http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/

The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 
to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen 
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has 
attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world 
without nuclear weapons..
The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President created a 
new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a 
central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and 
other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are 
preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international 
conflicts.

(moe)

On 2009-10-09 11:54:07 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
> 
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009
> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has
> attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world
> without nuclear weapons..
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President created a
> new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a
> central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and
> other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are
> preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international
> conflicts.
> 
> (moe)

Wonderful!  I tell you, it's been a sleepless night for me, waiting for 
this decision. It couldn't have been more usefully used. Well done 
those Swedes!

btw, who is Moe?

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:han3ba$j2g$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> On 2009-10-09 11:54:07 +0200, "TWP"  said:
>
>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 
>> 2009
>> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
>> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee 
>> has
>> attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world
>> without nuclear weapons..
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President created 
>> a
>> new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has 
>> regained a
>> central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and
>> other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are
>> preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult 
>> international
>> conflicts.
>>
>> (moe)
>
> Wonderful!  I tell you, it's been a sleepless night for me, waiting for 
> this decision. It couldn't have been more usefully used. Well done those 
> Swedes!
>
> btw, who is Moe?
>

One of the Three Stooges.  He was previously known as "More", but one day 
someone didn't type it properly.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 
> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen 
> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops into 
Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land, 
supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing 
America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian 
peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to 
mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split 
between American citizens in decades.

Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but, 
beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm struggling 
to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.

I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do 
what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves ) which 
is what America should have been doing all along anyway.

Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but the 
real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an 
important award is premature. The head of the International Peace Institute 
in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact on things 
that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly confirms he's 
won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has achieved. Some 
would say that seriously devalues the prize.

I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have 
shortened.

On 2009-10-09 13:37:23 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> 
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>> 
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009
>> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
>> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
> 
> This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops into
> Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land,
> supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing
> America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian
> peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to
> mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split
> between American citizens in decades.
> 
> Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but,
> beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm struggling
> to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.
> 
> I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do
> what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves ) which
> is what America should have been doing all along anyway.
> 
> Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but the
> real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an
> important award is premature. The head of the International Peace Institute
> in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact on things
> that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly confirms he's
> won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has achieved. Some
> would say that seriously devalues the prize.
> 
> I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have
> shortened.



"Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view 
that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded 
"on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority 
of the world's population"."
That's why.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:TfFzm.1165$KR3.357@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 
>> 2009 to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to 
>> strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
>
> This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops into 
> Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land, 
> supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing 
> America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian 
> peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to 
> mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split 
> between American citizens in decades.
>
> Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but, 
> beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm 
> struggling to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.
>
> I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do 
> what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves ) 
> which is what America should have been doing all along anyway.
>
> Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but 
> the real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an 
> important award is premature. The head of the International Peace 
> Institute in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact 
> on things that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly 
> confirms he's won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has 
> achieved. Some would say that seriously devalues the prize.
>
> I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have 
> shortened.
>

He was apparently nominated two weeks into his presidency.

I personally don't think the award should go to serving leaders anyway. It's 
their job to try to achieve peace and stability for the benefit of their 
nation, and they have all the benefits of secret information, near limitless 
money and resources, advisers, etc to help them manipulate any situation. 
I'd rather see it go to some regular person who has given some substantial 
part of themselves or their time in this world to making it genuinely safer 
and better for others to live in.

Obama has barely got his feet wet so far.  His time to prove himself is 
probably coming, but I think it's a bit early to be engraving his name on 
any trophies yet.


TWP

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:hanb7i$12nf$2@adenine.netfront.net...
> On 2009-10-09 13:37:23 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
>  said:
>
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>>
>>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 
>>> 2009
>>> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
>>> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
>>
>> This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops 
>> into
>> Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land,
>> supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing
>> America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian
>> peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to
>> mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split
>> between American citizens in decades.
>>
>> Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but,
>> beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm 
>> struggling
>> to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.
>>
>> I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do
>> what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves ) 
>> which
>> is what America should have been doing all along anyway.
>>
>> Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but 
>> the
>> real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an
>> important award is premature. The head of the International Peace 
>> Institute
>> in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact on things
>> that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly confirms 
>> he's
>> won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has achieved. 
>> Some
>> would say that seriously devalues the prize.
>>
>> I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have
>> shortened.
>
>
>
> "Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view 
> that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on 
> the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the 
> world's population"."
> That's why.


Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago (with 
the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the 
prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)

If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what you 
say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us would 
probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Krak"  wrote in message
[snip]
>> "Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view 
>> that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on 
>> the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the 
>> world's population"."
>> That's why.
>
>
> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago (with 
> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the 
> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)

And I get to keep the nukes.

PS : I think *you might* want to give me half the dosh as well. Not saying 
that I would, just not saying that I wouldn't :-)

> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what 
> you say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us 
> would probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)

I think that's the main thing; the award's generally thought of as being for 
solid achievements, not wishful thinking. Not sure why the IPIO have 
departed from that.

Seems they've gone a bit 'off the rails' elsewhere this year ....

<quotes>

The surprise choice of first-year grad student Quintus Pfuffnick for the 
Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world Friday even as 
many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet published anything in 
scholarly journals.

The new PhD candidate was hailed for his willingness to tackle difficult 
problems, his commitment to improving the economic system, and his goal of 
bringing efficiency and equality into harmony.

</quotes>

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-year-grad-student-wins-nobel.html

I was half expecting Brown and Obama to be sharing that gong.

Got to admit though that "Quintus Pfuffnick" probably deserves an award for 
a challenge of "Lynyrd Skynyrd" on the multiple use of letters in a name.

Anyway; "I believe there should be a new material invented with the strength 
of steel, the softness of bog roll, the flexibility of a spiders web, which 
can be traded as currency and is both nutritious and cures all known 
ailments as well as bringing world peace. And I think I'm going to write a 
book about it".

That's me sorted for 2010 prizes for Chemistry, Physics, Economics, 
Medicine, Literature and Peace. If they want to introduce an award for Art, 
I'll willingly draw a picture of how I imagine my new super-material will 
look.

TWP wrote:
> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
> 
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 
> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen 
> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has 
> attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world 
> without nuclear weapons..
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President created a 
> new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a 
> central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and 
> other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are 
> preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international 
> conflicts.
> 
> (moe)

Obviously just a last minute sop to alleviate his pain over losing the 
Chicago Olympics ,,, As if his head wasn't swelled enough as it was.


Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be 
met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and 
probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. 
It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of 
expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, 
approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope 
that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising 
in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has 
barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible 
outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen 
international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people 
will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” 
relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the 
Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and 
any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and 
America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has 
failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between 
the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose 
principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war 
in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize 
that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa 
would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to 
send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war 
may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to 
complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have 
appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the 
two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead 
Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling 
communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners 
turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar 
Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later 
award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it 
could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not 
bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most 
contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc 
Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was 
branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in 
Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar 
whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting 
for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. 
The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. 
It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many 
of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians 
that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The 
achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama to 
show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a pressie 
like that?

I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say it was 
a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a bit of 
distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt kissing to me, and 
it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama does accomplish, if 
any.

I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as many 
adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our adverts) 
from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't feel he deserves 
to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good for him.


TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
> 
> 
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
> 
> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama to 
> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a pressie 
> like that?
> 
> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say it was 
> a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a bit of 
> distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt kissing to me, and 
> it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama does accomplish, if 
> any.
> 
> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as many 
> adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our adverts) 
> from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't feel he deserves 
> to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> TWP

Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, 
I didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.

The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this 
does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.

Jesse wrote:
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece 
>>>
>>
>> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama 
>> to show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a 
>> pressie like that?
>>
>> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say 
>> it was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to 
>> get a bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt 
>> kissing to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements 
>> Obama does accomplish, if any.
>>
>> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as 
>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our 
>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't 
>> feel he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  
>> Good for him.
>>
>>
>> TWP
> 
> Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, 
> I didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
> 
> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this 
> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.

Lol, "Come on" I meant to say

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:9uSzm.42657$bP1.18481@newsfe24.iad...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>>
>> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama to 
>> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a 
>> pressie like that?
>>
>> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say it 
>> was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a 
>> bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt kissing 
>> to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama does 
>> accomplish, if any.
>>
>> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as 
>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our 
>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't feel 
>> he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good for 
>> him.
>>
>>
>> TWP
>
> Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, I 
> didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
>

Like I said, it was only a caption headline.  I didn't hear the rest of it, 
or how it was said.  The only quote was the quote I gave.

I do think it's created an awkward situation for him, and I'll bet in his 
heart that part was true.  I think he knows he shouldn't have got it.... not 
this year anyway....


> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this 
> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.

As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.


TWP

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:LuSzm.42659$bP1.38737@newsfe24.iad...


> Lol, "Come on" I meant to say

I'm just pleased he didn't try to say he was OK with it.  I don't know if he 
really is or not, but at least he didn't try to bluff it out as much as he 
could have.  That would have been a real 'watching a car crash' moment!

TWP

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:LuSzm.42659$bP1.38737@newsfe24.iad...

> Lol, "Come on" I meant to say

I actually double-checked before I originally posted yesterday morning.  I 
thought it might be some kind of joke announcement at first.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.

I disagree, but the prize shouldn't be casually handed out either.

No 'man in the street' is ever going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, it takes someone with solid political power and international 
muscle; and achieving it deserves being rewarded with recognition.

I would expect any Peace prize for resolving that conflict to be shared; 
between Israeli and Palestinian leaders and the motivating players. I don't 
think that, in your heart, you'd deny Obama being given credit for pulling 
that one off if he does.

Assuming he gets that, it's how the first award stacks up against the second 
for resolving the conflict which highlights the problem of this award.

On 2009-10-09 18:58:35 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> 
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> "Krak"  wrote in message
> [snip]
>>> "Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view
>>> that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on
>>> the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the
>>> world's population"."
>>> That's why.
>> 
>> 
>> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago (with
>> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the
>> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)
> 
> And I get to keep the nukes.
> 
> PS : I think *you might* want to give me half the dosh as well. Not saying
> that I would, just not saying that I wouldn't :-)
> 
>> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what
>> you say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us
>> would probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)
> 
> I think that's the main thing; the award's generally thought of as being for
> solid achievements, not wishful thinking. Not sure why the IPIO have
> departed from that.
> 
> Seems they've gone a bit 'off the rails' elsewhere this year ....
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> The surprise choice of first-year grad student Quintus Pfuffnick for the
> Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world Friday even as
> many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet published anything in
> scholarly journals.
> 
> The new PhD candidate was hailed for his willingness to tackle difficult
> problems, his commitment to improving the economic system, and his goal of
> bringing efficiency and equality into harmony.
> 
> </quotes>



Economics is not a "Nobel Prize". It was brought in later because it 
seemed like a good idea. It is simply called the "Sveriges Riksbank 
Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

On 2009-10-09 15:24:20 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:TfFzm.1165$KR3.357@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> 
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>> 
>>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>> 
>>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
>>> 2009 to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to
>>> strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
>> 
>> This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops into
>> Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land,
>> supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing
>> America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian
>> peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to
>> mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split
>> between American citizens in decades.
>> 
>> Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but,
>> beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm
>> struggling to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.
>> 
>> I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do
>> what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves )
>> which is what America should have been doing all along anyway.
>> 
>> Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but
>> the real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an
>> important award is premature. The head of the International Peace
>> Institute in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact
>> on things that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly
>> confirms he's won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has
>> achieved. Some would say that seriously devalues the prize.
>> 
>> I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have
>> shortened.
>> 
> 
> He was apparently nominated two weeks into his presidency.
> 
> I personally don't think the award should go to serving leaders anyway. It's
> their job to try to achieve peace and stability for the benefit of their
> nation, and they have all the benefits of secret information, near limitless
> money and resources, advisers, etc to help them manipulate any situation.
> I'd rather see it go to some regular person who has given some substantial
> part of themselves or their time in this world to making it genuinely safer
> and better for others to live in.
> 
> Obama has barely got his feet wet so far.  His time to prove himself is
> probably coming, but I think it's a bit early to be engraving his name on
> any trophies yet.
> 
> 
> TWP

He wasn't awarded this because he is the President but becasue of the 
ideasand attitudes that he brings to the international scene. And the 
award was not considered "two weeks into his presidency". The award 
decision is made in October, not February.

