BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Democratic Party President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

This from the Huffington Post:

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

What do you think? I think the rest of the world thinks we've got a good guy who's on the right track leading us. And I agree!

I was so excited to read the news. Yes, Barack Obama does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 !

From what I've read in articles about Pres Obama by the European press, I'm not sure they will agree he deserves this award. Here are a few of the comments so farfrom several European sources published in the Wall Street Journal. The comments to this posting are also revealing.

Hopefully, it will inspire him to actually try and bring some peaceful solution in the middle east and to the 2 wars America is currently waging in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far his efforts have not proven very fruitful.

Here are some more European comments as well as from Americans.

I think this may have an adverse effect on Pres Obama, more than a positive one, in the end because it may cause people to actually evaluate what he has and hasn't done so far.

There is always negative comments to go with positve. I am proud of our President and from those folks that I know in Europe they are as well. Thank goodness we now have someone in office that most of the rest of the world can respect rather than consider a joke - the last eight years has decimated our reputation in the world view and in only half a year it has been reclaimed - quite a feat for one man to accomplish in so little time.

Thank you all for your comments and links. I think the award is a carrot from the rest of the world, saying "run faster, you can do it." Is it also a reaction to GWB? I think so. But again, that's encouragement from the rest of the world, saying, "Hey Amerca, you finally shed the "axis of evil" guy. Here's a little prize to keep you motvated to do better."

I hope this gives him clout to start shutting down the two wars. Wishful thinking . . .

Lets be honest- if Obama wanted to bring all the troops home by Christmas, he could: It would involve standing up to the UN, something George W. Bush never accomplished, either.

Cindy, why would he have to deal with the UN? I agree he can bring the troops home if he wants to, but I think the obstacle is the Dept.f Defense and the Americans who think withdrawal = defeat and defeat makes us not good "cowboys."

Depends how he words it. if he tells the Pentagon that the troops are needed at home ( for example, parts of Georgia are still reeling from the floods)they might go along- the objective is a well defined mission, which no longer exists in Iraq, anyway. I think Obama would win that one.

So do I, Cindy. It's Afghanistan that's going to be a little tougher. Isn't it funny how history gives us such obvious lessons (i.e., Vietnam) and yet we find it o hard to learn them.

Thanks for your comment.
Susan

The reason President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize is because he wants to turn our country "socialist" like many other countries. This is his reward. He has not done anything to deserve it. George Bush kept this country safe for 8 years because of top intelligence, waterboarding interrogation and the Patriot Act which states: "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." I felt that if our intelligence did not stop an attack in time, George W. Bush would not have hesitated to respond. President Obama, in my opinion, does not have the courage to defend our country in a time of war.

I think you need to read the citation for his awarding of the Nobel Prize. I think you are slightly misinformed.

There was an interview with author Gordon Goldstein about his book, Lessons on Disaster. I turned on the TV towards the end of the interview so I missed most of it. Altho' about Vietnam, there were comparisons being made to the War in Afghanistan.

The idea of thinking GWB deserves a peace prize for advocating and enabling illegal intelligence-gathering, torture, and blind leaps into wars is astounding to me.

I just heard someone (sorry, don't know who) say on Meet The Press that one of the big questions for our country is whether to act alone and militarily or with other countries and diplomatically.

Obviously, you are one of the people who would favor the former style. The prize was awarded to Obama for starting us on a shift to the latter style, which seems to be the way the world in general is going. A world that is beginning to see war as futile and diplomacy as something to strive for? Sounds good to me.

As for terrorists, they are thugs and should be treated as such, in a criminal court, in my opinion.

As for courage, I think it takes more courage to try to work things out with people intellectually than to just strap on your holster and shoot at them. (I don't mean that soldiers are not courageous; of course, they are. I mean that for heads of state, taking the diplomatic path requires more courage than sending others into war.)

Thanks for your provocative comments.

Yes, Angie. Big comparisons. Adding more soldiers and then more soldiers, following advice from generals who say "Just a little more time and a few more soldiers and we can win this thing" again and again and again, until you have a quagmire: a situation from which extrication is very difficult.

It's what destroyed LBJ and I hope Obama does not follow the same path.

Susan, no one wants war, but sometimes you have to defend yourself. Islamic terrorism is a fact and not a fairy tale. These people are out to destroy Israel first and the United States second. When the Iraq war started, there were many other countries that went into it with us. We did not act alone militarily. We are dealing with terrorists and however we get the info is fine with me. These people do not follow any rules. Waterboarding helped us to save the lives of many people and many do not consider it to be torture. As for 'leaping blindly into war' is ridiculous. We were attacked or did you forget 911. The way Obama is heading is going to get a lot of Americans killed unless he takes a strong stance against terrorism, and gives our soldiers what they need to finally get the job done. And even once our courageous soldiers are home, terrorism is something we are going to be fighting for a long, long time. These people hate us and they want to wipe us off the map no matter what we do or don't do.

