I'm sure most of you would have heard about the decision to present Obama with the nobel peace prize yesterday. He was met with gasps of shock and various 'colourful' responses.

I personally am not against the choice, and I can see why he was a candidate. It strikes me odd, however, that he should be rewarded it. Sure he's gone to great lengths to strengthen international relations and reduce nuclear arms, but the other candidates were no less deserving.

Interesting how he got it while still advocating sending soldiers to Iraq.




So what does everyone think? Was he a deserving candidate - a good choice for the prize - or was it perhaps not the best decision?

It's hard to say weather a person deserves or not such an honor like Nobel prize. Peace is very related to politics, and for that reason a choice is always delicate. Obama has his merits, anyway, despite other difficult (or not very peaceful) decisions that he must make due to his duties as a president. Even when he is the commander in chief, sometimes military and other forces in government have the final word in such situations. Again, is very hard to say.

I have problems with the very issue of reconsidering the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. I am shocked by the fact that it has been awarded to President Obama after such a short period of time in office, but there is no requirement that the winner of the prize be in the spotlight of the world's populace for some specified period of time prior to the presentation of the award.

Whether the award is in the field of medicine, science, literature, or for promoting world peace; the awarding of the prize is an arbitrary and subjective action. There is no such thing as a, "deserved" Nobel Peace Prize. To be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the winner must capture the imagination of the Nobel Peace Prize award committee, and not the consensus of the world's population. When exploring the floor of the ocean a few years ago scientist of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution discovered marine life that existed in the complete absence of sunlight. It was life that was bases on chemo-synthesis not photo-synthesis. This form life form is also known as extremophile. This all means that when you search for life in other places in the universe there is no, "goldie locks zone."

When I was in primary and secondary school every quality physical science book explained that life was impossible outside of the, "goldie locks zone." Well those science books were wrong. What they explained as true was as valid as students in the year 1000 of the current era being told that the sun revolves around the earth. The science team of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution rewrote the science book, but the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded this year's prize for work that developed the digital camera. How would you have awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize in the area of science? Would you have awarded it for work that made digital cameras possible, or discoveries that corrected mankind's misunderstanding about the limits of evolutionary life in the universe? The choice appears to be a subjective one; like the awarding of the prize to President Obama.

The choice of who or what gets the Nobel Prize, is simply a matter of who or what inspires the imagination of the committee most. There are no deserved Nobel Prizes, just awards of the prize that make you think.

Well said

@$proxima

Yes, well said. I do agree.


But what of the award's credence or integrity? Despite its being arbitrary and subjective, isn't there still some substance behind it, or does this also fade with these attributes?

@$ChrisWas: There is nothing wrong with making a decision on the basis of subjective considerations. Wise individuals and effective managers act on the basis of subjective opinion daily. That sounds like a rather dramatic statement, but I assure you it is not. Observe that when I go to the store to purchase a soft drink I choose between Pepsi and Coke. On what subjective criteria do I base my decision... I like the taste of Coke better. There is nothing wrong with that choice. I have some free time and I browse through the forum topics and I decide to enter this discussion. Why, the topic seems to offer more intellectual appeal. It's a subjective choice and completely arbitrary.

In the western hemisphere we rave about our political systems of government. We call them democracies, but the truth is that they are generally republican timocracies that allow all registered citizens to feel that they have influential control over the government. We citizens gauge our control over government by measuring our ability to make subjective choices about which would-be leader we find most appealing. There are no objective rules for selecting our government leaders. Most of the time we select the mediocre, every now and then we select a demagogue or dumb-ass, and then occasionally we select the outstanding; and we do it subjectively. There is nothing wrong with choices made using subjective and arbitrary criteria.

You also asked about credence and integrity. What we believe and our sense that the belief is based on honest fact is reinforced when we are told by the presenter, " ... I think." Not, " ... this is" but, " ... I think" If I tell you, I think that there is a God that is kind and that cares for us all (subjective). You are more willing to believe that this is my honest belief than if I tell you, There is a God that cares for us all and is kind (objective). The Nobel committee makes its choices every year and I always find the choices thought provoking and I never doubt that the committee thought long and hard about the selection. The credence or integrity of the committee is not is not diminished, and I don't think Alfred Nobel would be embarrassed by the way his money is currently being used.

Proxima

That sounds like a rather dramatic statement, but I assure you it is not.

Indeed, it was the tone that may have set me back a step. Nevertheless, I still agree. I appreciate the response, it's good to see some real thinkers on this forum.

My opinion might be a little biased mostly because I don't live in America, but I don't think Barack really deserved the Nobel Peace prize at all. From what I've read he was only elected 11 days before the candidature closed, leaving little room for him to do anything monumental or deserving of such a prize. This has sort of projected an image that the prize has become much of a joke in some respects - the last few winners have all been celebrities...

Well he is one of the first persons of color to lead a formerly slave owning nation. He's no Nelson Mandela just yet, but his once immpossible election has to count for at least a little something. When I was younger, I truly believed that I lived in a country where I and even my future children could be anything but president of the United States. I also think that he does have yet to prove himself, but at the same time he has nothing to prove to those who scrutinize him and put him on an unfair pedalstool with a false pretences in thier minds that it's his job is to save the world. Any one thinking that way needs to stop, it's immature in my oppion to see anyone as anything other that what they are-human. But there is something about this that may apply to both sides; every one seems to be thinking idealistically rather than realistically. Some people may think idealistaclly he is resposible for EVERYTHING and the prize committy could have been considered idealistic for choosing him before allowing him to come by any other achivements in office. I can agree to a certain extent with proxima's original post as well because it was very level, however this occurance is more surprising than shocking to me.

