4 ms·

After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.

davidpelaez 10y ago
I agree that Obama's was pretty shitty, but from my internal view as a Colombian I would really suggest that you find out about his work for peace. He's still a politician and hardly everyone's cup of tea, but he has really make a huge effort against many walls to find peace in Colombia. He has gone from defense minister all the way to finding an agreement we can implement. The patience to go between those such opposite positions is admirable.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
olau 10y ago
Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying: Only if you expect the peace prize to be awarded in the same way as physics prize. The people awarding the physics prize seem to be waiting until they are absolutely certain the discoveries are important. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mostly given to old men for things they've done decades ago, not for outstanding accomplishments in the past year. Unlike the peace prize works. Which is by the way awarded by politicians. Regarding Obama's prize, Wikipedia has this quote: Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.' I think it's hard to quite grasp how much Bush and his war rhetoric was despised in intellectual circles in Europe. Then he was re-elected, and it was really as if Americans were hellbent on the us-vs-them attitude. It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely, but that's the problem with giving out awards for something done in the past year, it may be a better motivator and much more relevant, but you might end up handing out a prize to someone who later doesn't look like he or she still deserves it.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying > It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely, Civil war in Syria. hundreds of civilian drone killings. Failed to close Guantanamo. 'It's too bad' is a huge fucking understatement. If a selection process yields peace prize to these kinds of people that is in fact, 100% worthless.
- joveian 10y ago
  Obama started executing people remotely right away, not "later". The fact that this doesn't disqualify someone for a peace prize is horrible. Since people do still pay attention to it for some reason, I'm glad that they used the prize to put more international attention on the Columbian peace process, which at least in the US seems to have barely been mentioned.
Y201K 10y ago
Really, choosing Obama as the inflection point for the legitimacy of the prize is misplaced: Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. While maybe Obama didn't do anything to deserve it, Kissinger arguably did do things that should have prevented him from being awarded it. https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI?t=2475 https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI?t=2475
- drak0n1c 10y ago
  Kissinger did help avoid western powers vs China becoming another cold war/north korea situation - he was surrounded by others who were relatively much more hawkish. In other areas he created and lengthened conflicts by aiding embattled forces (maybe he mistakenly thought it would benefit the free world, or hasten the end of conflict), but there is a question of proportion - did he create net peace or net war? Of course we can't know for certain had things gone differently. Yasser Arafat was even awarded the peace prize for his change of behavior late in life, despite his decades of fomenting terrorism and conflict, so it is not surprising that Kissinger won. Perhaps the award should only go to pacifists who have spotless records, regardless of how little impact they may have had?

I agree that Obama's was pretty shitty, but from my internal view as a Colombian I would really suggest that you find out about his work for peace. He's still a politician and hardly everyone's cup of tea, but he has really make a huge effort against many walls to find peace in Colombia. He has gone from defense minister all the way to finding an agreement we can implement. The patience to go between those such opposite positions is admirable.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

olau 10y ago

Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying: Only if you expect the peace prize to be awarded in the same way as physics prize. The people awarding the physics prize seem to be waiting until they are absolutely certain the discoveries are important. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mostly given to old men for things they've done decades ago, not for outstanding accomplishments in the past year. Unlike the peace prize works. Which is by the way awarded by politicians. Regarding Obama's prize, Wikipedia has this quote: Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.' I think it's hard to quite grasp how much Bush and his war rhetoric was despised in intellectual circles in Europe. Then he was re-elected, and it was really as if Americans were hellbent on the us-vs-them attitude. It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely, but that's the problem with giving out awards for something done in the past year, it may be a better motivator and much more relevant, but you might end up handing out a prize to someone who later doesn't look like he or she still deserves it.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying > It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely, Civil war in Syria. hundreds of civilian drone killings. Failed to close Guantanamo. 'It's too bad' is a huge fucking understatement. If a selection process yields peace prize to these kinds of people that is in fact, 100% worthless.
joveian 10y ago
Obama started executing people remotely right away, not "later". The fact that this doesn't disqualify someone for a peace prize is horrible. Since people do still pay attention to it for some reason, I'm glad that they used the prize to put more international attention on the Columbian peace process, which at least in the US seems to have barely been mentioned.

Y201K 10y ago

Really, choosing Obama as the inflection point for the legitimacy of the prize is misplaced: Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. While maybe Obama didn't do anything to deserve it, Kissinger arguably did do things that should have prevented him from being awarded it. https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI?t=2475 https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI?t=2475

drak0n1c 10y ago
Kissinger did help avoid western powers vs China becoming another cold war/north korea situation - he was surrounded by others who were relatively much more hawkish. In other areas he created and lengthened conflicts by aiding embattled forces (maybe he mistakenly thought it would benefit the free world, or hasten the end of conflict), but there is a question of proportion - did he create net peace or net war? Of course we can't know for certain had things gone differently. Yasser Arafat was even awarded the peace prize for his change of behavior late in life, despite his decades of fomenting terrorism and conflict, so it is not surprising that Kissinger won. Perhaps the award should only go to pacifists who have spotless records, regardless of how little impact they may have had?