Obama wins Nobel peace prize

I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Beyonce has one of the best efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples of all time.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
Sorrow said:
I see that you don't get the irony - nukes are the main reason why there wasn't WWIII and why even insane dictators didn't start it.
By working towards the world without nukes, Obama works to make the world much less stable and much less safe.
Click to expand...
It's not like by dismantling current nuclear weapons and using or converting their fisable material for more constructive purposes (power) that it somehow removes the ability to create nukes.
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if Obama (hes a politican after all) would just follow the usual tradition of "removing" older nuclear weapon systems and calling it a dismantling of nuclear arms. I mean is really anyone still believing in that "illusion" of dismantling nuclear weapons for peace?

I agree with a few here when they say that nuclear weapons probably keept peace for so long. At least in europe. It definetly does not decrease the likliness for wars to happen but it somewhat puts the leaders in danger of beeing hit as well.
 
wow, I like Obama as much as the next guy but Nobel Peace Prize? What the fudge for?
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
I said that is foreign policy was much more reasonable than the Bush Administration's, not that it was a great foreign policy. I also agree that it's hardly the most peaceful foreign policy, it's just a more mature approach to it than the Bush Administration which acted like a spoiled brat.

Crni Vuk said:
I would not be surprised if Obama (hes a politican after all) would just follow the usual tradition of "removing" older nuclear weapon systems and calling it a dismantling of nuclear arms. I mean is really anyone still believing in that "illusion" of dismantling nuclear weapons for peace?
Click to expand...
Delusional people maybe. You're dead right though, I don't see Obama making any attempt to increase the rate at which the US disarms nuclear weapons as it would be against his current MO.
 
....

Am I the only one who realizes that "a world without nuclear weapons" is impossible?

The technology already exists, and is easily accessible to anyone willing to go through the lengths to obtain it.

Any one person has the ability to create a nuclear weapon.....

The only deterrent is the same old cold-war MAD policies.

Pretty sad, but we've already embodied the idea of GORT from The Day The Earth Stood Still.

The only possible way of preventing nuclear proliferation is through powerful agencies flexing their muscles, which can in turn be another bait and switch to implementing tyranny and power.


It's a MAD world.
 
I am an Obama fan, but I have to say that this is probably a bit premature. As Desmond Tutu suggests, this is more about encouraging future actions that past- and I am not sure that's appropriate.

I agree with UncannyGarlic- looks like this blindsided him and I think he handled it well. In some ways this might hurt him, but we'll see.

As for total nuclear disarmament- both the US and the USSR supported it back in the 1950s- but its a long shot. Something Obama points out in his response "we probably won't disarm in our lifetime..." Still dropping the total number of nuclears held by each side to less than 2K might not be such a bad idea.
 
Dopemine Cleric said:
....

Am I the only one who realizes that "a world without nuclear weapons" is impossible?
Click to expand...
i'd suspect that even the most zealous anti nuclear weapons protester know that deep down.

that said, i am a supporter of a smaller arsenal. really, the USA, Russia, UK and France have so much nuclear missiles & bombs lying around it becomes fairly useless and a cost to maintain that cannot be rationalized.
 
I can make sense of this. They're giving him the prize so they can lure him to Oslo where he can be killed. Then the prize committee will retroactively award themselves the prize for ridding the world of the obamenace using a clever ruse.
 
Member of Khans said:
Which basically means just for talking and being Obama. :roll:
Click to expand...
All politicians who ever won this price got it more or less "just for talking", because it's their job. Duh.
Click to expand...

Did I say "unlike other politicians"? No.
 
Let me point out that talking can create a peace between countries and different sides.
Obamas talking hasnt done really anything. So he doesnt deserve it at all.

Nukes cant be gotten rid off. The technology exists, and isnt rare. And yes, nukes probably stopped conventional WWIII from happening. However, that doesnt mean we should allow everyone to have them, or build more of them.
 
Per said:
I can make sense of this. They're giving him the prize so they can lure him to Oslo where he can be killed. Then the prize committee will retroactively award themselves the prize for ridding the world of the obamenace using a clever ruse.
Click to expand...

SSSSSSSH! This was supposed to be a secret!
 
1273c.jpg
[/URL][/quote]
He is the Kwisatz Haderach (~5:00).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW7OPByRGDY[/youtube]
 
He didn't have to accept it though. He should have respectfully declined.

But then again it's not everyday (well, year) you win the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
I figured Oslo wanted him to feel uncomfortable enough with the whole event that he has to live up to it, or go down as a failure.

That's pretty much the only rational explanation I can come up with.

M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top