Justice, Obama did possitive things, no doubt. More or less, you describe what most presidents around the globe do, he is not the first one that started a nuclear disarmment process, he is not the first one who has been in talks with Iran, he is not the first on anything, he just joined the rest. If, for example, Dimitry Medvedev receives that prize I would tell exactly the same. Less accomplishments because he arrived later and diplomacy is a slow process and because diplomacy is unusual in USA so he faces more obstaces and more drags. But not in the rest of the world.
Do not see this as a criticism toward Obama, it could be toward the committee but as you see in my post it is not a criticism toward it either. I understand their decission. After I posted that message, I realised one aditional reason for Obama to receive that reward. Americans like you deserve that prize and deserve to be proud of your president after years and years of "exile". For all those reasons I have to applaud to Nobel committee, althought I hve to say very friendly that I still think that Obama does not deserve it. :) At least, not yet. Peace and best wishes. Xi On Oct 13, 9:50 pm, Justice <[email protected]> wrote: > He says, and I believe him, that he didn't even know his name was in > the hat. So we must assume that anything that is happening now is NOT > in light of an award. His deliberations about the US role in > Afghanistan are real, something he promised he would do, and it > appears that he is leaning heavily toward trying to create some > security there in the hopes that more non-military types will be able > to go in and assist the Afghans in creating an infrastructure -- not > only a strong central government but also roads and bridges and > schools and hospitals. > > Whether 40,000 troops can do that -- or even if he has 40,000 to send > (since he long ago promised that the troops would have longer periods > at home than just one year which was true in the Iraq war) is not > known. Which promise will he keep? the one to the troops? Or the > one to the Afghans? Bush did promise that once we went into the > country we would not just leave them in a lurch. The government > clearly wants us to stay -- the people, for the most part, would like > us to leave. > > BUT, they don't have a strong government -- if we leave the Taliban > will come back in. The people are tired of war. So tired they are > willing to have any government? Maybe. > > ======== > As for why he won the award, yes, I imagine that pushing toward their > own goals of world peace is part of the process. But you should read > their statement as to why he won the award. Put that way, he's a > gamechanger, he's pushed for global nuclear disarmament; he's > announced plans to speak to the Iranians AND he hasn't let any > taunting on their part push him away from that goal; he's created a > better working relationship with the Russians by dropping the old > "defense shield" that Bush proposed placing in eastern bloc countries; > and he remains committed and ready to be part of the 6 party talks > with North Korea, even as he has said he might get involved in one-on- > one talks if it would help the process. > > Accomplishments? He's changed the way the United States is playing > the game. We are back to our "normal" selves, which means, we're not > going to be starting any wars; we're going to work with everyone and > anyone who says they want to meet the goals of peace and social > justice, and we're probably not going to stand by and permit Israel to > pick a fight with her neighbors (Lebanon) or kills thousands in Gaza > without saying a word. > > I know it's difficult for people around the world to rmember how > horrible Bush was. He's gone now and we'd all like to forget him. > But when you take everything he did -- not just domestically, but all > of the problems he created wherever he went, down to touching Merkle > inappropriately and turning Blair into a poodle, all the way to war in > Iraq -- he was a horrible horrible man. Anyone who came after him who > had the possibility of bringing the US back into the family of nations > should get a peace prize. > > On Oct 9, 3:44 pm, xi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My comment: > > > I guess, most people around the globe got shocked today. I too. Obama > > Nobel peace prize??? why???. I have read several electronic surveys in > > Europe. Among left oriented people above 50% think that "Obama does > > not deserve that prize". Among conservatives close to 100% agree. > > > We all, Europeans, Chinese, probably most Latinamericans, Asians, > > Africans, etc. compare Obama with our politicians. We say, Obama did > > not not do more than our president, premier or whatever. In fact, he > > has done less. He is just a newcomer to a world where politicians use > > diplomacy, not wars. Therefore Obama is promises to behave as the rest > > of the world does since many years ago. Then, why he deserves a prize > > and not the rest? > > > Worse, many people wrote that if we compare Obama with people in NGO > > or individually who has been fighting for peace along years this > > reward looks like an insult. > > > After any award, we use to ask ourselves does the winner deserve that > > reward? But, probably that is not the right question in this case. I > > think that since some years ago, the Norwegian committee asks to > > themselves "how can we better use our prize to push peace?". Now, this > > reward looks different. > > > Obama does NOT DESERVE the Nobel Peace Prize, obvious. But Obama NEEDS > > this prize more than any other politician. > > > Let me put an example. Obama has delayed his decission about > > Afghanistan. More troops?, less troops?, withdrawal? fresh war in > > Pakistan? > > > In my opinion, the committee took a serious risk. If Obama decides > > more troops in Afghanistan or in Iraq, if he extends war to Pakistan, > > etc. If US troops are in Afghanistan or Iraq in four years, the Nobel > > Peace prize will be seen as a farce, even result of bribary rather > > than justice. > > > I want to believe that Obama has not delayed his decission about > > Afghanistan just to ensure his Nobel prize. Since this reward, for my > > opinion about him, what he finally does about troops in Afghanistan is > > crucial. If he does not reduces (at least) the amount of troops, he > > will be even worse for peace than Bush. He would be a dishonest > > president that betrayed his country and his troops delaying a > > decission to receive a personal reward. At least, Bush did not hide > > his intentions. > > > I think (or I want to think) that Obama WANTS to reduce troops. Even, > > he WANTS to bring all troops home. We all (or most) know that in USA > > the president has a voice but the military apparatus has much more > > power. This Nobel Peace prize reinforces him in USA, domestic public > > opinion, in order to make such decission and many others to come. > > > He, Obama told that he receives this prize as a call for action. Let > > us hope it is true and hereinafter Obama behaves as any other > > president around the world. I would give him the Nobel Prize if he > > makes USA to behave as any other peaceful nation. If that is the > > result, thanks Nobel Peace Prize committeee, you made a great service > > to the humankind. > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > Xi- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
