Some ask, "Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?"

[ejbr]

I ask, "Do YOU deserve to tell me whether he does or doesn't?"

[stray cat]

1. I have yet to hear who really does deserve it this year and specifics as to why they are deserving

[yourguide]

2. He does and here's why...

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."


Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007

Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.

Explaining the bill, Obama said it reflects his view that the problems in Iraq do not have a military solution. "Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said.


The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision

Working with Sen. Hagel and Rep. Adam Schiff, Obama authored this provision, which would require the president to develop a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose.

A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

"It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands. The comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan required by this provision is an important step in that effort," Obama said of the provision.


There is also this as President:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...clear-medvedev

Quote:
Monday 6 July 2009

The US and Russia have agreed to work towards cutting deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 1,500 each under an agreement signed by Barack Obama on his first trip to Russia as president.

Obama and the Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a framework deal aimed at cutting warheads to a maximum of 1,675 within seven years of a nuclear arms reduction treaty coming into force.

Current treaties allow for a maximum of 2,200 warheads, though both sides are thought to have more than that deployed, or capable of launch. According to some expert estimates of current numbers, the new commitment would mean each side scrapping almost 1,000 warheads.


And this:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8659381&pid=77


Quote:
9/24/09, 4:48 PM EDT

In one of his many firsts on the international stage, President Obama chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council today where a resolution reaffirming the U.N.'s goal of a world without nuclear weapons passed unanimously.

Obama, who delivered an unusually blunt speech to the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday, became the first ever U.S. president to chair this meeting.

"We now face proliferation of a scope and complexity that demands new strategies and new approaches," the president said. "The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal."

[woodsprite]

5. That's good, but shouldn't Lugar and Coburn have been on it also?

Just asking. I think if that was the real reason, then they would have honored them as a group. They've done that before, haven't they?

I know this isn't it, but I just keep thinking maybe it's an international 'bird' or slap-in-the-face to convservative pubs and Limbaugh after all they've been saying about the Olympic selection.

[yourguide]

8. Did Lugar and Coburn also

Do his early work as Pres for non-proliferation as well?

The point is as Senator and President he's already blazing on this issue. Just because every achievement in this arena wasnt trumpeted by the media it doesnt mean the Nobel committee didnt recognize what he's already done as Senator and President as well as the pledges he'd put forth as a candidate that he's already begun working toward with so much else on his plate.

[RetroLounge]

16. Obama in a superman costume in front of a flag?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RL

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

3. no, none of us should challenge what the "experts" & media tell us.

We should just be blind followers.

Hail, Obama.

Wars? Nobody said Peace Prizes should be about peace. Let's get real.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

4. +1 n/t

[ejbr]

11. You're right

we should just blindly act without considering the consequences. Good idea!

[Cha]

14. CorporateWhoreMedia says Obama shouldn't have won..fucking

limpbaugh says no..

Michael Moore says Yes, Congratulations, PO.

"Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore"


"My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8695710

"Ten reasons Obama won the Nobel"

The original post says "deserved". I won't grant that, though -- as the citation notes, 'fact has no affiliation' -- this should end the discussion (and would if the whining objectors had any common sense whatsoever):


Before he became president -- Obama forcefully argued, at great political risk, that the U.S. should talk to its enemies (famously, in a debate with John McCain). He convinced a majority of Americans, and that is now U.S. foreign policy.

January 22 - On his second day in office, Obama announced plans to close Guantanamo in a year. He has made great diplomatic efforts to find residences for innocent detainees, even as fearmongers accused him of wanting to release terrorists in America.

February 27 - Obama details his plans to pull out of Iraq. He made his speech in front of uniformed Marines and explained that combat troops would be out by 2010.

March 13 - Obama Justice department drops 'enemy combatants' label on detainees, marking a return to the Geneva Conventions.

April 5 - Outlines details of nuclear weapons reductions plan in a speech to the public in Prague. The plan calls for intense international diplomacy and a respect for the right of fledgling countries to enrich uranium for energy purposes, proposing an international nuclear fuel-bank for those aims. All this was in the face of North Korean long-range missile testing.
April 13 - Repeals restrictions on Cuban Americans, allowing them to visit home as long as they want and to send money. Also allows telecommunications companies to pursue agreements in Cuba, hoping to promote communcation. This is the boldest move towards peace with Cuba any president has made in over 40 years.

June 4 - Obama makes landmark speech in Cairo, in which he quotes three different holy texts and speaks Arabic. Again, at tremendous political risk at home, Obama makes empassioned tribute to the achiements of the Muslim world and admits U.S. role in overthrow of Iranian government, attempting to create environment of honesty, respect, and cooperation.

June 27 - The U.S. begins removal of combat troops from major cities in Iraq.
July 6 - Obama heads to Russia to speak with Russian president about nuclear arms reduction. He makes a speech at a Russian University, notably saying, "There is the 20th century view that United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists. And that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view, that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance on another. These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonishing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over."
Sept 24 - In a first for a U.S. president, Obama presides over a U.N. Security Council summit, where members unanimously agreed to a sweeping strategy to stop the spread of and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/ten-reasons-obama-won-nobel.html

[ampad]

6. Why let them bother you?

I believe some of them truly have concerns however, some do not like this president, and some are still pissed bout the primaries. What is sad is that there are a few who are hiding behind some righteous cause that in reality they could give a damn about. It is about this particular man. Really sad and worthy of ignoring.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

7. true, but others, if you search their posts, were behind Obama from day one...