We disagree on so many points, it would take a very long email to list them. I'll just note two: 1) September 11th and the Iraq War are not related at all. 2)What does "getting the job done" mean? Should we just nuke the Middle East? Would that make you feel safe?

Thanks for your opinion about how Obama should get to work killing "these people" who want to wipe us off the map. If anyone else cares to comment on that, please do. There are some discussions I've had so many times, I just can't do it anymore, and this is one of them.

You may find more support on the Republican Party forum.

Susan, to be fair, I did not see where Gem Girl said Obama should get to work killing anybody.

I've got to admit that I was pretty chocked to hear that Obama had won the Peace Prize as well. I felt that in this instance they awarded it to him for the fact that he bowed down and said "I'm sorry, the US is wrong - everyone else is right" (major paraphrasing there).

Around the globe countries do not like the US, they think we have too much power, freedom, money (haha), etc. So for our President to apoligize for us makes a lot of other powers very happy. I think this is the true reason he won it, sadly.

As to the Iraq War and sept 11th - they are related - NOW, it is just that 9/11 was not the cause of the war as so many people think. We were in the gulf - the terrorists saw thhis as a chance to retaliate - we escalated - and so on. It just keeps going, getting bigger and more people are dying.

The wars in the Middle East have been going on since Biblical times - I don't see them stopping anytime soon. We need to get out, but we need to do so in a way that keeps our people safe. I know our men and women don't want it to be a wasted effort, but I'm not sure there is anything we can ever do over there to change anything. if it ever really comes down to us needing to protect oursleves, then we need our forces at home.

Being safe is an illusion created by those that rule by fear and falsehoods. Bush went after the wrong man in the wrong country - Bin Laden was never in Iraq - nor was the Taliban until we opened the country to instability with our attacks - which were initiated with lies, deception and no real provocation - 911 did not come from Iraq.

Our country is in decline due our reluctance (in the past) to give up the staunch nationlistic viewpoint encouraged by the last administration and to open ourselves up to a more global way of thinking and doing business. Terrorists or not we cannot continue to enact states of war with the rest of the world - this only serves to keep us isolated and behind the rest of the planet.

Diplomacy has always been a more difficult and courageous approach to making nice with one's neighbors - much easier to punch a bully than to reason with one. I am very glad that our current President is willing to go that route before sending more people into harm's way. Mr. Obama has been handed a mess and it will take a great deal of time to clean it up. Thank goodness he is willing to deal with things with intelligence, decorum and an attitude more fitting the 21st century rather than inquisitions of old.

Michelle,
You wrote "Susan, to be fair, I did not see where Gem Girl said Obama should get to work killing anybody." and you are right. Gem Girl, I apologize. You pushed my buttons and I let it get to me.

You also wrote: "they [other countries] think we have too much power, freedom, money (haha)." I don't think that is why they didn't like us. I think they didn't like us because we acted superior, haughty, and as if we didn't need the rest of the world. (e.g., not signing the Kyoto Treaty).

As for your other comments, Michelle, I, as usual, agree with Susan, horses.

Thanks for setting me straight about my wrongful statement,
Susan

It's ironic you should mention the "Inquisitions of Old." That was when the Catholic Church and Priests of Europe said "Our Way or the Highway," (highway to hell that is).

Maybe we're having a "Congressional Inquisition" right now. And the President seems to be relishing in it, bowing to other leaders, hemhawing about troop reinforcements to get the job done and bring our guys home, rallying for proposed bills his own press secretary admits he hasn't read in full.

I'm showing my years here, I remember Vietnam. But being a student of history, one of the main problems was polical inclusion and indecision in the military strategies. Yes, I think we may be making the same mistakes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it continues with this administration.

As for the Nobel Prize, President Obama must have won for what he's said (more accurately read from his speech writers), or maybe it's an influence thing. Now that's a double bladed sword, which cuts as deeply going in, as coming out! Call me naive, but I actually thought this award was for deeds, not words. But then I'm not certain what Al Gore won for either. Making tons of money from the global warming issue?

My goodness, you sound very upset about current conditions.

I really don't see President Obama relishing anything: I see him working very hard in one of the most difficult set of circumstances any president has ever faced.

And, in direct opposition to "my way or the highway," he's bent over backwards trying to get Republican inclusion on issues.

I'll call you naive, because the award is given for deeds or words. According to Nobelprize.org, "In addition to humanitarian efforts and peace movements, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control." The specific award to Obama was for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"Efforts" can require words sometimes before deeds can be accomplished. Many words are needed to change the attitude of the rest of the world toward America as a greedy, bullying starter of preemptive war before the rest of the world and America can sit down together to discuss how to enact arms control and how to combat global warming.

