[vuroth]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

Out of curiosity, and I'm not saying at all that he deserved it since I'm no expert and did not expect that at all, who did deserve it in that case?

http://www.snopes.co...war/sendler.asp

I actually came across that by accident the other day. I have no idea how many people are like her, from Korea, Vietnam, Darfur, Rwanda, South Africa, Columbia, Georgia, and god only knows where else.

But I bet there are a few, anyways.

[ArtK78]

matmat, on Oct 9 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

he kept Palin out of office...

Yes, and aside from his other positive attributes, the mere fact that he replaced Bush/Cheney has to improve the prospects of world peace.

Perhaps the Peace Prize should have gone to the American electorate.

[Al_U_Card]

Biblical choice.

End of days. The prince of peace arriving on a foreign shore.

Reeks of armageddon.

Only question is, ante or anti christ?

[P_Marlowe]

cherdanno, on Oct 9 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 9 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

This award looks quite strange. Carter did not win the prize until 2002, after many years of working for peace. This year's decision seems to cheapen the Nobel Peace Prize a bit. That's too bad.

Well, the committee has made awards based on "hope this will help them in the future" rather than "look at what they accomplished" before (even though of course they wouldn't admit it). Remember Arafat?

Meanwhile, anyone know Hertha Mueller?

Arafat got the Nobel prize together with Rabin and Perez,
and their effort (together with Norway goverment) was the
best effort, which offered real hope to end the conflict.

It did not work out, but the chance was real.

That it did not work out was certainly not Arafats sole guilt,
he had certainly some responsibility, but dont forget ...,
European Union, US, ..., but we are currently discussing spilled
milk.

Lets hope Obama generates a similar big chance to start the end
of the conflict, and that may have been their reason for awarding
the prize to him.

The Nobel Peace Prize was always a price to make a statement
about current politics, Al Gore won, because they wanted to make
a statement that global warming was real.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I did not know Hertha Mueller before, and I doubt the Nobel prize
will change this.

[jdonn]

Yes having had a little time to digest it, it really seems he didn't deserve it relative to what many others have done. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be honored for it. I also think he is saying the right things today.

I also see he is donating the money to charity. Seems like the right thing to do in this circumstance.

[awm]

The Nobel Peace Prize is often given to people who advocate peace rather than people who actually "accomplish peace." Unlike the scientific awards, they don't wait until decades later to review the impact. There are many examples of Nobel Peace winners whose contributions are writing novels or even giving speeches. There are also examples of winners whose primary efforts were in a peace process that eventually didn't succeed.

A lot of the complaints about Obama being awarded this prize are on the grounds that he hasn't "accomplished anything" yet. Well, it's true that an awful lot of his advocacy for peace is just that -- advocacy. He hasn't closed Guantanamo, he hasn't pushed cap-and-trade through congress, he hasn't reduced the world's supply of nuclear weapons. He's just given speeches about wanting to do these things. That's all true, but the Nobel Peace Prize is often given out to people who advocate without necessarily having real results.

I don't think this is worse than awarding the prize to Al Gore or to Yasser Arafat. Whereas perhaps the prize should be awarded in some different way (say twenty years later when we can review the actual effects of the awardee), this seems in keeping with the way they're given out.

[cherdanno]

Btw, I don't think criticizing the committee for being "political" is fair. It's like criticizing a gay rights advocate for being political.
It's a long tradition that the prize isn't only given to people who end wars, but also for those who fight against injustice, against human right violations, against discrimination. I bet the award for Martin Luther King Jr. was also seen as political advocacy at the time. Which doesn't reflect so badly on the committee if you think about it now, doesn't it?

[kenberg]

I have a preference for how this award is to be given. I agree that this is hardly the first time that the committee uses different criteria than I would use. It's not my money so they can do as they wish, except it really isn't their money either. They control it is all. I have my preferences, fair or not.

Perhaps more than many Americans (many I know anyway), I am interested in the opinions of Europeans including their opinions about our politics. But I don't like this. I would not like it, and I suspect the French would not like it, if the Gates Foundation gave an award to Sarkozy for being a really good guy and just oh so much better than Chirac. This would be especially a problem I think if the group that chose Sarkozy to be so honored was appointed by the U. S. Congress. Honestly, it all seems tacky and tacky usually doesn't work out so well in the long run. Although Madonna is still going strong. But I stray from the point.

I was not fond of the award to Gore but at least he was out of office.

[Aberlour10]

This decision of the Nobel Committee reflects generally European standing in view of the USA, we tend to fall from one extreme to another in this case, from extremely negative view at "8 years of Bush's darkness" to a period of extremely high hopes concerning Obama's presidency. I think...to keep more aloof would avoid many disappointments later.

Robert

[goodwintr]

[QUOTE]

[awm] I don't think this is worse than awarding the prize to Al Gore or Yasser Arafat.


The perfect comment!

[Trinidad]

Ok, A European opinion.

During the 8 previous years, the language coming out of the USA was: "You're either with us or you're against us." And being against the USA had serious consequences.

The USA has antagonized a large part of the world in those years, to the extent that even Europe (one of the closest allies) was not considered loyal enough. The opinion of the international community, whether friend or foe, didn't matter. On top of that the USA policy was not backed by reason, but by emotion and by believes, rather than facts.

In those years, the USA engaged in wars with two countries, set aside international law (placing the USA above the law). The USA has threatened the stability of the world. To put it simple: The USA was the bully and our planet was the school yard.

