[quote=“Stian”][quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]I hate Americans for stuff like this.
[/quote]
Why?! You sold hate Norwegians for being cock suckers.
I know as a Norwegian i hate my country right now.
Sadly some politicians or there friends ended up in the Nobel comity.
Obama did not want to receive our prime minster as a visitor and don’t want to come to Norway so they force him by giving him a price.
Like earlier stated the leader of the comity is also ex prime minister and a member of the sitting government.[/quote]
Damn, thanks for clarifying.
Canada has only had TWO Nobel Peace prize winners, ever. It just sucks to see America getting stuff left and right that they don’t deserve. :bluemad:
My favorite nomination was from National Lampoon back in the 70s when they proposed French President Giscard d’Estaing for putting exchange restrictions on the franc, thus keeping the French at home and stopping them from annoying everybody else in the world.
[quote=“Jaboney”]A troubling thought occurred to me while asking myself, “Why now?”
Sure, the selection committee wants to recognize and encourage America’s reorientation and reengagement, but why now?
Well, they may not be able to do so in a couple of years: it’s crazy season, and the Nobel prizes are never awarded posthumously.[/quote]
True. The man receives three times as many death threats as Bush, that tells you a lot. If he lasts four years I’d be very imprssed with the Secret Service.
I think it is the same as in Central America: support for the line of work, the new direction, not recognition towards past deeds. He was nominated less than two months into his Administration.
[img]I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
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.
[/img]
I’ll say it again. I hate Americans. I hate them because I just checked my Facebook and an embarassuing number of my fellow Canadian friends are all making fun of Obama in their status updates.
Bring back Bush, it was so much easier to hold one’s head up.
By rights, the prize should have gone to George W. Bush. Why? Because the terms of Nobel’s will state that the winner should be whoever has done the most to reduce the standing armies of the world. (Nowhere does it say that is has to be your OWN army!)
[quote=“Icon”][quote=“Jaboney”]A troubling thought occurred to me while asking myself, “Why now?”
Sure, the selection committee wants to recognize and encourage America’s reorientation and reengagement, but why now?
Well, they may not be able to do so in a couple of years: it’s crazy season, and the Nobel prizes are never awarded posthumously.[/quote]
True. The man receives three times as many death threats as Bush, that tells you a lot. If he lasts four years I’d be very imprssed with the Secret Service.[/quote]
I hope, when he said this, he wasn’t thinking along the same lines that I had been.
In interview with the head of the committee. youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU
It seems it was for creating a climate of international cooperation instead of unilateralism.
So then you agree with me that there is a great deal of continuity between the second Bush term and Obama’s first?
Bush insisted on multilateralism on almost every area imaginable and yet he is constantly painted as unilateral. Korea… Bush demanded that it be multilateral when most nations were demanding that the US do something (the assumption is unilaterally). This is how a new treaty governing the authority to interdict North Korean vessels was passed. Bush insisted that the effort to deal with Iran be multilaterial… and it was handled mostly by the UK, Germany and France… Bush insisted that the effort in Iraq be multilateral… we simply, however, were not going to wait for it to be UNANIMOUS. Now, remember that 2/3rds of the EU and NATO members supported the effort. The notable ones that did not were France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany… That is only FOUR. Oh… and Greece… So that is FIVE. If anyone was behaving unilaterally it was these nations… Afghanistan… everyone agreed upon… and yet… as to the renditions and efforts to deal with terrorists… EVERY ally worked together with the US on these including Canada… so your issue is about one of being public about it? better to lie and pretend that it did not happen?
Iraq is much better… Afghanistan is still a problem… But that was an agreed-upon action… so where are all the troops? training? funding? from the allies who agreed upon this MULTILATERAL effort?
So again, you can claim that this is about shifting from unilateral to multilateral but I ain’t seen no proof to indicate that this is a reality.
As to Obama winning the Nobel peace prize… I am happy. Regardless of whether this is a prize that represents anything substantive is irrelevant in my view. In a way, is it not an olive branch from the committee to indicate that Europe is once again reaching out to America. Recall the last prize to Jimmy Carter in 2003. That effort was made more as a direct criticism… Things have improved in our relations… but just because they have does not mean that we do not need to keep working … to ensure that we continue to fight terrorism… and to cooperate to ensure that the world’s economy gets back on track… I think that is happening… Where we need to see more action is with regard to Iran and Afghanistan and that is an area where our allies are going to have to do more than just talk about how we are all getting along better and how they approve of our new president… We need to see some real results… something substantive… or it would seem to vindicate the view among many neocons that our allies are all talk and thus need not be consulted as there is nothing to be gained but lots of time wasted in “negotiations” or “discussions” or “consultations.”
NOTE: I am not only replying to Jaboney in my comments regarding unilateralism.
After Vietnam… do you think that the US would send its army to defend a former Portuguese colony? when colonialism was in its death throes? and… why not blame nearby Australia? I realize that it is fashionable to “learn” these kinds of “facts” in sophomore classes where “rants” trump “discussion.” What exactly do you think that the US could have or should have done? Just curious… not really… but… knock yourself out…
So then you agree with me that there is a great deal of continuity between the second Bush term and Obama’s first?
Bush insisted on multilateralism on almost every area imaginable and yet he is constantly painted as unilateral. [/quote]
A great deal of continuity? Certainly. Significant differences as well. Most significantly: Bush’s ‘multilateralism’ amounted to ad hoc coalitions of the willing and bribable, and directly undercut international institutions the US spent much of the previous 50 years building up. Obama’s multilateralism looks to be cut from a very different cloth. (We’ll see.)