On 2009-10-10 07:08:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Jesse"  wrote in message
> news:9uSzm.42657$bP1.18481@newsfe24.iad...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>>> 
>>> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama to
>>> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a
>>> pressie like that?
>>> 
>>> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say it
>>> was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a
>>> bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt kissing
>>> to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama does
>>> accomplish, if any.
>>> 
>>> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as
>>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our
>>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't feel
>>> he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good for
>>> him.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TWP
>> 
>> Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, I
>> didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
>> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
>> 
> 
> Like I said, it was only a caption headline.  I didn't hear the rest of it,
> or how it was said.  The only quote was the quote I gave.
> 
> I do think it's created an awkward situation for him, and I'll bet in his
> heart that part was true.  I think he knows he shouldn't have got it.... not
> this year anyway....
> 
> 
>> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this
>> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.
> 
> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
> 
> 
> TWP

He didn't get it for being a leader. It is about about ideas, not about duty.

On 2009-10-10 01:24:39 +0200, Jesse  said:

> TWP wrote:
>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>> 
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 
>> 2009 to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to 
>> strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The 
>> Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work 
>> for a world without nuclear weapons..
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President 
>> created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy 
>> has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the 
>> United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue 
>> and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the 
>> most difficult international conflicts.
>> 
>> (moe)
> 
> Obviously just a last minute sop to alleviate his pain over losing the 
> Chicago Olympics ,,, As if his head wasn't swelled enough as it was.
> 
> 
> Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
> 
> The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be 
> met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and 
> probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
> 
> Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. 
> It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of 
> expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, 
> approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope 
> that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
> 
> Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, 
> patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up 
> a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any 
> tangible outcome for peace.
> 
> The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen 
> international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people 
> will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” 
> relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the 
> Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.
> 
> East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, 
> and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; 
> and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world 
> has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict 
> between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
> 
> There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose 
> principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war 
> in Afghanistan.
> 
> The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize 
> that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa 
> would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to 
> send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a 
> war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group 
> to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in 
> hostilities.
> 
> The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have 
> appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the 
> two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead 
> Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling 
> communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners 
> turned out, sadly, to be negligible.
> 
> In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar 
> Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later 
> award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it 
> could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not 
> bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.
> 
> Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most 
> contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc 
> Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was 
> branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in 
> Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar 
> whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting 
> for the moment to attack South Vietnam.
> 
> Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. 
> The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. 
> It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many 
> of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the 
> Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The 
> achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Hope was the last thing left in Pandora's box, it has always been 
something worth rewarding. My guess is that a lot of people are simply 
carrying forward their dislike of a black president . And just think, 
if he carries on like this he could win it again.

Just think about that.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:t_Yzm.1544$KR3.658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
>
> I disagree, but the prize shouldn't be casually handed out either.
>
> No 'man in the street' is ever going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian 
> conflict, it takes someone with solid political power and international 
> muscle; and achieving it deserves being rewarded with recognition.
>

You're missing the word "serving".



> I would expect any Peace prize for resolving that conflict to be shared; 
> between Israeli and Palestinian leaders and the motivating players. I 
> don't think that, in your heart, you'd deny Obama being given credit for 
> pulling that one off if he does.
>

No I wouldn't.  But I think any awards he did get should be awarded at the 
end of his presidency.  Apart from leaders with near unlimited power by 
comparison with the rest of us unfairly eclipsing all the little people who 
risk their lives or devote their lives to their good works, it stains the 
Nobel people with accusations of political meddling.

I think this award embarrased Obama.  It wasn't timely by any means.  His 
"acceptance" speech now that I've actually heard some of it rather than just 
read it seems very awkward.



