Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hugh-Jackman)
    Don't black people find it patronising that he gets given an award for doing relatively nothing?
    Well, Obama is half white and was raised by his white side of his family, that doesn't really make him black. The nobel peace prize is a bit stupid as Nobel greatest achievement was improving the design of dynamite.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Would the world be that different in this moment in time if Hillary, McCain, or Bush had been elected? Really??

    His approval rating is barely scraping above 50 at the moment. He has not passed healthcare, the war in afghanistan is not going well, the recovery as stated by Evan Bayh, is taking longer that they would like.

    The fact that the deadline was Feb 1st - just 12 days into his presidency - says everything.

    If he accomplishes these things fair enough, but I see no other reason for him winning this award other than he's black. The speeches to the Muslim world, Cairo etc were done after the deadline.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think that Obama deserves this prize. He has been very brave and he has united world in a amazing way in such a short period of time and he has done already so much for human rights (guantanamo, etc.). I believe this prize is a great push for his career as a president and is kind of a Europe's way of saying that "we approve your ways and keep doing the good work".

    Last years winner Martti Ahtisaari (even though he is from my country) has not done as much as Obama has done now already.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebenia)
    I think that Obama desearves this prize. He has been very brave and he has united world in a amazing way in such a short period of time
    How?


    and he has done already so much for human rights (guantanamo, etc.).
    And where did he send all the Guantanamo inmates i wonder??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol why? what for?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Barrack Obama - the best illusion of greatness created by a publicity team ever. If anyone can think of a worthwhile thing he has contributed to this world thus far, I shall be very happy to hear it. He became President because the previous incumbent and the guy he was running against were caricatures of incompetency, now he wins the Nobel Peace Prize because . . . well, because he's Barrack Obama. A man whom we have already established has done nothing. Which is a pretty damning indictment of him considering he is the most powerful individual in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am a little shocked. It says he's been awarded for it because of his work in nuclear disarmament etc. But he would have been nominated months ago, when he just started his presidency. At that point, he would have achieved very little really. And in terms of nuclear disarmament, he hasn't done much. Iran aren't listening to America.

    I'm still undecided on Obama really. Sure he's charismatic and a better option than Bush, but I think there's a lot to him than meets the eye. The new policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan hasn't been proven yet, it could potentially end in disaster .

    Personally, I think Morgan Tsvangirai should have got it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    In terms of foreign policy Obama is just a cool charismatic version of George Bush. He has escalated the war in Afghanistan, and is now pushing into Pakistan via the missile drones which are killing more civilians than enemies, thereby driving more people into the arms of radicals, thereby giving him more reasons to wage war. He makes promises about withdrawing the troops from Iraq, yet says nothing about the removal of the large offensive embassy, nor the countless military bases. He is ramping up pressure against Iran for Israels benefit, and still maintains a large military presence in the Middle East all in the name of 'national security'.

    It's just more of the same. Obama is following a neo-con agenda. Which leads me to wonder why George Bush didn't get a nobel prize??
    Where do you get the idea that more civilians are being killed than enemies? There's absolutely no grounds for that statement. Whenever there are reports of civilian deaths, there are conflicting reports saying that they were insurgents.

    Also, Afghanistan is the place where the war was supposed to take place in the first place. That's the place where Al Queda and the Taliban thrive.

    And what is this "offensive embassy" you're talking about? There's no such thing as an offensive embassy, embassies are diplomatic centers.

    And why shouldn't there be pressure on Iran?


    (Original post by Sharpshooter)
    Would the world be that different in this moment in time if Hillary, McCain, or Bush had been elected? Really??

    His approval rating is barely scraping above 50 at the moment. He has not passed healthcare, the war in afghanistan is not going well, the recovery as stated by Evan Bayh, is taking longer that they would like.

    The fact that the deadline was Feb 1st - just 12 days into his presidency - says everything.

    If he accomplishes these things fair enough, but I see no other reason for him winning this award other than he's black. The speeches to the Muslim world, Cairo etc were done after the deadline.
    What deadline are you talking about? Also, the Nobel Peace Prize is an international deal - things like healthcare in America are not taken into consideration for something like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebenia)
    I think that Obama deserves this prize. He has been very brave and he has united world in a amazing way in such a short period of time and he has done already so much for human rights (guantanamo, etc.). I believe this prize is a great push for his career as a president and is kind of a Europe's way of saying that "we approve your ways and keep doing the good work".

    Last years winner Martti Ahtisaari (even though he is from my country) has not done as much as Obama has done now already.
    Hows he united the world??? are you living in dream land??

    Everyone still hates each other!

