gogul: Sounds like a baroque version of the Minbari grey council from Babylon 5... The military and religious casts quite happy to fight.. but it's the working cast who suffer.

Hey they scare me. what ya working whom? and bang it's the scareface if it's pharmaceutical.

it's the working cast who suffer.

(V): Yes

All I can say is that if Henry Kissinger deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, then Obama for sure deserves it too.  At some point Ronald Reagan was nominated.  I am sure he deserved one too.  After all, the Nobel Prizes are as much about politics and reputation as they are about achievement.

Übergeek 바둑이: So if Obama goes back from where he started in Chicago he'll realize that nothing changes. Thank you.

All that changes is the wages o the profiteers, so they don't get the real change that is indeed happening. Do you actually #>$+%##€ think that wages of workers doubled as the all the f'#!|$> first class products. The hands that litteraly build up what you are sitting in?!!!?!?!?

Übergeek 바둑이: From what I read it seems that the Nobel panel were glad the USA have under Obama regained some sanity, and for a change .. admitted mistakes were made by the USA.

... A rogue USA is just as frightening as any rogue nuclear power. That Blair lied to stop the USA going alone speaks of the perceived consequence of such a problem.

Artful Dodger:  As a supporter of Obama generally, I agree he should not have been voted a nobel peace prize 1 month into his 1st term.  Having said that, however, I hope he gets more support for his multilateral approach to diplomacy..

Here is an article covering both sides of this issue.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20091009/ARTICLES/910099987/1083/ARTICLES?Title=President-Barack-Obama-wins-Nobel-Peace-Prize-

Pedro Martínez:

I will say that the most decent recepient of the Nobel Prize was Jean Paul Sartre.  When he was offered the prize he refused it, because he knew fully well that it was all about bourgeois politics.  During the Cold War half of the Nobel prizes were awarded on purely political grounds.  The ones in economics are a joke.  All that they ever praised was free market economics and how to get rich without any regard for the poor.  Economics as a barren science that has no concern with the human consequences of the acquisition of wealth.  Black, Scholes and Friedman come to mind.

The prize going to Obama feels like nothing more than helping the man build his reputation.  From what I have seen, he gave this speech at the UN in which he talked about a nuclear-free world when he knew fully well that the US will NEVER give up its monopoly of military might.  His speech felt more like a political move to put pressure on Iran and North Korea.  He called for multi-party talks between Israel and Palestine, but is unwilling to take an impartial approach and stop the western slant in Israel's favour.  Maybe I am out of touch with the news, but is there anything that really promotes world peace other than trying to fix the diplomatic mess that the Bush administration left behind?  If fixing the previous administration's diplomatic mess qualifies, then he deserves it.

According to the Nobel committee "Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics"

Anybody other than the Bush Necons could achieve that.  A monkey in a suit could do more for world peace than Bush and his clique ever did, that is for sure!

Well, now they have raised the bar on Obama and the expectations will be great.  Whether he can deliver is up to Congress in the end because there is nothing much he can do without the aproval of America's  elected representatives, and as we saw with healthcare, the Republicans will try their best to derail his efforts.

We should invite Fencer to do something hollywood-like and plant a tree on the frontpage of bk. I bet it would make a nice sympol for a better place!

Übergeek 바둑이: Ich staunte darüber, dass ein Mann einen so festen Platz haben konnte. Sein Platz: ein Nichts, das ausgehöhlt war durch das allgemeine Warten, ein unsichtbarer Bauch, aus dem man offenbar jäh von neuem geboren werden konnte. Wäre er jedoch plötzlich unter stürmischen Ovationen aus dem Erdboden aufgestiegen und hätten sich selbst die Frauen auf seine Hand gestürzt, um sie zu küssen, ich wäre ernüchtert gewesen: die fleischliche Gegenwart ist stets übermässig.

I'm reading Sartre in german LOL

Pedro Martínez: Well he's promised to close Guantonimo...well, that's on hold now.  Likely it won't close as planned.  According to CNN, "President-elect Barack Obama plans to order the closing of the U.S.
military prison at Guantanamo Bay as early as his first week in office
to show a break from the Bush administration's approach to the war on
terror, according to two officials close to the transition."

Well? 

Most world leaders see Obama as a wimp. 

(V):The point, which it seems so easily missed your grasp (once again) is that he was nominated when he was virtually a nobody, hadn't done anything worthy even of consideration.  So why would someone nominate him in the first place?  May as well nominate Mickey Mouse.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, (ummmm...what accomplishments??) but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." _ Obama.

"I think it's extremely well deserved. ... I think it will take some time before people put together all the different moves that linked his speech at the U.N. on the abolishing of nuclear weapons, his shift on the missile defense program in Eastern Europe and the movement of Russia to joining the international consensus that confronted Iran to abide by the nonproliferation treaty." _ Former Vice President Al Gore.

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." _ Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

"I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran. The world may love it, but following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter is not where America needs to go." _ Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.

"Giving this award to the leader of the most militarized country in the world, which has taken the human family against its will to war, will be rightly seen by many people around the world as a reward for his country's aggression and domination." _ Mairead Corrigan Maguire, a 1976 Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

"What the......?" AD, member of Brainking.com

Artful Dodger: The President of the United States of America is a nobody!!