> Assuming he gets that, it's how the first award stacks up against the 
> second for resolving the conflict which highlights the problem of this 
> award.
>

I've no problem with anyone getting the award who has earned it, but it 
shouldn't go to people who look like they might do something to earn it in 
the future, or people who didn't have to really work very hard at all to get 
it.


TWP

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:11:56 +0100, Krak  wrote:

> On 2009-10-10 07:08:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
>
>>  "Jesse"  wrote in message
>> news:9uSzm.42657$bP1.18481@newsfe24.iad...
>>> TWP wrote:
>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>>>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>>>>  Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from  
>>>> Obama to
>>>> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a
>>>> pressie like that?
>>>>  I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably  
>>>> say it
>>>> was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a
>>>> bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt  
>>>> kissing
>>>> to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama  
>>>> does
>>>> accomplish, if any.
>>>>  I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show  
>>>> as
>>>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our
>>>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't  
>>>> feel
>>>> he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good  
>>>> for
>>>> him.
>>>>   TWP
>>>  Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw  
>>> shucks, I
>>> didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
>>> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
>>>
>>  Like I said, it was only a caption headline.  I didn't hear the rest  
>> of it,
>> or how it was said.  The only quote was the quote I gave.
>>  I do think it's created an awkward situation for him, and I'll bet in  
>> his
>> heart that part was true.  I think he knows he shouldn't have got  
>> it.... not
>> this year anyway....
>>
>>> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless,  
>>> this
>>> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.
>>  As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
>>   TWP
>
> He didn't get it for being a leader. It is about about ideas, not about  
> duty.
>
>
>

It's all part of the trend towards doling out rewards in advance of  
hoped-for performance, a bit like the massive bonuses and pensions voted  
to senior bankers and chief execs these days.

It's done as much to attract credit and kudos to the awarding institution  
as to the recipient, and the Nobel Committee no doubt feel that they have  
gained enormous respect through being associated with the Obama mania.  
Alas, I fear, they have merely made themselves look merely sycophantic and  
a bit foolish.
They have also brought the award into disrepute.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:22:23 +0100, TWP  wrote:

>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:t_Yzm.1544$KR3.658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
>>
>> I disagree, but the prize shouldn't be casually handed out either.
>>
>> No 'man in the street' is ever going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian
>> conflict, it takes someone with solid political power and international
>> muscle; and achieving it deserves being rewarded with recognition.
>>
>
> You're missing the word "serving".
>
>
>
>> I would expect any Peace prize for resolving that conflict to be shared;
>> between Israeli and Palestinian leaders and the motivating players. I
>> don't think that, in your heart, you'd deny Obama being given credit for
>> pulling that one off if he does.
>>
>
> No I wouldn't.  But I think any awards he did get should be awarded at  
> the
> end of his presidency.  Apart from leaders with near unlimited power by
> comparison with the rest of us unfairly eclipsing all the little people  
> who
> risk their lives or devote their lives to their good works, it stains the
> Nobel people with accusations of political meddling.
>
> I think this award embarrased Obama.  It wasn't timely by any means.  His
> "acceptance" speech now that I've actually heard some of it rather than  
> just
> read it seems very awkward.
>
>
>
>> Assuming he gets that, it's how the first award stacks up against the
>> second for resolving the conflict which highlights the problem of this
>> award.
>>
>
> I've no problem with anyone getting the award who has earned it, but it
> shouldn't go to people who look like they might do something to earn it  
> in
> the future, or people who didn't have to really work very hard at all to  
> get
> it.
>
>
> TWP
>

And how is Obama going to take the bankers to task and put a stop to the  
bonus culture, if he accepts this award? But how can he refuse it without  
seeming ungracious?

No wonder he seemed a bit peeved by it.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"Krak"  wrote ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>
> Hope was the last thing left in Pandora's box, it has always been 
> something worth rewarding. My guess is that a lot of people are simply 
> carrying forward their dislike of a black president .

I'm sure that some people are, but it mustn't be taken that all the people 
criticising the award are doing so because he is black. Most discussion on 
validity I have heard centres around merit and achievement rather than 
anything else.