While it is certainly true that the USA is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and Quantanamo bay is still open, Obama has achieved one thing that alone is worthy of the Nobel Peace prize: The language has changed, the USA is actively trying to set up dialogue with every part of the world and there is a willingness and ability to look at the issues from the other side. The school yard bully is changing into an adult discussion partner.

Any parent or teacher will appreciate how hard it is to turn a bully into an adult discussion partner. Obama is doing it in about a year.

Thus, the change is not in the ending of wars. It would be completely unrealistic to expect that on this short term. The change is in the unprecedented change in attitude: from aggressive to cooperative and from uncaring to taking responsibility. And frankly, if anyone would have told me in January that Obama would have achieved this change in attitude and perception in a little more than half a year, I would have told him that that would have been a completely unrealistic expectation. But Obama has done it.

Rik

[kenberg]

I hope it is so. I was thing of asking, and maybe I will start a separate thread, someting along the lines of "What do Europeans really think about Obama?". I hear him talk and he often comes across, to me, as a moralizing scold. And not just scolding Republicans. It seems obvious to me that Americans and Europeans share largely similar ideals and that our future is interdependent. But skilled diplomacy and an acceptance that we will at times have conflicting goals seems to me to be what is needed, not a lot of platitudes delivered as if the man is coming down from mount Zion (or wherever it is Moses came down from). Much of the Republican rhetoric was dreadful, symbolized by the embarrassing renaming of French Fries to be Freedom Fries. Good God. We shall see how all this goes.

[luke warm]

well i will admit better obama than taiwan... these guys will *never* win a peace prize at this rate

[cherdanno]

From a commentary on tagesschau.de (the news website of one of the main TV stations in Germany):
"Obama, who dreams of a nuclear free world, of piece in the Middle East, of a relation with the Islamic world built on mutual inspiration and respect. (...) Someone, who even wants to work with the Republicans..."

[kenberg]

cherdanno, on Oct 9 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

From a commentary on tagesschau.de (the news website of one of the main TV stations in Germany):
"Obama, who dreams of a nuclear free world, of piece in the Middle East, of a relation with the Islamic world built on mutual inspiration and respect. (...) Someone, who even wants to work with the Republicans..."

They say that I am a dreamer....

[hotShot]

I learned here in the forum, that citizens of the USA pretended to be from Canada when they were in e.g. Europe.
There was another thread about citizens from the USA who felt the need to state publicly that they did not vote GWB.
Could it be that they sensed a hostile atmosphere?

Does that hostile atmosphere still exist?
And if it is less now, isn't this an achievement?

Willy Brandt got his Nobel Peace Prize for starting a dialog with the eastern European countries in 1971, but it took till 1989 the results of this process lead to a significant step to peace.

Politics is about ideas and ideals and the Nobel Peace Prize is a political prize, so it awards ideas and ideals.

[Lobowolf]

hotShot, on Oct 9 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

I learned here in the forum, that citizens of the USA pretended to be from Canada when they were in e.g. Europe.
There was another thread about citizens from the USA who felt the need to state publicly that they did not vote GWB.
Could it be that they sensed  a hostile atmosphere?

Does that hostile atmosphere still exist?
And if it is less now, isn't this an achievement?

Willy Brandt got his Nobel Peace Prize for starting a dialog with the eastern European countries in 1971, but it took till 1989 the results of this process lead to a significant step to peace.

Politics is about ideas and ideals and the Nobel Peace Prize is a political prize, so it awards ideas and ideals.

If American citizens were subject to a hostile atmosphere in Europe because of who the President was, perhaps a European leader or two needs to step up and earn himself a peace prize.

[cherdanno]

Ok, here is the best reaction I have seen so far: from a state department spokesperson:

Quote

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

[Winstonm]

The way I figure it, the Iraqi lobby is responsible for the award, glad that Obama has decided to use the U.S. military to concentrate on killing thousands of Afghanistan and Pakistani brown people instead of killing thousands more Iraqi brown people.

Either that or the award went to Obama for simply not choking to death General McChrystal.

Or it may be that in his first 9 months in office he has managed to not start a new war, which many believe is a modern-era major-league record for newly-elected U.S. Presidents.

Or it may be the whole thing was accidentally posted by The Onion.com on the webside of the NYT.

[kenberg]

hotShot, on Oct 9 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

I learned here in the forum, that citizens of the USA pretended to be from Canada when they were in e.g. Europe.
There was another thread about citizens from the USA who felt the need to state publicly that they did not vote GWB.
Could it be that they sensed a hostile atmosphere?

Does that hostile atmosphere still exist?
And if it is less now, isn't this an achievement?

I have formulated my own approach to travel It's simple. Don't wear a suit. I am at least semi-serious.

I recall only two times I wore a suit when moving around in Europe, and both times led to some weirdness, I naively thought that I wouold go to the paris Opera house and see whatever was playing. Not the way it is done. As i was leaving someone caled me over and offered me a free coat in a package that appeared to be newly shoplifted. He explained he had just come from Rome and that this was a present so that I would not be mad at the italian people. I explained that i was very happy with the Italian people but i didn't need a coat. I always have wondered what was to happen next. I doubt it was good.

The other time was in Barcelona. I have no idea why I was wearing a suit (I had had very little sleep the night before on the train and I really can't explain at all what i was doing) but there I was rambling on the Ramblas in a suit. A gut chatted with me for a while and suggested we have a drink at a bar he new. Sure. When I got up to leave I was given a bill for $100. I put $20 on the table and announced I was leaving. A bit tense, but I got out the door.

Never any problem when I am in my usual clothes. Two times in a suit, two problems.

Being American has nothing to do with, just deep six the suit.