It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, saying he should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location. "When Obama replaced President Bush, the Afghan people thought that he would not follow in Bush's footsteps. Unfortunately, Obama actually even went one step further."
Originally posted by Alxandro
Holy crap, this is starting to get scary.
Not because of the Taliban, but because I don't think Obama will have the cajones to respond to a Taliban attack.
Originally posted by Alxandro
The world prefers a US pushover President they can laugh at, than one they fear and hate.
Originally posted by highlyoriginal
To be honest, I can't say I disagree. He doesn't deserve this award, and he has made things worse, and if you want to tell me he hasn't, at least look at the things he promised to do, and look at what he's actually done, and tell me he is doing a good job.
Where were you when Bush was running things?
Originally posted by AletheaWhere were you when Bush was running things?
1) He hasn’t accomplished anything yet. It’s certainly true that President Obama has raised the international profile of the United States, and that’s wonderful and important. But he’s done that primarily by a) not being George W. Bush and b) by giving a few key speeches. Should the Nobel Prize Committee really be in the business of rewarding people for existing and talking? That seems like an awfully low standard. He’s working toward spreading peace in the world, to be sure, but this isn’t third grade – the President of the United States should not get a gold star and an A+ just for trying. What happened to rewarding people for the actual fruits of their labor?
2) This moment could have been saved for later. It’s entirely possible – even likely – that later in his life, President Obama will have substantial and tangible results to show for his presidency. Past winners such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Al Gore, and Mother Theresa have been awarded the prize after dedicating their entire careers to their respective causes: racial justice, combating climate change, and fighting world hunger. Rewarding a lifetime of toil is a much more worthy motivation for awarding a Nobel Peace Prize than simply wishing to acknowledge someone’s effort before they’ve had a chance to make a real impact. Was it really so urgent that Obama receive this award now, nine months into his presidency? This prize would have been a great deal more meaningful if he had won it after decades of hard work.
3) Idleness should not be encouraged. It would be very unfortunate indeed if President Obama took this award as a sign that he’s doing a great job and should plow ahead in the same manner. Thus far, a whole lot as been said – about health care, closing Guantanamo, sorting out Afghanistan, equal rights for gay Americans, etc. – and very little has gotten done. And before anyone trots out the old “He’s only been president 3 months/6 months/9 months, give the man a chance!” rallying cry, let me remind you: 9 months is close to a quarter of a presidential term, and he is by no means guaranteed a second one. What’s more, he can only count on strong Democratic majorities in Congress for another year; there’s no telling what will happen in 2010’s midterm elections. The man doesn’t have the luxury of time, so he needs to get serious about his agenda and hop to it. Giving Obama an award right now doesn’t push him any closer to doing so.
Oct. 10, 2009 | President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of a Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.
Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does.
Originally posted by Flighty
I think this is a good reason why a current President or Prime Minister shouldn't be allowed to be nominated.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 90 times to 120 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2009 – 97 times to individuals and 23 times to organizations. Since International Committee of the Red Cross was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1917, 1944 and 1963, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981, that means 97 individuals and 20 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Click on each name to see the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's page.
Nomination for the Nobel Prizes
Each year the respective Nobel Committees send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. These nominators are chosen in such a way that as many countries and universities as possible are represented over time.
205 names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. The Nobel Committees in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Prize Committee for Economics each usually receives 250-300 names every year, but this is the highest number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize ever. The last record was in 2005 when the Committee received 199 nominations. The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
The "missing Nobel Laureate"
Mahatma Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Prize. The strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century never received the Nobel Peace Prize despite several nominations (12 nominations between 1937 and 1948.) Find out why. »
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.