    The only difference now is that they see America as a soft touch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    he got the rest of the world to approve of american politics...NOT an easy feat my friends
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How?
    Well, for example, before Obama became the president of USA, Europeans felt very negatively about USA politics and USA did not co-operate with Europe in a way that has been happening now. Now in the recent studies can be seen that after Obama has been elected Europeans have started to respect USA much more and Obama has made some tough decisions concearning resession and health system (in USA) and has opened the ways for open talk and discussion with the world about how things should be arranged. Soldiers in Iraq will be brought back home and so on and human rights are being respected again in a different way.

    Obama has influence world as a whole in so much more effective way than for example the other nominees for this prize. Many of those have done something smaller for peace, but Obama has influenced peaceful thinking, discussion and laws, which could have more powerful effect on a larger scale on the world than smaller happenings. I do not say that the other nominees are worthless, but I believe that this prize given to Obama has a bigger meaning behind it; "We can".

    But of course, there will be a new nobel prize handed every year and I think this was only a question of time when Obama gets it. Maybe next year there will be someone that majority is not so surprised about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    **** yeah! :yep:
    The republicans will never forgive for this... :laugh:
    They'll be like "How can Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Obama of all peope get the award but Bush and Reagan couldn't?!" :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What a joke..a nobel prize for peace..this is just attention seeking to show the stupid people who believe everything that is in the media that Obama is a great guy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Where do you get the idea that more civilians are being killed than enemies? There's absolutely no grounds for that statement. Whenever there are reports of civilian deaths, there are conflicting reports saying that they were insurgents.
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

    "LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

    Figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities show that a total of 701 people, including 14 al-Qaeda leaders, have been killed since January 2006 in 60 American predator attacks targeting the tribal areas of Pakistan. Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians"


    It's quite interesting however that the reports saying those killed were civilians are independant reports while the reports saying more insurgents were killed are those from the US gov.

    Also, Afghanistan is the place where the war was supposed to take place in the first place. That's the place where Al Queda and the Taliban thrive.
    Tell me, what did the Taliban ever do to America? Also, i would like to know why you think we invaded Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda rather than take the diplomatic approach via Pakistan and the wider Islamic community? Why do you think it was neccesary to kill tens of thousands of innocents, while driving thousands more into the hands of radicals. What don't you think diplomacy could have achieved? After all, Saudi Arabia are one of America's allies. They are even speaking to the Taliban right now about possible negotiations.

    What have we achieved in Afghanistan since 2001?


    And why shouldn't there be pressure on Iran?
    Because despite the evil of their regime. They have done nothing wrong! The IEA has found nothing illegal. The Iranians declared the existence of that "secret" base to the IEA well within the time limit set by the restrictions. Yet over the other side of the world North Korea detonate a nuclear weapon and nothing happens? .... I wonder why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because despite the evil of their regime. They have done nothing wrong! The IEA has found nothing illegal. The Iranians declared that "secret" base to the IEA well within the time limit set by the restrictions. Yet over the other side of the world North Korea detonate a nuclear weapon and nothing happens? .... I wonder why?
    Israel has 70+ nuclear bombs, I also wonder why/how they have so many...:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Now in the recent studies can be seen that after Obama has been elected Europeans have started to respect USA much more
    Source?

    and Obama has made some tough decisions concearning resession and health system (in USA) and has opened the ways for open talk and discussion with the world about how things should be arranged.
    This would have happened regardless of Obama being president. An international recession on this scale would have bought western nations together no matter who their leaders were.

    Soldiers in Iraq will be brought back home
    So far that is nothing but a promise. He has said nothing about removing US military bases, so soldiers will still be going to Iraq.

    and so on and human rights are being respected again in a different way.
    How? He may be shutting down Guantanamo, but the prisoners are just being moved somewhere less high profile such as bagrahm or other secret locations. If anything this will increase the chances of human rights abuses.

    Obama has influence world as a whole in so much more effective way than for example the other nominees for this prize. Many of those have done something smaller for peace, but Obama has influenced peaceful thinking, discussion and laws, which could have more powerful effect on a larger scale on the world than smaller happenings. I do not say that the other nominees are worthless, but I believe that this prize given to Obama has a bigger meaning behind it; "We can".
    That's extremely vauge. What exactly are these influences? what are these discussions and laws? How would you adress Obamas excalation of war in Afghanistan? All the civilians being killed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Well, for example, before Obama became the president of USA, Europeans felt very negatively about USA politics and USA did not co-operate with Europe in a way that has been happening now.
    Europe probably does look more favourably upon America. But the problems are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Palestine, Israel. What has Obama achieved here? Very little I think. I always thought it was a mammoth task to diffuse the situation in those countries. Obama is charismatic and talented but I don't think he can or will pull this one off. He is only one man after all.