That's not exactly patriotic thinking is it?

Artful Dodger: Can you say which world leaders think Obama is a wimp?

And maybe if the USA had not vetoed so many resolutions, the Palestinians wouldn't be so miffed... The missile shield trade off to get a country with still much clout on side sorta makes Iran see that it's a united front. The bay... it'll happen, it's well known that in such matters hickups always happen. At least he HAD a plan The bay is a good recruitment system for terrorists, they can PROVE that the USA are nasty people.

And so... The USA military suffers by having more enemies trying to kill them. You see, a similar situation happened in the Northern Ireland war of terror... it's called martyrdom.

Übergeek 바둑이: It'd just be nice to see the nuclear stocpile of all nations reduced below a level that will kill the world. I don't expect a country to give up it's army, but what is the point of having more nukes hen you'd ever want to use.

waste of money and resources.

Artful Dodger: Yes... Murdoch press. Ow wow!!

(V):For one, President Sarkozy thinks he's a wimp. 

(V):  Well, the Prize was given to a known terrorist too so I guess since anyone can get one, even a do nothing like Obama can get one too.

Someone else writes his speech, he delivers it, and he gets a prize.  That speech writer better get a cut. 

Artful Dodger: ... last I heard you were slamming the French, now their opinion matters!!! I'm confused by the change in heart that you'd choose a president of a country you dislike over your own?

Even Dr., Lamont Hill, PH.D is disappointed with Obama getting the Prize.  For him to be against the Prize going to Obama speaks volumes.  Hill likes Obama and is just a tad short of being a cheerleader for him. 

The Prize should be renamed to The Joke. 

Artful Dodger: Every politician has speech writers.. I remember McCain's getting it wrong a few times.. or was it him????

(V):  That's not the point.  It's a peace prize.  Where's the peace?  It's a meaningless thing at this point.  What will they all say when Obama steps up the war in Afghanistan? 

Artful Dodger: Doesn't he work for Fox now??

Artful Dodger: Ok.. you are saying it's ok to let the Taliban off the hook for 9/11?? And more troops mean a shorter war. You want your troops home don't you??

(V): I love this comment:  Obama getting the Nobel for his international groveling is comparable
to Nevile Chamberlain having received it (which he didn't) for signing
Britain over to the Nazis with the stroke of a pen

(V): I didn't say that.  I said butterflys eat pizza.  extra cheese

Artful Dodger

I think all of the comments you posted were good, except for Mr. Barret's.

"I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling
on Afghanistan,"

He has called for a troop buildup in Afghanistan.  I don't think Obama waffled there (to waffle means to be evasive).  He has been clear in his objective of escalating the offensive against the Taliban.  I suppose it is not as peaceful as Mr. Nobel would like!

"pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe,"

He has pulled back from the strategic missile defense system.  Meaning that the missile shield in Eastern Europe is on hold.  This is a peaceful thing, because if he hadn't done that the Russians had already made it clear that they would start building up their nuclear arsenal again and that they would pull out of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  The Bush administration was playing an extremely dangerous game in pursuing that missile shield system.  It threatened a new nuclear arms race.  Obama had no choice there.  The way the American economy is now, the US couldn't handle an arms race of the kind we saw during the Cold War.  I think it was this and that UN speech about nuclear disarmament that gave Obama the prize.

"turning
his back on freedom fighters in Honduras,"

The man who wrote this is rather ignorant about Latin America.  A Fascist dictator takes power by coup d'etat and he calls the man and his henchmen freedom fighters?  I would say what really did it for me is the Honduras comment.  Mr.
Barrett nees to study a little about fascism in Latin America and
understand why every country in Latin America condemned the fascist
Micheletti taking over power by force.

"coddling Castro"

When?  If promoting a thaw in a freeze of relations going back 50 years is coddling, then what was the point of warming up to China so we could buy cheap good from them?  It sounds hypocritical to me that it is OK to buy cheap goods from communist China, while at the same time we hate Cuba.  Either we hate communists or not.  Hypocritical convenience seems alive everywhere.

"siding with
Palestinians against Israel"

When?

"or almost getting tough on Iran"

Obama has been anything but tough on Iran!  For that matter Bush himself was not that tough on Iran.

Well, Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is like a runner at the Olympic games getting the gold medal before he ran the race.  They would give the guy the medal because everyone is expecting him to succeed.

Twiigs poll:  91% said NO

Huffington Post:  45% said yes.  That's odd since it's a far left website. 

Another poll had 73% saying NO that others were more deserving.

A time poll shows 51% say NO. 

There will be more polls.  It will be interesting to see those as well. 

I'm nominating my 7 year son for the next one.. who can deny him after this???, and I'm the charity for the prize

GTCharlie:  Yeah.  And get this.  Right after the award was announced, the US made a preemptive strike against the MOON!!!!  Well, the award was for international peace and not interstellar. 

Artful Dodger: I mean all he has to do is make a few " feelgood" speeches and he's a lock! by the way,, I like when the USA acts rogue for the most part.

