It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+12 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:26 PM

Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality." Chavez said giving Obama the Nobel award was like giving a baseball pitcher a prize simply for saying he was going to win 50 games and strike out 500 batters.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-10-2009 by DimensionalDetective]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:26 PM
Heh, heh, I know I am going to again draw the ire of many here by posting this, and by adding my commentary once again to a person who is not well liked here, whose general outline of the subject matter at hand I tend to agree with pretty much all the way.

Who, exactly is in charge nowadays of giving this "award" out? I mean who, REALLY? This reeks of more propaganda being spoon fed into the system by the "behind-the-scenes CONTROLLERS", who are busy with their latest round of brain-washing the masses into the latest Alice-in-Wonderland, what's up is down, what's down is up, twilight-zone, fantasy-land gibberish.

Again, I will not deny that Chavez is neither himself going to be inducted into sainthood, but I have to give this guy credit for NEVER mincing words, no matter what puppet-administration is in power, no matter how much garbage propaganda is being belched out by TPTB---He always comes right out and says what most other "leaders" are too afraid or intimidated to say IMHO.

Bottom line: Two Wars / invasions continued (a third if one looks into Pakistan), and another being constantly planned (Iran) with endless threats and fear-based propagandistical rhetoric being repeatedly referenced.

War = Peace indeed. Personified.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
I see MANY people arguing that Obama did deserve this prize.

And I think that this says ALOT about our society when we allow so little or next to nothing to equate to not only peace but a nobel peace prize.

It's like watching your republic fall apart right before your eyes while people cheer.

I posted the below in another thread but for those who didn't see it, he raises some interesting facts.

One very interesting part is what he mentions in the beggining about when they had the list to nominate he was only in office for two weeks.

And during his FIRST DAY in office he sent unmanned drones to Pakistan.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
Well, to have an intelligent discussion, we need to know:

1) Who or what group decides who gets it.

2) Are there written guidelines that they must follow.

3) I fully grant you this our current foreign policy and our past foreign policy are very different things.

4) Could it be that changing the foreign policy of the US is the best thing that could have been done to ensure peace, or at least, not increase war and violence?

5) Who really cares what Chavez says or thinks??? Seriously.

+7 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:41 PM
This was voted on in february. No one can put together any type of decent argument as to what he did to deserve this by february.

but come on people, let's be realistic. It was given to Al Gore for a factually incorrect movie that he took credit for that he did not even have the lead in making.

The Nobel prize is a joke....

+1 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:53 PM
This is where Chavez makes a mistake time and time again. No one in the United States of America wants to hear the truth Hugo. The truth is that because Obama has no lucrative business or corporate stakes like most U.S. Presidents the Powers that Be have to funnel him money by hook or by crook one way or another. A 1.4 million dollar check comes along with the Nobel Peace Price.

Obama needs the Nobel Prize like he needs a garden at the White House. The 1.4 million will pick up a few pairs of 600.00 tennis shoes for Michelle though!

Thanks Nobel Prize committee. You make it awfully plain for anyone to see!

Barack Obama truly did NOTHING to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. So far as President he has truly done nothing except hand out huge paychecks to corporate sponsors and lucrative White House jobs to old left wing radical socialists friends.

He obviously is worth every penny of the 1.4 million dollars to those who paid for his election.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:53 PM
I see this as a glowing example of the idiom "even a broken clock is right twice per day".

Chavez is hardly a member of my personal list for political wisdom but no one is wrong 100% of the time. For a socialist to dislike Obama says a lot, though.

He should get an award for stating the obvious. Anyone who seriously thinks Obama did anything to deserve a Nobel prize should be filling balloons with hot air for a living. Way to destroy what little credibility the Nobel prize had left, guys.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:08 PM
Somewhere, a guy named Alfie is rolling over in his grave, thanks to the people who run these tacky game shows. Today the Nobel Peace Prize and $4.95 can buy you some coffee at Starbucks. Talk about pissing all over a historic figure and his ideals.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:17 PM
Surprise Chavez gets his own thread for repeating what the rest of the world already knows.

I really wonder if giving Obama the award was intentional in hopes that the US retreats from world affairs.

Give him the Peace Prize and he is forced to seek peace in the world or look bad for accepting such award.

Just .02 cents

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:18 PM
I am not anti-Obama, neither am I pro-Obama.

I do not see why he was given the NPP.
It really diminishes the award.