Al Gore does not promote climate change to make tons of money. He's trying to save the planet. I don't know where you get your information, but it seems to be coming from mean-spirited people.

The Nobel committee stated why he won the award. The award is not necessarily for only deeds according to the research i have done.

I am not sure if I agree with Obama winning the award, however, I am not the committee, and I do not know what their deliberations entailed. Remember, he was nominated before Feb 1, so it is based on his actions as a senator, anda candidate and one month as president.

The question that keeps going around and around in my head is - do all that see only negatives with regard to President Obama base their opinions on anything other than the propadanda of the last eight years, the Republican spin machine and Fox news? The man is a scholar, prior to becoming a politician did more with his life on his own than many politicians can even dream of accomplishing and has tried to keep to the promises of his campaign despite being handed an incrediably broken political system.

Those that wish to hold on tight to the devisive and negative contrivances that have taken hold of this country will ultimately bring us further into decay. My wish is that you take a breath, get your information from intellectual sources and try to step away from the same old tactics that the last administration was so good at fostering - opposing views are great but let's be a bit more mindful of where those views are born.

exactly Susan.

I don't think that the committee noted exactly why they chose Obama.
But alot of factors go into it I'm sure.

Just by getting elected he created a new beginning in many an eye. The ferver as well as any accomplishments just were a bonus! After all he is the single most recognized person in all of the world today! (with the exception MIchael Jackson)

Mary Caliendo

The prize committees words: The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.

The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Additionaly from Obama:

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize - men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build - a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action - a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Jase and Mary tea,

I am glad you shared your beautifully expressed view on this subject and I couldn't agree more with all that you said so well.

Mary-tea - I love your optimism.

These are the kinds of hopeful attitudes our new President wants to foster.

Imagine a world where war is only in history books, we all get cared for without worry and are encourgared to flourish without stepping on the toes of everyone and thing on the planet.

I am not naive and realize that considering where we now are on the evolutionary scale of growth that war and violence will still be part of our existence but unless we start thinking otherwise we will never move past this rather infamous trait (of humans) - I chose to follow those that will at least try to move us in that direction.

And if for no other reason Mr. Obama's book - "The Audacity of Hope" could have been enough for the peace prize - it does a great job of addressing many ills of our politcal system, offers solutions that keep in mind the entire population and not those few lucky enough to have no worries in their life other than watching their investments on Wall Street

I just wish Obama would discover his backbone- so far, he hasn't used an executive order once: He could do so much good- impose a Soda, junkfood fax, or increase SNAP food credit for low income Americans on restricted diets- SOMETHING, Anything. Obama needs to flex his muscles a little.

diplomacy takes time but I agree in the end he may have to flex his political muscles a bit to get the job done - I think he will get there.

I think the reason Obama's agenda has stalled is because he's too "nice". He's got to stop campaigning and put his foot down.
Congress will gripe, but considering how low they are in the polls, I doubt anyone will care.

I agree - it may be time to do just that

Thank you, Susan and Jase and Mary: you all pretty much said what is in my article posted today on why Obama won. I appreciate your research, Jase.

Let's take a moment and celebrate that we have a president who uses his power for good!! : )

I will admit to leaning farther to the right than being a Democrat (I won't say I'm a Republican anymore - they've ticked me off, too much lately. I voted independent - Libertarian, in the elections)

I just actually thought that the woman (I am so horrible with names!) that worked so hard in China for peace in that country would be the one to win. I didn't even realize our President was in the running until the announcement thast he had won!

Michelle I have no doubt that the Nobel prize committee has a tough job choosing and it is with great thanks to those many who do endeavor towards peace in our world that it is such a tough decision. Perhaps Obama did get the award because of the notoriety that comes from being a US president - but considering that putting peace into the news can only be a good thing - it was, in my opinion, a wise and fortuitous decision.

I also have no doubt that there are many more people out there(whose names no one will ever hear) who are all working in the trenches toward the same end - my heart and appreciation go out to all those that serve such noble and grand ideals. And now that we have a world leader who is know more for diplomacy rather than swagger maybe following a peaceful road will be more appealing.

All here are so versed in the President's accomplishments, can we start a thread on the details of these? I'm having difficulty with finding that.

Good idea -- I'll do that right now! Thanks for the suggestion.

Susan

Cindy, just for the record, he has signed five executive orders since taking office:

1. to order the closing of Guantanamo.
2. to order a review of detainee policy
3. to ensure lawful interrogations
4. to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records
5. to order every appointee in every executive agency to sign an ethics pledge

I agree with you. He deserves it for approach with other countries in establishing world peace. Let us hope he would do better than this in future. Thanks for sharing with us.

Thank you for your comment. I hope you'll drop by again.
Susan