    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Obama has made some tough decisions concearning resession and health system (in USA) and has opened the ways for open talk and discussion with the world about how things should be arranged.
    The way the political system is structured in America makes it hard for any of these 'radical' policies to be implemented. You think just because a fairly talented man is president, he's going to sweep past a whole army of Republicans? And his health care proposals will never ever be implemented. Although from an ethical point of view, I agree with the health plans, they will never be enforced in America. There will simply be too much opposition. The greatness of America derived from principles that oppose Obama's vision of American health care.

    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Soldiers in Iraq will be brought back home and so on
    That remains to be seen.


    (Original post by Ebenia)
    and human rights are being respected again in a different way.
    What do you mean? What he done exactly for human rights bar a few speeches on gay rights?

    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Obama has influence world as a whole in so much more effective way than for example the other nominees for this prize.
    Has he really? I personally think Morgan Tsvangirai deserved it.

    (Original post by Ebenia)
    Many of those have done something smaller for peace, but Obama has influenced peaceful thinking, discussion and laws, which could have more powerful effect on a larger scale on the world than smaller happenings. I do not say that the other nominees are worthless, but I believe that this prize given to Obama has a bigger meaning behind it; "We can".
    I don't get what you're saying here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ridicilous people who have won the Nobel PEACE Prize over the years:

    Henry A. Kissinger (CLEARLY a joke)
    Al Gore (Come on!!!! for what? climate change bull?)
    Kofi Annan (Cyprus dispute FAIL)
    Jimmy Carter (go Carter Doctrine!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Ridicilous people who have won the Nobel PEACE Prize over the years:

    Henry A. Kissinger (CLEARLY a joke)
    Al Gore (Come on!!!! for what? climate change bull?)
    Kofi Annan (Cyprus dispute FAIL)
    Jimmy Carter (go Carter Doctrine!)
    I feel Gore and Carter deserved it. I can see where you're coming from with the other two.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

    "LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

    Figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities show that a total of 701 people, including 14 al-Qaeda leaders, have been killed since January 2006 in 60 American predator attacks targeting the tribal areas of Pakistan. Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians"


    It's quite interesting however that the reports saying those killed were civilians are independant reports while the reports saying more insurgents were killed are those from the US gov.
    That site looks objective....

    Notice it says they killed 14 Al Queda leaders, but doesn't mention a single thing about ordinary fighters.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/wo...-Pakistan.html

    One attack struck a Taliban compound in Sararogha village, South Waziristan, and killed six insurgents, including two Uzbek fighters, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

    A second missile hit a house owned by an Afghan militant in Dandey Darpakhel village, North Waziristan, officials said. Seven insurgents died in the attack, they said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012903173.html

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 29 -- A missile strike killed 12 people in a remote area in northwestern Pakistan early Tuesday, and villagers said they saw an aerial drone shortly before the attack.... There were conflicting reports about who was killed, with some villagers saying women and children were among the dead and others saying only fighters had died.

    Those two articles alone, citing Pakistani witnesses, bring discredit the article you provided.

    Tell me, what did the Taliban ever do to America? Also, i would like to know why you think we invaded Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda rather than take the diplomatic approach via Pakistan and the wider Islamic community? Why do you think it was neccesary to kill tens of thousands of innocents, while driving thousands more into the hands of radicals. What don't you think diplomacy could have achieved? After all, Saudi Arabia are one of America's allies. They are even speaking to the Taliban right now about possible negotiations.
    The allied themselves with Al Qaeda and cooperated with them while allowing them to use Afghanistan as a basecamp for terrorist acts around the world. On numerous occasions, the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden after various terrorist attacks.

    Now, what diplomatic approach do you think there could have been? We asked the Taliban very nicely to turn over Bin Laden, but they refused. What does that have to do with Pakistan? What could they have possibly done about it without invading Afghanistan themselves?

    What have we achieved in Afghanistan since 2001?
    Very little unfortunately. Mostly because the Bush administration did very little in Afghanistan, instead deciding to drain our resources in Iraq.



    Because despite the evil of their regime. They have done nothing wrong! The IEA has found nothing illegal. The Iranians declared that "secret" base to the IEA well within the time limit set by the restrictions. Yet over the other side of the world North Korea detonate a nuclear weapon and nothing happens? .... I wonder why?
    The fact that they haven't done anything illegal yet (at least as far as nuclear weapons and energy goes), doesn't mean they shouldn't be pressured. Pressure is nothing more than pressure. It's not action.

    And there is definitely pressure on North Korea too if you weren't aware.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.