...and they just can't understand how the Nobel Peace prize can, in effect, sanction war. Obviously, there are numerous reasons why Obama was the best in the field to become President. Obviously, on balance, we are much better off with him, in my humble opinion, than without him.

But to think that anyone whose policies--and there is no refuting that they are HIS now--have resulted in ongoing bloodshed can deserve a Peace Prize...well, there we part company. It's an award of such prestige, that to award it to someone for many good reasons doesn't preclude the award and its esteem from legitimizing America's dark side, too.

With all his numerous diplomatic achievements thus far, and when/if he gets the U.S. out of Afghanistan, then I'll be the first to talk Peace Prize for him. But unfortunately we're a lot of ongoing bloodshed away from that time.

[NikkiN]

9. This is why...

This is the statement issued by the committee with my emphasis and comments in bold...


The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

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.

Note that they cite "efforts," "vision," and "work for" things like international diplomacy and cooperation. This has been the case in the awarding of the prize to many other recipients. The committee often awards the prize based upon intentions and efforts rather than outcomes.

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.

There is an obvious reference here to a renewal of diplomacy over the past era of aggression that was endured under the Bush administration. Additionally, the emphasis in making the award was largely based upon Obama's efforts and dialogue which have both resulted in a more favorable view of the United States and in world stability and climate. Again, the award is not always based upon outcome. What part of that is so difficult for people to understand? It is irrefutable that with the election of Obama and his move toward diplomacy and negotiation rather than aggression and bullying that a more rational and peaceful tone is being set in the international sector.

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.

Can anyone argue the point that President Obama has captured the world's attention? Or that he has given millions upon millions of people around the world hope? Hope that peace will come. Hope that, perhaps, sanity will rule the day. Hope that the greatest country on Earth will no longer be the aggressor but the peace-maker.

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."

Clearly, the intent of the prize is not to applaud or reward accomplishments or outcomes but to honor those who the committee believes are endeavoring to make this world a better place.


Across the nation, right-wing pundits and disgruntled Republicans, so-called "Patriots" and militia-minded individuals are denouncing the awarding of this honor to our President. Some on the left are joining with them in a chorus of disapproval citing his lack of tenure and actual accomplishments as a reason for their discontent.

But, is their disapproval really that benign? Perhaps it is rooted in their lack of true understanding of the prize itself. Or, perhaps it is simply another vehicle by which they can attempt to besmirch and belittle the man to whom they lost their power base. Maybe it's all of those things.

The whine of the right is a loud one, for certain. Pitiable, really. For, in all of their lamenting and bemoaning it appears they have lost all of their joy, all of their emotional appetite for happiness, all of their sense of pride, all of their dignity, and all of their self-respect. In all of their plans to "take this country back," they seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a "real" American who celebrates our victories, our recognitions, and our people.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

10. I have no qualms with much of what you said. It's more basic, though...

An award that honors peace and confers such esteem was given to a man representing all of our warring nation's policies, too. Less warlike? Yes. With an eye to a future peace? Yes. Did he inherit the mess? Yes, of course. Are we a lot better off with him than without him? Obviously. Does that warrant the Nobel PEACE Prize? No.

In my opinion, the RIGHT has utterly misplayed this, because this award sanctions and fuels the interests of their stakeholders. Who benefits from continued war in Afghanistan? Which people? Which companies? Which brand of rhetoric? And why wouldn't they want a president who is an ardent advocate for peace, one who even takes many constructive steps toward peace and safety for the planet and is recognized for it by the planet's most esteemed prize for peace--while he expands a war?

You really think there's ONE defense contractor upset about this? Their work has just been legitimized as part of this president's overall U.S. policy--which now is good enough for THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE while we wage war.

The right is only arguing against it because they're too idiotic and often too racist to see the gift they've been handed. And because progressives are willing to defend an award that actually provides cover for the military establishment.

Peace.
--AFT

[NoSheep]

13. Thank you. eom

[PretzelWarrior]

12. others still say "What took him so long?"

[RetroLounge]

15. Wow, that's amazing logic!

:rofl:

RL

[mkultra]

17. Do you deserve to ask us that question?

The answer to all three is the same.

[ProSense]

18. The men of peace

agree

[Umbral]

19. It's not like he didn't just send another 13 thousand troops to Afghanistan...

He must be trying to win another prize next year.

[ZombieHorde]

20. "Do YOU deserve to tell me whether he does or doesn't?"

Yes, I do deserve to tell you whether he does or does not because we are both on a debate board where such topics are discussed.

[jeanpalmer]

21. And I deserve the Nobel prize

for literature for my posts on DU.

[ZombieHorde]

23. I suggested you to the board and you are being considered. nt

[CJCRANE]

22. Yes because I get all my opinions from an Australian billionaire.

You have to think for yourself, that's very inefficient when you could have a news corporation do your thinking for you.