The main complaints seem to be -

1) He doesnt deserve it - I agree. I believe the award should be for 
concrete results not visionary outlook.

2) It's because he's black - I don't think it was so.

3) It's because he's not GWB - Quite possibly. Obama has brought America, at 
least in part, back into the international diplomatic arena but that's not 
so deserving in itself IMO.

4) There were more deserving candidates - Probably, IMO. If Obama has indeed 
done best then it would be wrong to deny him the award.

>And just think, if he carries on like this he could win it again.
>
> Just think about that.

I personally hope he does get the award again. As long as it is for an 
achievement which I consider worthy of its receipt.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:t_Yzm.1544$KR3.658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
>>
>> I disagree, but the prize shouldn't be casually handed out either.
>>
>> No 'man in the street' is ever going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian 
>> conflict, it takes someone with solid political power and international 
>> muscle; and achieving it deserves being rewarded with recognition.
>>
>
> You're missing the word "serving".

Those with the muscle will have to be serving leaders IMO.


>> I would expect any Peace prize for resolving that conflict to be shared; 
>> between Israeli and Palestinian leaders and the motivating players. I 
>> don't think that, in your heart, you'd deny Obama being given credit for 
>> pulling that one off if he does.
>>
>
> No I wouldn't.  But I think any awards he did get should be awarded at the 
> end of his presidency.  Apart from leaders with near unlimited power by 
> comparison with the rest of us unfairly eclipsing all the little people 
> who risk their lives or devote their lives to their good works,

That's usually the way it is.


> it stains the Nobel people with accusations of political meddling.

Well, that's political peddling in the sense of achieving something which 
benefits all mankind which I don't personally object to.


> I think this award embarrased Obama.  It wasn't timely by any means.  His 
> "acceptance" speech now that I've actually heard some of it rather than 
> just read it seems very awkward.

Even he can see that saying he intends to fix something and actually fix it 
are two very different beasts, the later much harder than the former.


>> Assuming he gets that, it's how the first award stacks up against the 
>> second for resolving the conflict which highlights the problem of this 
>> award.
>>
>
> I've no problem with anyone getting the award who has earned it, but it 
> shouldn't go to people who look like they might do something to earn it in 
> the future, or people who didn't have to really work very hard at all to 
> get it.

Agreed.

Jesse wrote:

> Obviously just a last minute sop to alleviate his pain over losing the 
> Chicago Olympics 

If he's that upset, he could take ours - or at least pay for it...

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Krak"  wrote in message
> news:hanb7i$12nf$2@adenine.netfront.net...
>> On 2009-10-09 13:37:23 +0200, "The Happy Hippy"
>>  said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>> 
>>>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>>> 
>>>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
>>>> 2009
>>>> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
>>>> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
>>> 
>>> This is the man who is standing on the verge of sending 60,000 troops
>>> into
>>> Afghanistan, has no timetable to end the occupation of a foreign land,
>>> supports the violation of sovereign territory in the process of killing
>>> America's alleged enemies and whose overtures towards Israeli-Palestinian
>>> peace have seemingly been met with complete rejection by Israel. Not to
>>> mention that his Presidency has caused the largest factionalised split
>>> between American citizens in decades.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps he has done something concrete towards achieving real peace, but,
>>> beyond proposing the world cuts back on its nuclear arsenals, I'm
>>> struggling
>>> to say what demonstrable results he's actually had.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure it will be seen by many as a reward for saying 'America will do
>>> what's right' ( regardless of what America actually does or achieves )
>>> which
>>> is what America should have been doing all along anyway.
>>> 
>>> Anyone can say, 'wouldn't it be great if the world could be better', but
>>> the
>>> real measure is in achievement. I'm sure quite a few will say such an
>>> important award is premature. The head of the International Peace
>>> Institute
>>> in Oslo earlier saying, "They want the prize to have an impact on things
>>> that are about to happen and want to affect events", seemingly confirms
>>> he's
>>> won it for what he may do and has proposed, not what he has achieved.
>>> Some
>>> would say that seriously devalues the prize.
>>> 
>>> I guess the odds on who will win Time's "Man of the Year, 2009" will have
>>> shortened.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view
>> that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on
>> the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the
>> world's population"."
>> That's why.
> 
> 
> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago (with
> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the
> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)
> 
> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what you
> say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us would
> probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)
> 
> 
> TWP

So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not. 
That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to 
actually recieve an award.

