Should Obama accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

trumpetguy · October 12, 2009, 04:11:09 PM

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 12, 2009, 01:20:57 AM
Evidence of ths charge of propaganda purposes? cmon now tg, have some respect he lost his life, for a liberal TG i had thought of you as one of the more open minded liberals out there, like i asked, any evidence of "propaganda " purposes" am curious where this comes from :thumb:a

I absolutely respect his loss of life. NOTHNG I said devalues that. However, what the ARMY brass did does devalue his sacrifice - they lied about it and knew they were lying. They asked his fellow soldiers to lie at his funeral. Wikipedia (look up Pat Tillman) has a good summary of it with links to the many stories about it. Read it and draw your own conclusions. If that is not propaganda, what is?

yamahonkawazuki · October 12, 2009, 07:52:34 PM

fair enough TG, i jumped hte gun. please accept my apology , this incident i do rememberi was a neighbor of his when i lived out west. a sad day. no matter how htey die they still died

trumpetguy · October 12, 2009, 08:37:29 PM

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 12, 2009, 07:52:34 PM
fair enough TG, i jumped hte gun. please accept my apology , this incident i do rememberi was a neighbor of his when i lived out west. a sad day. no matter how htey die they still died

Yama - no apology necessary. I didn't take it as an insult or anything!

yamahonkawazuki · October 12, 2009, 11:32:06 PM

Propaganda everywherme, past presidents preseont ones etc TBH i dont recall ever seeing one where this did not happen

JB848 · October 13, 2009, 09:32:47 AM

It has become obvious to me that the "Nobel Peace Prize" has become irreversibly tainted and corrupted by the perverse politically and financially elite!

It means NOTHING! to me and the fact that he won it is moot but it means even less to me now if that is possible. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear his name and that once respected prize in the same sentence.

There have been recent winners that have made me feel the same way so you BO lovers don't accuse me of hating anyone. It is based on principal and nothing else. If you can't respect that or understand that then just move on to the next comment.

trumpetguy · October 13, 2009, 01:27:15 PM

JB848, What do you have against Peace? Is it a worthy goal? How about reducing the size of our nuclear arsenals worldwide -- worthy goal? Seeking peace between Israel and Arab neighbors -- worthy?

What principle leads you to believe that ANY winners in the past were unworthy? Or even Barack Obama?

If you aren't on the Nobel Committee it's not your prize to give! They made a choice. End of story.

The Buddha · October 13, 2009, 01:55:52 PM

BOB is no more deserving than say, Ehud Barak or Yasser Arafat. That is the danger with picking an active politician.
However in the past they have overlooked some very deserving nominees. That trend continues I should say.

Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?

These questions have been asked frequently: Was the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee too narrow? Were the committee members unable to appreciate the struggle for freedom among non-European peoples?" Or were the Norwegian committee members perhaps afraid to make a prize award which might be detrimental to the relationship between their own country and Great Britain?

I dunno, that prize has been given to some duds in the past too.

Cool.
Buddha. (not deserving a nobel prize since 1969).

Hey, Nobel prize in GS500 ... not me ... dgyver ... damn. next year, I better buy up all of D's GS crap.

Cal Price · October 13, 2009, 02:26:33 PM

I will be the first to agree that Gandhi should have got it, that he did not will always be something of a mystery and a point of debate.
I don't think that the point about the Norwegians not wanting to upset U.K. realy stands up though for two reasons, 1) it is totally out of character for them and 2) Gandhi was and still is held in very high regard in U.K. so it is simply not an issue.

yamahonkawazuki · October 13, 2009, 11:35:24 PM

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 13, 2009, 01:27:15 PM
JB848, What do you have against Peace? Is it a worthy goal? How about reducing the size of our nuclear arsenals worldwide -- worthy goal? Seeking peace between Israel and Arab neighbors -- worthy?

What principle leads you to believe that ANY winners in the past were unworthy? Or even Barack Obama?

If you aren't on the Nobel Committee it's not your prize to give! They made a choice. End of story.

Worthy goals err things to nominate one for. BUT did BoB get this nomination based on htis. only 12 days into his tenure?, he may have tried to do these things since the nomination deadline, BUT afaik hte nomination is made upon things done prior to that point. NOT what they think he will do. correct me if i am wrong on that last matter TG or anyone else

The Buddha · October 14, 2009, 02:07:57 PM

He won it for what he wasn't. Bush.
Cool.
Buddha.

yamahonkawazuki · October 15, 2009, 11:00:46 PM

Quote from: The Buddha on October 14, 2009, 02:07:57 PM
He won it for what he wasn't. Bush.
Cool.
Buddha.

Sadly so. it seems

News:

Should Obama accept the Nobel Peace Prize?