PS: I like Chavez. He is a straight shooter.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:25 PM
I dont see how obama deserves the peace prize...he sent thousands fo greenjobs overseas, has a host of a list of taxes, hed like to see in place, hasnt helped raise a finger to create new jobs, has gone completely opposite of most of his pre inaguration speech promises, is expecting everyone to be on helath care against thier will(another money making scheme for selfish profit) and wants YOUR kids, our kids, to do mandatory public service..slave labor*
Wheres the peace in all this????

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:28 PM
While I don't think that the NPP for Obama was a good idea, I think it's hysterical that we look into what the likes of Kim Jon Il, or the Iranian Supreme Mullah, President Medvedev, President Mugabe or Hugo Chavez have to say on that subject (or any other).

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:39 PM
This is probably the only time in my life I will ever agree with Chavez about anything! What a joke!

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel

One doesn't have to be a red pill junkie to understand that Chavez is but a banana boat skipper who owns one of the biggest gas stations in the southern hemisphere. The man's grail is to become the next Fidel without the problems of ending up like the last Che.

Now, I'm no fan of Obama and... in a very real sense, that Nobel was a reward for not being a white guy named 'Dubya'. You can take it for what it is worth from there... which ain't much. Unfortunately, with each new Nobel awarded lately, the value of the prize has been lessened.

Oh, and I am no fan of Dubya Bush either. The only thing standing between him and a horse's ass is the horse's tail.

I just try and be a realist about all of it. No sense in running down a ribbit hole, stepping in rabbit poo poo, just to get ATS points, ya know?


[edit on 12-10-2009 by redoubt]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:51 PM
The following quote (according to policy of is ok to be re-posted, so I'm using it to educate fellow ATSers

U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, established the prize, which was to be awarded to the person who has accomplished “the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses.” The mechanism for awarding the peace prize is very different from the other Nobel categories. Academic bodies, such as the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, decide who wins the other prizes. Alfred Nobel’s will stated, however, that a committee of five selected by the Norwegian legislature, or Storting, should award the peace prize.
Related Series

* Special Series: Obama’s Foreign Policy Landscape

The committee that awarded the peace price to Obama consists of chairman Thorbjorn Jagland, president of the Storting and former Labor Party prime minister and foreign minister of Norway; Kaci Kullmann Five, a former member of the Storting and president of the Conservative Party; Sissel Marie Ronbeck, a former Social Democratic member of the Storting; Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a former member of the Storting and current senior adviser to the Progress Party; and Agot Valle, a current member of the Storting and spokeswoman on foreign affairs for the Socialist Left Party.

The peace prize committee is therefore a committee of politicians, some present members of parliament, some former members of parliament. Three come from the left (Jagland, Ronbeck and Valle). Two come from the right (Kullman and Ytterhorn). It is reasonable to say that the peace prize committee faithfully reproduces the full spectrum of Norwegian politics.
A Frequently Startling Prize

Prize recipients frequently have proved startling. For example, the first U.S. president to receive the prize was Theodore Roosevelt, who received it in 1906 for helping negotiate peace between Japan and Russia. Roosevelt genuinely sought peace, but ultimately because of American fears that an unbridled Japan would threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. He sought peace to ensure that Japan would not eliminate Russian power in the Pacific and not hold Port Arthur or any of the other prizes of the Russo-Japanese War. To achieve this peace, he implied that the United States might intervene against Japan.

In brokering negotiations to try to block Japan from exploiting its victory over the Russians, Roosevelt was engaged in pure power politics. The Japanese were in fact quite bitter at the American intervention. (For their part, the Russians were preoccupied with domestic unrest.) But a treaty emerged from the talks, and peace prevailed. Though preserving a balance of power in the Pacific motivated Roosevelt, the Nobel committee didn’t seem to care. And given that Alfred Nobel didn’t provide much guidance about his intentions for the prize, choosing Roosevelt was as reasonable as the choices for most Nobel Peace Prizes.

In recent years, the awards have gone to political dissidents the committee approved of, such as the Dalai Lama and Lech Walesa, or people supporting causes it agreed with, such as Al Gore. Others were peacemakers in the Theodore Roosevelt mode, such as Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger for working toward peace in Vietnam and Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin for moving toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Two things must be remembered about the Nobel Peace Prize. The first is that Nobel was never clear about his intentions for it. The second is his decision to have it awarded by politicians from — and we hope the Norwegians will accept our advance apologies — a marginal country relative to the international system. This is not meant as a criticism of Norway, a country we have enjoyed in the past, but the Norwegians sometimes have an idiosyncratic way of viewing the world.

