3 ms·

They should really have given him one before the deal. I mean, Obama got one just for showing up. (To be clear, I don't think Trump should get one; and Obama'

by eru 1y ago

They should really have given him one before the deal. I mean, Obama got one just for showing up. (To be clear, I don't think Trump should get one; and Obama's win was really weird. But, hey, if Kissinger can get one..)

kgwgk 1y ago
Maybe they didn’t want to make the same mistake: Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
anilakar 1y ago
When you fuck up world peace so badly your successor gets the prize for doing nothing...
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Not even "for doing nothing", more like "before doing anything". He wasn't even 10 months into his presidency. If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency. I'm in a circle of people who lean pretty damn far left and even at the time, the only reactions I heard were "huh, what?"
  - eru 1y ago
    > If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency. Sure, but if you want your prize to have an impact, you sometimes have to hand it out to hopefuls?
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to? To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too. Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world. It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :) 1- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 2- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
      - myrmidon 1y ago
        If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously). But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        Yeah. I'm just okay special casing "against" heads of state.
    - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
      That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
      - eru 1y ago
        Maybe. But then why restrict it to only living people?
  - netsharc 1y ago
    Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land). Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
- ekianjo 1y ago
  Obama was not doing nothing, he actively killed people by drones more than anyone before him. Nobel endorsed killer.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Even more than FDR!?!
rsynnott 1y ago
The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.
- wtcactus 1y ago
  [flagged]
timeon 1y ago
Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined. Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.

by eru 1y ago

kgwgk 1y ago

Maybe they didn’t want to make the same mistake: Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

anilakar 1y ago

When you fuck up world peace so badly your successor gets the prize for doing nothing...

rkomorn 1y ago
Not even "for doing nothing", more like "before doing anything". He wasn't even 10 months into his presidency. If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency. I'm in a circle of people who lean pretty damn far left and even at the time, the only reactions I heard were "huh, what?"
- eru 1y ago
  > If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency. Sure, but if you want your prize to have an impact, you sometimes have to hand it out to hopefuls?
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to? To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too. Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world. It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :) 1- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 2- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
    - myrmidon 1y ago
      If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously). But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        Yeah. I'm just okay special casing "against" heads of state.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
    - eru 1y ago
      Maybe. But then why restrict it to only living people?
- netsharc 1y ago
  Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land). Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
ekianjo 1y ago
Obama was not doing nothing, he actively killed people by drones more than anyone before him. Nobel endorsed killer.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Even more than FDR!?!

rsynnott 1y ago

The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.

wtcactus 1y ago
[flagged]

timeon 1y ago

Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined. Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.