[quote=“fred smith”]As to Obama winning the Nobel peace prize… I am happy. Regardless of whether this is a prize that represents anything substantive is irrelevant in my view. In a way, is it not an olive branch from the committee to indicate that Europe is once again reaching out to America. Recall the last prize to Jimmy Carter in 2003. That effort was made more as a direct criticism… Things have improved in our relations… but just because they have does not mean that we do not need to keep working … to ensure that we continue to fight terrorism… and to cooperate to ensure that the world’s economy gets back on track… I think that is happening… Where we need to see more action is with regard to Iran and Afghanistan and that is an area where our allies are going to have to do more than just talk about how we are all getting along better and how they approve of our new president… We need to see some real results… something substantive… or it would seem to vindicate the view among many neocons that our allies are all talk and thus need not be consulted as there is nothing to be gained but lots of time wasted in “negotiations” or “discussions” or “consultations.”[/quote]Europe likely now sees a partner in the White House worth reaching out to.
As for Iran and Afghanistan, they’re diversions. The real work and attention ought to be in systems building.
systems building? what difference to the systems make if no one is willing to act on the findings/action plans of such systems?
Again, I dispute that ad-hoc coalitions is a notable difference. We had Germany and France unilaterally disagreeing with the rest of the EU and NATO… but these two can oppose the agreement of 30 nations and that is okay and multilateral? How does that follow? They always were capable of disagreeing and staying out… I mean who really even in agreement has ever been “in?” but to suggest that the US was unilateral while France and Germany were multilateral… I do not see that… that is selectively finding a nation and its policy and then stating that it is multilateral while ignoring the reality because it does not agree with the selective findings/position… that you subscribe to.
Regardless I am thrilled that Obama won and I very much applaud and approve of his modesty in responding to this great honor. Now, again, let’s see where this takes us. Who is going to actually ACT rather than just issue a policy pronouncement regarding, er, “systems building?”
and my good sir… if Iran and Afghanistan are “diversions” when EVERYONE is in agreement… then what is the point of having any such systems? The key is to act and to take responsibility and regardless of your view on Obama or Bush… if no action is taken… then that is an indictment on the nations themselves and their policies. It has nothing to do with the US and any criticism of the “unilateralism” of the Bush administration is the real “diversion.” No?
[quote=“fred smith”]systems building? what difference to the systems make if no one is willing to act on the findings/action plans of such systems?
[/quote]Part and parcel.
You assert that “The key is to act and to take responsibility and regardless of your view on Obama or Bush… if no action is taken… then that is an indictment on the nations themselves and their policies.” That’s nonsense. If actors perceive, or are perceived, as having little or no effective say or stake in the game, they’re not going to play. Why would they? Back room deals only go so far, and are only worth so much (oftentimes, far less than we’d expect).
Build systems in which members have more than a token stake, systems in which they are deeply and publicly invested, and they’ll be far more likely to act – and act proactively. If Obama goes that route, he’ll earn his prize. He hasn’t yet.
I can barely restrain my laughter as I write this…
Is Afghanistan in everyone’s interests? and did not everyone agree to commit x in forces, training and funding? So, if I were to examine which nations had met those commitments and which had not… well… what exactly does this say about systems?
and for all of those who agreed about the need to remove Saddam but then removed their forces later… was that about not having a say in the “system” or was it about knowing that they could act without consequence as the US would ultimately stay to finish the job?
Also, let me remind you… the US has a right to act in its own interests just as every other nation does. I do not recall the last time Canada, France or Germany consulted with the US before implementing international and domestic policy. You do not pay taxes in the US. You do not vote in the US. Yet, you demand a right to dictate and veto US policy. If that policy does not go to your preferences, you believe that you have the right to label it “unilateral.” But what of the Democrats and Republicans in the US who see their preferences implemented less than 50% of the time? while the rest is often a complicated compromise?
So, where is your nation’s commitment to holding up your end of the responsibility? for climate change? world security? aid? and other matters of stated or claimed importance to you and your nation? You have to pay to play and most nations and their hyperconcerned citizens do not appear to accept or realize that fact. Shall we examine say Canada’s GDP and percentage of world trade and then assess the appropriate figure for defending the world’s sea lanes? protecting the world’s access to resources? What? would you recommend? huh? but of course, I expect “nuance” in your response… that would be the amusingly “sophisticated” way to reply without actually saying anything…or more important… doing anything… n’est ce pas?
Obama has changed the global dialogue from one of unilateral militarism to one of diplomacy and multilateralism. Only time will tell how that translates into actions, but the Nobel people felt the change was significant enough to give Obama the Peace Prize. Congratulations to him.
America is back to being the most admired, respected country in the world, according to some surveys, the reason for which is in no small part due to this shift in dialogue.
IMHO, this makes the world a better, safer place. It will be even safer, if we stop occupying countries that don’t want to be occupied, but that also is just my opinion.
I do not dispute Obama’s popularity and I am very pleased with that. I would however take anyone to task again for this incessant claim that before the US was “unilateral” and now that Obama is president things have suddenly become “multilateral.” Prove it. In my view, the US under Obama and Bush has always been “multilateral.” I am always open to seeing this explained in a different way but it will have be done convincingly not by “feelings” alone.
Prove it yourself. You have Google. There have been countless reports in the media on the issue, but I’m not your secretary. You can search them.
That you say Bush’s policies were “multilateral” obliterates your credibility as a rational, unbiased debater. He was unabashed in his “you’re with us or against us” foreign policy. Domestically, anyone disagreeing with the administration was promptly labeled traitorous. If that isn’t unilateral, what is?
Obama’s domestic AND foreign policies clearly have a more collaborative tone, which dismays many on the far left. Despite the overwhelming mandate for change in the last election, Obama still strives for bipartisanship.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee thinks this is important. Bless their little hearts. I’m still proud of my country’s current president.