Therefore, the award to Obama was neither more or less odd than some of the previous awards made by five Norwegian politicians no one outside of Norway had ever heard of. But his win does give us an opportunity to consider an important question, namely, why Europeans generally think so highly of Obama.
Obama and the Europeans

Let’s begin by being careful with the term European. Eastern Europeans and Russians — all Europeans — do not think very highly of him. The British are reserved on the subject. But on the whole, other Europeans west of the former Soviet satellites and south and east of the English Channel think extremely well of him, and the Norwegians are reflecting this admiration. It is important to understand why they do.

The Europeans experienced catastrophes during the 20th century. Two world wars slaughtered generations of Europeans and shattered Europe’s economy. Just after the war, much of Europe maintained standards of living not far above that of the Third World. In a sense, Europe lost everything — millions of lives, empires, even sovereignty as the United States and the Soviet Union occupied and competed in Europe. The catastrophe of the 20th century defines Europe, and what the Europeans want to get away from.

The Cold War gave Europe the opportunity to recover economically, but only in the context of occupation and the threat of war between the Soviets and Americans. A half century of Soviet occupation seared Eastern European souls. During that time, the rest of Europe lived in a paradox of growing prosperity and the apparent imminence of another war. The Europeans were not in control of whether the war would come, or where or how it would be fought. There are therefore two Europes. One, the Europe that was first occupied by Nazi Germany and then by the Soviet Union still lives in the shadow of the dual catastrophes. The other, larger Europe, lives in the shadow of the United States.

Between 1945 and 1991, Western Europe lived in a confrontation with the Soviets. The Europeans lived in dread of Soviet occupation, and though tempted, never capitulated to the Soviets. That meant that the Europeans were forced to depend on the United States for their defense and economic stability, and were therefore subject to America’s will. How the Americans and Russians viewed each other would determine whether war would break out, not what the Europeans thought.

Every aggressive action by the United States, however trivial, was magnified a hundredfold in European minds, as they considered fearfully how the Soviets would respond. In fact, the Americans were much more restrained during the Cold War than Europeans at the time thought. Looking back, the U.S. position in Europe itself was quite passive. But the European terror was that some action in the rest of the world — Cuba, the Middle East, Vietnam — would cause the Soviets to respond in Europe, costing them everything they had built up.

In the European mind, the Americans prior to 1945 were liberators. After 1945 they were protectors, but protectors who could not be trusted to avoid triggering another war through recklessness or carelessness. The theme dominating European thinking about the United States was that the Americans were too immature, too mercurial and too powerful to really be trusted. From an American point of view, these were the same Europeans who engaged in unparalleled savagery between 1914 and 1945 all on their own, and the period after 1945 — when the Americans dominated Europe — was far more peaceful and prosperous than the previous period. But the European conviction that the Europeans were the sophisticated statesmen and prudent calculators while the Americans were unsophisticated and imprudent did not require an empirical basis. It was built on another reality, which was that Europe had lost everything, including real control over its fate, and that trusting its protector to be cautious was difficult.

The Europeans loathed many presidents, e.g., Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter was not respected. Two were liked: John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Kennedy relieved them of the burden of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his dour Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was deeply distrusted. Clinton was liked for interesting reasons, and understanding this requires examining the post-Cold War era.
The United States and Europe After the Cold War

The year 1991 marked the end of the Cold War. For the first time since 1914, Europeans were prosperous, secure and recovering their sovereignty. The United States wanted little from the Europeans, something that delighted the Europeans. It was a rare historical moment in which the alliance existed in some institutional sense, but not in any major active form. The Balkans had to be dealt with, but those were the Balkans — not an area of major concern.

Europe could finally relax. Another world war would not erase its prosperity, and they were free from active American domination. They could shape their institutions, and they would. It was the perfect time for them, one they thought would last forever.

For the United States, 9/11 changed all that. The Europeans had deep sympathy for the United States post-Sept. 11, sympathy that was on the whole genuine. But the Europeans also believed that former U.S. President George W. Bush had overreacted to the attacks, threatening to unleash a reign of terror on them, engaging in unnecessary wars and above all not consulting them. The last claim was not altogether true: Bush frequently consulted the Europeans, but they frequently said no to his administration’s requests. The Europeans were appalled that Bush continued his policies in spite of their objections; they felt they were being dragged back into a Cold War-type situation for trivial reasons.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:52 PM
Part II
The Cold War revolved around Soviet domination of Europe. In the end, whatever the risks, the Cold War was worth the risk and the pain of U.S. domination. But to Europeans, the jihadist threat simply didn’t require the effort the United States was prepared to put into it. The United States seemed unsophisticated and reckless, like cowboys.

The older European view of the United States re-emerged, as did the old fear. Throughout the Cold War, the European fear was that a U.S. miscalculation would drag the Europeans into another catastrophic war. Bush’s approach to the jihadist war terrified them and deepened their resentment. Their hard-earned prosperity was in jeopardy again because of the Americans, this time for what the Europeans saw as an insufficient reason. The Americans were once again seen as overreacting, Europe’s greatest Cold War-era dread.

For Europe, prosperity had become an end in itself. It is ironic that the Europeans regard the Americans as obsessed with money when it is the Europeans who put economic considerations over all other things. But the Europeans mean something different when they talk about money. For the Europeans, money isn’t about piling it higher and higher. Instead, money is about security. Their economic goal is not to become wealthy but to be comfortable. Today’s Europeans value economic comfort above all other considerations. After Sept. 11, the United States seemed willing to take chances with the Europeans’ comfortable economic condition that the Europeans themselves didn’t want to take. They loathed George W. Bush for doing so.

Conversely, they love Obama because he took office promising to consult with them. They understood this promise in two ways. One was that in consulting the Europeans, Obama would give them veto power. Second, they understood him as being a president like Kennedy, namely, as one unwilling to take imprudent risks. How they remember Kennedy that way given the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the coup against Diem in Vietnam is hard to fathom, but of course, many Americans remember him the same way. The Europeans compare Obama to an imaginary Kennedy, but what they really think is that he is another Clinton.

Clinton was Clinton because of the times he lived in and not because of his nature: The collapse of the Soviet Union created a peaceful interregnum in which Clinton didn’t need to make demands on Europe’s comfortable prosperity. George W. Bush lived in a different world, and that caused him to resume taking risks and making demands.

Obama does not live in the 1990s. He is facing Afghanistan, Iran and a range of other crisis up to and including a rising Russia that looks uncannily similar to the old Soviet Union. It is difficult to imagine how he can face these risks without taking actions that will be counter to the European wish to be allowed to remain comfortable, and worse, without ignoring the European desire to avoid what they will see as unreasonable U.S. demands. In fact, U.S.-German relations already are not particularly good on Obama’s watch. Obama has asked for troops in Afghanistan and been turned down, and has continued to call for NATO expansion, which the Germans don’t want.

The Norwegian politicians gave their prize to Obama because they believed that he would leave Europeans in their comfortable prosperity without making unreasonable demands. That is their definition of peace, and Obama seemed to promise that. The Norwegians on the prize committee seem unaware of the course U.S.-German relations have taken, or of Afghanistan and Iran. Alternatively, perhaps they believe Obama can navigate those waters without resorting to war. In that case, it is difficult to imagine what they make of the recent talks with Iran or planning on Afghanistan.

The Norwegians awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the president of their dreams, not the president who is dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. Obama is not a free actor. He is trapped by the reality he has found himself in, and that reality will push him far away from the Norwegian fantasy. In the end, the United States is the United States — and that is Europe’s nightmare, because the United States is not obsessed with maintaining Europe’s comfortable prosperity. The United States cannot afford to be, and in the end, neither can President Obama, Nobel Peace Prize or not.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:25 PM
Interesting factoid. Mahatma Gandhi nominated 5 times and never received it. Obama nominated for doing nothing and receives it.


Mahatma Gandhi, one of the strongest symbols of non-violence in the 20th century, was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, shortly before he was assassinated in January 1948. Although Gandhi was not awarded the Prize (a posthumous award is not allowed by the statutes), the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that "there was no suitable living candidate".

The Process:

Below is a brief description of the process involved in selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

February-March – Short list. The Committee assesses the candidates' work and prepares a short list.

March-August – Adviser review. The short list is reviewed by permanent advisers and advisers specially recruited for their knowledge of specific candidates. The advisers do not directly evaluate nominations nor give explicit recommendations.

October – Nobel Laureates are chosen. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.

December – Nobel Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Oslo, Norway, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.

I guess we'll just have to wait 50 years to see who nominated him and under what criteria.

Are the nominations made public?

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:27 PM
What has Chavez done to make himself any kind of authority on who does and who does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Just sayin'

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:33 PM
Obama -- has done NOTHING to deserve the office of President.
Next his face will be on Cracker Jacks or Wheaties. There are Children singing songs in school about his many accomplishments.

Wha are they going to grow up to be like????


NOT Obama Bashing ---------------


posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by SANTA CLAWS
Obama -- has done NOTHING to deserve the office of President.

Except win the election. Last time I checked, that's all one HAD to do in order to "deserve" the Presidency.

Just sayin'

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in