Obama wins Nobel Prize

[Jrecee]

my red, white and blue dick, dude!

You might want to put some ointment on that.

[vash23n]

That is why Obama is so unpopular at the moment. He is not doing what is popular and what will get him reelected, he is doing what needs to be done.

Overall, I thought yours was a good post, but this statement is pretty perplexing.

Yeah I did phrase that a little weird. I basically meant that, in order to get ourselves out of some of the trouble we are in lately, it is going to take some tough choices and some tough action. I believe some of the choices Obama is making may piss some people off, but we need a president right now who is willing to make decisions that, even if they don't make everyone happy and even if they don't assure he will be reelected, will help the country climb out of the hole we dug (or was dug for us). Longest sentence ever, sorry. Obama came into a rough presidency. It would have been hard for anyone. Tough times call for tough measures is probably all I needed to write .

[pepharytheworm]

It's funny how we have read a book and think we know history. The winner always writes history. My grandfather said when he was in the war all he did was drive a jeep and load the dead carcasses on the back. He still has a knife and a gun he took off a dead nazi.

Who's to say who won the war for the allies. Germany got tired, America joined in, Russia threw wave after wase of human sheilds. It took many things you take one peice out and the whole thing could of went the other way. Did america have to fight, no. Should they have fought, yes. Should other countries be thankfull they helped, yes. Hitler himself thought America and Russia were the thorns in his side. In his dementia he thought that we would join him to defeat Russia thinking it was a bigger threat to us. Well he was partial right. But then again most of what I know I learned from others, sometimes you have to take all the resources you can then just make the best informed decision about the information and then we are probably still off. I say who cares lets move on WWII was over 50 years ago and all of us are talking out of our asses, sorry if there are any WWII vets on this site

But back on subject do I think Obama deserved the award, no. Should he have accepted it, yes. He would have been a bigger ass if he didn't. So everybody who voted for him to win the award or nominated him, they are the idiots who have and had made the award pointless. I guess Mr. Nobel is rolling over in his grave as he burns in hell .

[lordofduct]

So last nights episode of Colbert Report was about this.

And Colbert had the Indian minister of the state for external affairs (jeez, long title) Shashi Tharoor. And everything he had to say about the matter is exactly how I feel about it.



I mean come on, there are people out there who think Nobel himself (a self proclaimed pacifist) is a bit hypocritical in his notoriety for the nobel peace prize. He's the inventor of dynamite! He was recorded as saying he thought TNT was the invention to end all wars (boy was he wrong... we created the atom bomb only a century and a half later).

Furthermore his will to create such an award was to promote peace and harmony. It was a "symbol" and "gesture" a will and testament to the world because he felt bad for his invention.

Yes there is the polarized opinion of TNT in general. His invention was the process of making nitroglycerin more stable, before the invention the use and transport of nitroglycerin was extremely dangerous and caused for many a disaster. But this polarization is still that... as Kenneth Bainbridge said after the oppenheimer team blew up the first bomb, "Now we are all sons of bitches". Intent and action and gesture and all that shit is subjective. Nobel created the award as a GESTURE to make up for the "son of a bitch" thing he did by inventing TNT which he felt dreadful for the idea of going down in history for its invention.

So yeah, Obama's symbolic nomination and award of the prize... I don't think it's all that contradictory or would make Nobel roll in his grave. I bet he'd applaud the gesture for its promotion of peace and open foreign policy.

[lordofduct]

if you want just go through the list of laureates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No ... _laureates

You will notice that the award is often given for rather simple things... but still peace driven.

Sometimes as simple as "promoting an Act"... the promotion of an act! Yep... promoting an act, that's on par with lobbying.

how is that different from: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (what Obama was awarded for)

[vash23n]

Not sure if that comment was directed at me or everyone, but there is some truth to it. Although the books I was talking about are not textbooks written by some major company with plenty of inaccuracies. I have read a lot of books by people who have done extensive research on the winners and by people who have done extensive research on the losers. When writing history you have to consider all perspectives or else you are not taken seriously. You are exactly right though about moving on. This stuff should be studied out of interest and maybe with the hope of learning for the future. Arguing who won or who did what isn't very constructive or appropriate, considering that most of the events are known how they really happened and that both victors and losers have worked to assure the facts are presented accurately. In other words, why are we arguing again?