GTCharlie:  We need Regan again.

Artful Dodger: that warhead contained yomama's birth certificate!

Bwild:I heard that !  lol

Point to me is ,"international diplomaty", "new climate of international politics", "vision of a world without nuclear weapons(pfff)", that's the megalomanic sphere, I don't have anything to do with it, it doesn't help me, interest me bother me, it's a message from a distant world of puffed-up peeps who have no idea what's going on. That's the world of the supranational solutions, I don't feel anybit at home when I think about change among the megalomaniacs. I think among these figures, Obama deserves the price. For the emotianal boost of the show lol.

Artful Dodger: Chamberlain didn't sign over the UK to the Nazi's... whoever made that comment is deranged. He sought to overt a conflict with Germany, seeing as at that time we were not ready for a war. It didn't work.

Is the teaching of European history of that time so bad in the USA. or is the comment maker so off the mark his head is in another galaxy??

Artful Dodger: So... you recognise that the troops needed to free Afghanistan from the Taliban are needed, the Iraq war diverted needed resources from the fight to destroy the Taliban.

btw.. Butterfly's eating pizza.. which sci-fi B movie did that come from. Sounds like an old story from 2000AD

(V):  Chamberlin was a fool and history has proven that.  He took the wimpy way out.  History has shown over and over that when it comes to thugs, diplomacy doesn't work.  Show us where it has.  But brute force does work.  Germany was toppled that way as was Japan.  Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war. 

(V): I've noticed that when your arguments are weak, you always resort to claiming things that were never said.  Better would be to form that statement into a question.  And try to avoid leading questions.  Those are easy to spot as well.

who was it that said,"only a fool argues with a fool?"

Bwild:It's a Chinese proverb.  Here's Proverbs 26: 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
       or you will be like him yourself.

Artful Dodger: So... you are saying that if the USA had gottened involved before 1941 we'd won the war quicker? And if you knew history, you'd know that no European government could stop Hitler, none had the military forces to stop him. That's basic history and I'm surprised you do not know that. Even Russia only stopped Hitler through it's generals January and February.. a well known fact here. I guess USA teaching is not as good regarding WWII.. that's something you need to address.

"I've noticed that when your arguments are weak, you always resort to claiming things that were never said."

I never said it was said, I was asking if you accepted such a statement.. most sane people do see a question.

as for brute force... Ghandi beat the British Empire by non violent protest.. In certain respects.. wasn't that Christ's message. Or did you miss that part???

Yes.. I asked a question!!

Artful Dodger:

> Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war.

There are three interpretations of the appeasement policy that Neville Chamberlain followed prior to the war.  For those who don't know much about it, here is a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

One interpretation is like yours.  Neville Chamberlain was weak and he should have declared war immediately.

The second interpretation is that Neville Chamberlain thought that Hitler was not big a threat and appeasing him would simply make him give up his imperialistic ambitions because Poland and Czechoslovakia were more than enough land for the Third Reich to expand.

The third interpretation is more realistic.  England had to make war preparations prior to engaging Hitler's Third Reich.  Since England, France and the US were not ready for war, they were stalling for time and giving Hitler Czechoslovakia and Poland meant that they could prepare prior to entering a full scale war.

All of these three interpretations have validity to some extent.

There is a fourth interpretation, and the one I believe.  Hitler was given control of Poland and Czechoslovakia because Hitler was promising to do the one thing that all the western superpowers wanted.  England and France traded economically with Germany until the start of the war, and the US traded with Hitler until 1942 when the Trading with the Enemy Act was enforced.  Until then, America's most powerful families were doing business with Germany and the American government never talks about this.  What is it that Hitler was going to do?  What was Hitler going to accomplish?  Hitler was promising to destroy the Soviet Union and all western superpowers wanted that.  It is why Americans traded with Hitler until 1942.  It is why New York was the main banking conduit for the Nazis and why Switzerland and Sweden were some of the main industrial suppliers of the Third Reich.  Specially Sweden, which provided about 50% of Germany's steel during the war.  They appeased Hitler because they hated communists more than they hated Nazis.  It was a simple as that.

This interpretation is never talked about in history books because it would imply that the Allies actually wanted Hitler to succeed.  In this interpretation western superpowers are not heroic defenders of freedom, but accomplices in war crimes that left as many as 23 million soviets dead.  Nobody likes this interpretation, so nobody talks about it.

Übergeek 바둑이: I've heard little snippets on the subject, but nothing to this scale. I find it scandalous that USA companies (as it is true) were trading with and supporting Hitler while Europe was either taken over or fighting the German war machine. I find it even more disgusting that even after the 1941 attack on Pearl harbour that USA companies are still trading with Hitler and that an act has to be made to stop trading with enemies!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Provides a good read.

The UK had nothing to stop Hitler... the only thing that protected us was Hitler's love of England. If he'd ordered an invasion of the UK after Dunkirk... nothing could have stopped him, we were lucky for what is referred to as the "phoney war" and radar. N' that the German war machine sought to rid us of air power first.

Übergeek 바둑이:I  see no mention of  those evil Americans actually helping the Soviets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease  note the paragraph titled "Significance"