I was a little surprised when I heard about this myself. I live in America, and I think for many of the people I've asked it's been a sort of scratch-the-head situation, and asking, "What exactly has Obama done to deserve a Nobel?".

I like President Obama myself, and am very glad he was elected president. I think he's an intelligent, practical, good-hearted and all-around great man to have as our leader. And it's true, his presidency is definitely historic, given the past travails of our nation. But... I think that isn't so much a triumph of Obama the man, so much as it is a triumph of the times themselves, that we as a people have grown beyond a lot of the horrible past preceding us. I don't mean to diminish any of his efforts thus far, certainly President Obama has done a great deal of footwork to get his initiatives running off the ground, but it's not like he's really done anything spectacular or earth-shatteringly great yet in his administration to speak of. That is to say, his presidency isn't accomplished quite yet, it's still in the running.

And really, most of the media here in the U.S. bandies about the controversy surrounding many of the new changes that President Obama and his administration are attempting to pass (primarily regarding the health care reforms), so more often than not we hear the difficulties that he's facing, along with the controversy, as opposed to anything of particular import that his administration has yet accomplished. I myself haven't really heard of any great triumphs persay, outside of perhaps re-establishing and rebuilding mature communications with many of the nations alienated by the former Bush presidency. Which is wonderful of its own accord, of course, but not beyond the normal scope of a president on the world stage.

I suppose the general view of the Nobel prize is that it awards notable achievements and accomplishments well above and beyond the normal. So for many of us here it's a wonder what singular thing President Obama of his own accord has yet achieved that's worthy of such a designation, something like creating a new food source or negotiating peace between warring nations. Perhaps that's something only the Nobel judges in Sweden know.

RedZeshin

I myself haven't really heard of any great triumphs persay, outside of perhaps re-establishing and rebuilding mature communications with many of the nations alienated by the former Bush presidency. Which is wonderful of its own accord, of course, but not beyond the normal scope of a president on the world stage.

I'm glad you made this point. How very true a statement, that it is a fantastic thing, but not outside of the challenges that should be undertaken by a president. His efforts to this end have definietly been highlighted, proceeding the Bush years.



I suppose the only thing I can think of would be Obama's signatory agreement with Medvedev to have some follow-up agreement when START-1 expires in December.

What do you think of this? It is a good thing, definitely. Good enough to merit the prize do you think? Or is this included in reforming international relations?

God he is boring...
He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine

satoushigeki

God he is boring...
He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine

When it comes to the actions of the United States in: Iraq and Palestine, I appreciate your sentiments. When we discuss Palestine I don't think that the Bush administration could have done more to destroy previous peace efforts in the area if it had tried. The gross stupidity of ignoring Palestinian grievances for the sake of blindly supporting Israeli objectives was about as low as we could go. When we discuss the war in Iraq... It was nothing more than an act of naked aggression designed to gain control of what the Bush administration considered to be easily obtainable petroleum resources.

The war in Afghanistan, however is an entirely different matter. On September 11, 2001 the United States of America was aggressively attacked by the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. The United States of America was attacked by use of a proxy force under the command of Osama bin Laden, and expressly supported by the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. The Taliban has expressed, to the world's population, in no uncertain terms that if it can reassert control over Afghanistan it has every intention of continuing its support of all efforts to injure the United States and its people. If Barack Obama feels that the Nobel Peace Prize is a mandate to abandon the war in Afghanistan; he can take it and put it where the sun does not shine.

We Americans did not start the war in Afghanistan! We were forced into the war in Afghanistan. Barack Obama's duty is not to appear sweet and loving in the eyes of the worlds population. His duty is to defend the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. If President Obama knows what is good for him, he will not forget that fact. We Americans did not aggress to war in Afghanistan, and we have been told by the Taliban that they intend to die before they will let us live in peace. If defending the United States means that, we as a nation must turn Afghanistan into an irradiated ash heap to deal with the Taliban and its proxy, Osama bin Laden... then so be it. Sometimes peace means war. I'll be one citizen that will piss on the ashes and not lament a single collateral loss. If the world wants us Americans to leave Afghanistan before we have won the war there, someone had better muzzle and chain the Taliban cur that resides there.

Americans did not start the war in Afghanistan, but they get into it by their own will, as part of their attempts to oppose Soviet policies, get into the Persian Gulf, selling missiles to Saudi Arabia and a long list of ill-intended etceteras. Talibans are actually an ironic consequence of US involvement in Afghan wars.

But wait, you were talking about Nobel prize, not starting a political brawl. Obama deserve it? I'd say yes, at least his attempts worth it: few leaders of powerful (or decadent) nations are doing something similar right now. Compared to his predecessors, he is the first president that actually has look for peace instead of begin or foster belligerent actions. He will keep this policy? Time will tell.

In deed we Americans have made mistakes. We have: adopted bad policies, wasted resources in asinine conflicts; and we have made every mistake that free thinking humans are prone to make. Which human, or nation of free thinking humans have not erred in their actions? By what warrant does any other individual, or nation claim the right destroy us for being human and having erred?

When it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize; it is for daring to stand up and proclaim the humanity of the individual self, or of others that it is usually awarded.