I do agree that Obama should have accepted the award. It obviously meant something to the people who nominated and voted for him. They obviously find him to be an important person and a humble acceptance is the best reaction he could have had.

[vash23n]

So last nights episode of Colbert Report was about this.

And Colbert had the Indian minister of the state for external affairs (jeez, long title) Shashi Tharoor. And everything he had to say about the matter is exactly how I feel about it.



I mean come on, there are people out there who think Nobel himself (a self proclaimed pacifist) is a bit hypocritical in his notoriety for the nobel peace prize. He's the inventor of dynamite! He was recorded as saying he thought TNT was the invention to end all wars (boy was he wrong... we created the atom bomb only a century and a half later).

Furthermore his will to create such an award was to promote peace and harmony. It was a "symbol" and "gesture" a will and testament to the world because he felt bad for his invention.

Yes there is the polarized opinion of TNT in general. His invention was the process of making nitroglycerin more stable, before the invention the use and transport of nitroglycerin was extremely dangerous and caused for many a disaster. But this polarization is still that... as Kenneth Bainbridge said after the oppenheimer team blew up the first bomb, "Now we are all sons of bitches". Intent and action and gesture and all that shit is subjective. Nobel created the award as a GESTURE to make up for the "son of a bitch" thing he did by inventing TNT which he felt dreadful for the idea of going down in history for its invention.

So yeah, Obama's symbolic nomination and award of the prize... I don't think it's all that contradictory or would make Nobel roll in his grave. I bet he'd applaud the gesture for its promotion of peace and open foreign policy.

As far as the TNT thing goes, it has been used for plenty of horrible things or inspired plenty of horrible things, but it has also been very important in developing countries. A lot of areas are connected thanks to TNT clearing out the way for roads/rails to be built. Not only can people get to certain places easier, but supplies and resources can also. I guess this could have helped overpopulation also, which is not really a good thing...

[vash23n]

if you want just go through the list of laureates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No ... _laureates

You will notice that the award is often given for rather simple things... but still peace driven.

Sometimes as simple as "promoting an Act"... the promotion of an act! Yep... promoting an act, that's on par with lobbying.

how is that different from: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (what Obama was awarded for)

Very interesting point

[lordofduct]

...

As far as the TNT thing goes, it has been used for plenty of horrible things or inspired plenty of horrible things, but it has also been very important in developing countries. A lot of areas are connected thanks to TNT clearing out the way for roads/rails to be built. Not only can people get to certain places easier, but supplies and resources can also. I guess this could have helped overpopulation also, which is not really a good thing...

And that was my point... it is a very polarized topic. Most people don't ignore the great things TNT did, but still many tend to squash the idea that TNT is dangerous. There is no way to speculate what other things could have arised if TNT didn't that could do the same thing. It's on par with the nuclear debate, so many smash on the bomb because of its atrocities, but it also brought light to so many new concepts and inventions that are very useful and can promote peace today. Just wait for the day we find the next most powerful thing and the bomb fizzles into the same category as a stronger TNT. I mean seriousily, the opinions of TNT upon its creation are similar to that of nuclear weapons upon their invention.

My point about it was the atrocious things about TNT is what caused Nobel to write into his will the intent to put in place the Nobel Peace Prize (and other Nobel prizes) via his estate.

Just like this very topic of Obama (maybe not exactly)... it is polarized. It is subjective to those who made the choice and those who interpret the intent of the award.

[vash23n]

...

As far as the TNT thing goes, it has been used for plenty of horrible things or inspired plenty of horrible things, but it has also been very important in developing countries. A lot of areas are connected thanks to TNT clearing out the way for roads/rails to be built. Not only can people get to certain places easier, but supplies and resources can also. I guess this could have helped overpopulation also, which is not really a good thing...

And that was my point... it is a very polarized topic. Most people don't ignore the great things TNT did, but still many tend to squash the idea that TNT is dangerous. There is no way to speculate what other things could have arised if TNT didn't that could do the same thing.

My point about it was the atrocious things about TNT is what caused Nobel to write into his will the intent to put in place the Nobel Peace Prize (and other Nobel prizes) via his estate.

Just like this very topic of Obama (maybe not exactly)... it is polarized. It is subjective to those who made the choice and those who interpret the intent of the award.

True