Curt 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Not sure why exactly but it seems to be true. Well done for, er,.... Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 He was 2 weeks into his term before the deadline for nominations. 2 weeks. what did he do? It's a crock of shit. Nobel Committee wanting to be in the limelight as it seems. Dun give a shit, 1.4 mil for some snacks sounds nice. Glad Bush didn't get it. But wait 10 years, those Nobel Committee sleazbags can do anything. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's a pre-emptive strike. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's ridiculous that the country with probably the most nukes in the world has their leader awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. But upon looking over past recipients I wonder why we are surprised - Yassir Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev ...and a few US presidents in there Jimmy Carter, Wilson, Roosevelt. They just don't compare in my esteem to the likes of Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama. Maybe Barack can spend the 1.4m to help bail out another poorly managed pit of embezzlement. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Mother Teresa??!! Good one! Her good publicity gets the limelight while her ultra-conservative catholic views are swept under the carpet...Nobel Prize my arse!! Like a lot of old order nuns, she had a real nasty streak in her. Obama......what eactly has he done to get this?? Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I think they're citing his speech in prague about Nuclear weapons. Actually the whole thing about ridding the world of nuclear weapons just makes sense for the US. Nukes level the playing field, rich country or poor countries, it's all the same if they have nukes. The US can better maintain it's military advantage if nobody has nukes anymore. The whole thing could be a lot more altruistic to me than people realize. Either way, Obama, Nobel Peace Prize... Really? Link to post Share on other sites
ausi ski bum 1 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I think it was a little early for Obama but obviously it was for the hope of a more peaceful world that he has brought and the wonderful speaces in the middle east and at the UN recently, his sending envoys to the worlsds hot spots to look for solutions and the determination to talk to enemies and not threaten them. He of course stopped the missile deployment that lead to Russia and the UK also steping back their prolification of weapons. I see this as a move to encourage the process of peace more than recognise it, in a short time he has achieved more than we realise when you start considering his actions. Certainly a far cry from the Bush war monger years. Link to post Share on other sites
snowdude 44 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I think it is a load of bull giving Obama the nobel peace prize so easily, but at least it does appear he is at least trying to help make world peace. Whether this is his real intentions in the long run I guess we will just have to wait, but so far he has done more than the previous leaders. Still not convinced yet, but time will tell! Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 American presidents for world peace? What are you on? Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Waaay too early! Plenty of others with better "proven" credentials. Plenty of time for Obama to generate some actual cred (rather than intentions). Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 +1 on that. G' day, JA Link to post Share on other sites
gnarly-dude 1 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Yes we can....... but! Link to post Share on other sites
mitchpee 10 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Originally Posted By: gnarly-dude Yes we can....... but! Instantaneously: tens of thousands (maybe hundreds) of more troops, contractors, and special units to Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh and we just agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 40billion in weapons. Ya, some nobel prize recipient attitude. Obama, like every president since Reagan, (although Clinton did the best at trying to get out of it) is in a vicious cycle of being a puppet to partisanship. Gotta please the repubs and dems. Unfortunately the general attitude of the repubs (like the democrats in the 90's) is supporting a failed "war on terror". How are people so oblivious? Why can't we ever heed the warnings of our predecessors? Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Was W bipartisan? In what way? Link to post Share on other sites
mitchpee 10 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mr Wiggles Was W bipartisan? In what way? W was the biggest puppet of them all. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 True, but was he a bipartisan one? Did Dick Cheney etc. pay attention to the Democrats? Link to post Share on other sites
mitchpee 10 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mr Wiggles True, but was he a bipartisan one? Did Dick Cheney etc. pay attention to the Democrats? Not at all. Not once I can remember did he compromise his Christian installed values to come to a compromise on social issues. Not saying he didn't I just don't remember any sort of cooperation as the republicans owned everything immediately following 9/11. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts