicaragua,

pitting the elected pro-Marxist Sandinista leaders of the Nicaraguan government against CIA-financed Contra rebels.

When the CIA carried out a series of acts of sabotage without congressional intelligence committees giving consent,

or even being made aware beforehand, the Republican-controlled Senate became enraged,

leading to the passage of the Boland Amendment and subsequent cutting off of funding for the Contras.

modifying

War Powers Resolution of '73

War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of

the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war within 60 days (Sec. 5().

Every president to date has declared the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has stricken down the 'legislative veto' embodied in Section 5© of the Resolution in INS v. Chadha (1983). However, in every instance since the act was passed, the President has requested and received authorization for the use of force consistent with the provisions of the resolution.

which modified

War Powers Act of October 6, 1917,

"An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."

previously modified by

Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, specifically amended that to include:

"any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

These provisions only take place when the United States is under a state of emergency,

which is why every president has declared an emergency since 1933.

Several Constitutional protections are subject to this state of emergency (or public danger):

Interestingly, you only flame the poster and demand facts, that you never search up yourself.

Clearly little more than an argument ad hominum style of discourse... which most can see right through.

Redrum bartalk.

Argument ad homminid.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[Rumfoord]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?

My politics are left leaning and if I had been an American voter my choice would always have been the Democrats.Nevertheless historians will conclude that Reagan played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the end of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe.Millions of people who lived under those discredited totalitarian regimes recognise Reagan's major role.Not an intellectual at all but a communicator of genius.His domestic economic policy was flawed but that's another matter.

the Alzheimer Reagan was a warrior, he escaleted the cold war, he pushed the nuclear arm race to a new level.

i said it before, coming from the other side of the iron curtain, people here got rid of the communist dictators without much help of Ronald Reagan. he can not take credit for that. his 'Please Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' "challange" wasn't that important. typical american hubris and overestimation of own capabilities.

his domestic economic policy was maybe flawed as you say, but i would give him much more points in that field. here he deserve respect to a certain degree.

[aka_jack]

Thai related how ?

[Bagwan]

Congratulations. I would guess that the reason they have a committee is to review, vet and decide on who should get the prize. Obviously the posters on TV aren't eligible, since they get along about as well as the Israelis and Palestinians.

When I get on the committee, I am recommending the moderators of ThaiVisa for the prize!

And I shall recommend Alfred E Neumann.

[brahmburgers]

He also is a president and supreme commander of a nation that is actively waging war at least in two fronts !

yes, wars on two fronts started by what's -his -name again???

I hate those wars as much as anybody, and in fact whenever American/European soldiers are sacrificed. But give credit where credit is due: Saddam started the first altercation by invading Kuwait, and Osama Bin Laden started the conflict in Afghanistan by attacking the United States.

Saddam asked for the 1st, yes, but that was settled with the Gulf War.

The current war in Iraq is, at most, an extension of the Gulf War. The US didn't need to invade Iraq the 2nd time. The US needs to let destructive people far away continue with their destructive ways. I'm an American, and I supported the 2nd Iraqi war, but that was because, like most of my countrymen, I believed what Colin Powell and all the 'experts' were saying at the time, "Iraq has weapons of MD and intends to use them against Israel and others." I, and hundreds of millions of others were duped by faulty intelligence and all-too-eager hawks clustering around Bush II.

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, because they actively harbored a force that attacked the US. Some European allies supported the US because they knew they could be targeted. The US is still there, because Afghanistan, like Iraq is essentially ungovernable, and Uncle Sam hates to leave a place in bureaucratic shambles.

The US has to realize that, not only are there many countries with disfunctional and harmful leaders (nearly all mideast countries, half of Africa, and much of Asia), and that's just tough tamales. Tough most of all for the little people, but Uncle Sam just can't go around trying to put out bush fires (pun intended) everywhere.

[norwegian]

And I shall recommend Walt Disney........ they have created PEACE in many family "everywhere" on the Globe,saturday and sunday morning!

[Lopburi99]

He also is a president and supreme commander of a nation that is actively waging war at least in two fronts !

yes, wars on two fronts started by what's -his -name again???

I hate those wars as much as anybody, and in fact whenever American/European soldiers are sacrificed. But give credit where credit is due: Saddam started the first altercation by invading Kuwait, and Osama Bin Laden started the conflict in Afghanistan by attacking the United States.

Saddam asked for the 1st, yes, but that was settled with the Gulf War.

The current war in Iraq is, at most, an extension of the Gulf War. The US didn't need to invade Iraq the 2nd time. The US needs to let destructive people far away continue with their destructive ways. I'm an American, and I supported the 2nd Iraqi war, but that was because, like most of my countrymen, I believed what Colin Powell and all the 'experts' were saying at the time, "Iraq has weapons of MD and intends to use them against Israel and others." I, and hundreds of millions of others were duped by faulty intelligence and all-too-eager hawks clustering around Bush II.

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, because they actively harbored a force that attacked the US. Some European allies supported the US because they knew they could be targeted. The US is still there, because Afghanistan, like Iraq is essentially ungovernable, and Uncle Sam hates to leave a place in bureaucratic shambles.

The US has to realize that, not only are there many countries with disfunctional and harmful leaders (nearly all mideast countries, half of Africa, and much of Asia), and that's just tough tamales. Tough most of all for the little people, but Uncle Sam just can't go around trying to put out bush fires (pun intended) everywhere.

Your reply I believe is completely correct, I couldn't have worded it better. I feel exactly the same. Thanks bb.

One minor disagreement - I believe Iraq can be governable. Afghanistan, unfortunately will never be and I therefore believe the US role should quickly revert to passive support only. No more loss of lives over that lost cause. IMHO.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Lopburi99

[webfact]

Lets do try to keep this within the realm of topic discussion