Al Jazeera English: Obama: I do not deserve Nobel prize

[SealLion]

I was kind surprised as well after hearing the news on this.

I was under the impression that it takes quite some time ( more than 9 months, that is) for one to be awarded so that there is enough time for officails to observe the potential award winner.

One good thing that I find can be said about this award is that it;'s being given to charity.
That's good.

when I heard it on radio, I was wondering if someone was lobbied to give this award to Obama.

maybe....maybe not.

I do agree with this, though:

..."Obama has,...... created a new climate in international politics.

But I will ad this here:

......The Taliban condemned the decision saying that Obama has "not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan"

What a joke!!!

Neither have they.

Anywasy.... here's the link to the news:

Al Jazeera English - Europe - Obama: I do not deserve Nobel prize

[slikrapid]

I was kind surprised

i wasn't really, since al gore got it for his fake/hoax work considering global warming it shouldn't be inconceivable that obama could get it, and i'm pretty sure there have been numerous questionable prize winners already

one might think the poor obama fella is a modest goody2shoes president

as for lobbying, it is an established modus operandi, often bordering on bribery & blackmail, especially in fields of great importance (historical, financial, economic,... even athletic)

......The Taliban condemned the decision saying that Obama has "not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan"
What a joke!!!

Neither have they.

well, one thing is for sure - it is their country, and obama did promise to end military actions (yet he continues them (iraq) and in the case of afghanistan he started actions during his presidency)

[SealLion]

Yes. Your ritht, slik. Lobbying is already an established MO for many, many fields. Maybe this is just one more example of potential corruption.

With respect to Iraq. The US will never leave.
For one thing, they can't.
Plain and simple.

The country would be over-run in a matter of weeks or days by all the different factions.

The different western countries that are there now, is what stabilizes things there currently. Never mind the 'oil' thing and what a boon it is for the US, I mean stability in general.

And with Obama continuing to keep his countries forces in Iraq, I think that in all honesty, he probably wants to have his country's forces leave.

I think that when he got into office, things became a little more enlightened for him by some military people and some related civilians, including some government officials from the last government, like his defense minister as an example who is still that country's defense minister.

And the same thing is wiht Afghanistan.
Corruption abounds in Karzai's government.

Not just the recent elections which are probably one of the world's top fraudulent elections.

I mean with Hammad Karzai's defense minister there among other things. I've heard on a radio talk show that there is some controvery surrounding him and the fact that his president refuses to have him be investigated for war crimes.

Now, yes. It is the Taliban's country but that doesn't excuse them for having to continue to wage war with the current government there. That doesn't excuse them for having such extreme views on the world and how they felt they should control thier people, such as women not being allowed to have an education or intellectuals not being allowed to publish books or people of a minority in Afghanistan being persecuted, yes??

I mean, one's country is one thing, but for the Taliban to suggest haughtiness and balk at Obama's prize when they are no different in continuing to wage war, is another.

The US may still be in Afghanistan and yes, I agree they should all leave...every country that is there in fact, but I can't help thinking ( and believeing) that, that if it wasn't for some of the Western countrys that are there currently, instability would rule the day, yes??

And the Taliban would go back to thier old ways. In fact they are no differnt now then when they were a few years ago before any invasion.

[slikrapid]

With respect to Iraq. The US will never leave.
For one thing, they can't.
Plain and simple.

The country would be over-run in a matter of weeks or days by all the different factions.

The different western countries that are there now, is what stabilizes things there currently. Never mind the 'oil' thing and what a boon it is for the US, I mean stability in general.

sure they can, all it takes is one command from 'above' or enough pressure from the public (like in vietnam)

they don't really care about stability per se, they want manageable/controlled instability where things only seem to be in chaos, whereas the real puppeteers have a handle on the situation meaning they can still accomplish their goals or assure their interests

lets not forget that instability (wars, economic crises,...) is a fertile ground for the military-industrial complex to acquire assets at low prices or gain access to country resources/market/government/... (ie. gain control or at least a relevant amount of influence) or sell their products, advice on alliances, etc. acting like some kind of benefactors when in fact it all comes down to an elaborate game of (global) interests, simplified: power, control & money

after the infiltration of foreign groups is substantial enough, then it is time to let the instability decrease to a bearable level for the country in question, so after stabilizing the situation the country becomes more prosperous with a more secure market & significantly higher prices/value of various resources, meaning the difference in value compared to the previously acquired resources at low prices is now significant and they can be sold (depending on future prognostics) at the right moment, leaving the infiltrators with pure profit after a couple of years

this is roughly the war scenario, ofc there are various other scenarios depending on the situation at hand - for peace-situations too, but their MO is basically the same, which leads us back to the simplified formula mentioned above

And with Obama continuing to keep his countries forces in Iraq, I think that in all honesty, he probably wants to have his country's forces leave.

i would say he thinks about it, since things didn't go as planned (and they rarely do) which leaves him with quite a mess, without a clear solution for the future

I think that when he got into office, things became a little more enlightened for him by some military people and some related civilians, including some government officials from the last government

imo, he pretty much knew what the situation was as there aren't many secrets unknown to higher officials in both parties in usa as they are constantly alternating government places/positions between the two

That doesn't excuse them for having such extreme views on the world and how they felt they should control thier people, such as women not being allowed to have an education or intellectuals not being allowed to publish books or people of a minority in Afghanistan being persecuted, yes??

another difficult topic since we can't be sure how their nation/people feel in general (or majority) - it could be that they actually want such a system with islamistic religious rules, afterall it is a nation with different beliefs/tradition/mindset compared to the 'west' or democratic countries

but I can't help thinking ( and believeing) that, that if it wasn't for some of the Western countrys that are there currently, instability would rule the day,

that's hard to say since the amount of foreign involvement or influence is difficult to quantify at a given moment, but i suppose trends/patterns during a certain amount of time can be recognized

[SealLion]

........manageable/controlled instability..........

that was an interesting statement, I thought after reading it.

So managed instability could be instituted, with personnel resources from within the country in question (and maybe even from both countries as I think that would make more sense overall perhaps??
How else could such control be managed. )

While on the outside, the general public isn't as aware of things as they really seem to be.

Yes. That I can see.

well, on many fronts (i.e. the general public not being as aware of things as they really seem to be) is prevalent for many situations in which things hidden by either corporate councils, executives, and even governments want little to no info released.

[Instab]

Obama: I do not deserve Nobel prize

he's right. period.

[SealLion]

well, in my personal opinion only, he's only talked about it. He really hasn't justified this award by actions.

I realize that the current belief on this award being given is somewhat based on the notion that he's inspired people towards global peace or a relevant idea or cause towards this.

So in a way, if that's what your suggesting ( and perhaps you are), I would agree with you, VwTE1r.

the common justification (as per the awards council) is that awards are justified via some action of sorts as opposed to only inspiring by talking about it.
Or maybe they see it, that talk is an action of sorts??