On 2009-10-10 07:08:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Jesse"  wrote in message
> news:9uSzm.42657$bP1.18481@newsfe24.iad...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>>> 
>>> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama to
>>> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a
>>> pressie like that?
>>> 
>>> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say it
>>> was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a
>>> bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt kissing
>>> to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama does
>>> accomplish, if any.
>>> 
>>> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as
>>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our
>>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't feel
>>> he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good for
>>> him.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TWP
>> 
>> Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, I
>> didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
>> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
>> 
> 
> Like I said, it was only a caption headline.  I didn't hear the rest of it,
> or how it was said.  The only quote was the quote I gave.
> 
> I do think it's created an awkward situation for him, and I'll bet in his
> heart that part was true.  I think he knows he shouldn't have got it.... not
> this year anyway....
> 
> 
>> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this
>> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.
> 
> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
> 
> 
> TWP

Then why don't you set up your own awards scheme? If you did then you 
could decide about serving leaders and so on. As it is the Nobel 
Foundation get to decide who to hand their awards to. As far as I know 
they haven't sent out for advice yet, it's their own game and that's 
the yway they like to run it. It doesn't come from God you know, it's 
just another committee up there in Sweden.

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:har3tj$2rjk$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> On 2009-10-10 07:08:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
>
>>
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>> news:9uSzm.42657$bP1.18481@newsfe24.iad...
>>> TWP wrote:
>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>>>> news:XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
>>>>
>>>> Well, the Norwegians will have a little smiley face sticker from Obama 
>>>> to
>>>> show for it.  How can you think badly of a country that gives you a
>>>> pressie like that?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a mistake.  I think if you asked Obama he'd probably say 
>>>> it
>>>> was a mistake - or something more tactful, but still designed to get a
>>>> bit of distance from it.  It's premature, ant it looks like butt 
>>>> kissing
>>>> to me, and it'll take the wind out of any future achievements Obama 
>>>> does
>>>> accomplish, if any.
>>>>
>>>> I just saw a captioned quote on Fox News (the UK version can't show as
>>>> many adverts as the US version, so we get headline captions after our
>>>> adverts) from Obama saying he was surprised by the award and doesn't 
>>>> feel
>>>> he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel prize winners.  Good 
>>>> for
>>>> him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TWP
>>>
>>> Coming TWP, you're taking his fained, reluctant magnanimity "aw shucks, 
>>> I
>>> didn't deserve that!" as genuine ?
>>> I had you pegged as a bit more savvy than that.
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, it was only a caption headline.  I didn't hear the rest of 
>> it,
>> or how it was said.  The only quote was the quote I gave.
>>
>> I do think it's created an awkward situation for him, and I'll bet in his
>> heart that part was true.  I think he knows he shouldn't have got it.... 
>> not
>> this year anyway....
>>
>>
>>> The NP has been getting progressively more debased and meaningless, this
>>> does nothing more than to prove that in a graphic way.
>>
>> As I said earlier, serving leaders shouldn't even be in the running.
>>
>>
>> TWP
>
> Then why don't you set up your own awards scheme? If you did then you 
> could decide about serving leaders and so on. As it is the Nobel 
> Foundation get to decide who to hand their awards to. As far as I know 
> they haven't sent out for advice yet, it's their own game and that's the 
> yway they like to run it. It doesn't come from God you know, it's just 
> another committee up there in Sweden.


You know, if I ever get rich selling explosives I might just do that....


TWP

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:hapmvf$ap2$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> On 2009-10-10 01:24:39 +0200, Jesse  said:
>

> Hope was the last thing left in Pandora's box, it has always been 
> something worth rewarding. My guess is that a lot of people are simply 
> carrying forward their dislike of a black president . And just think, if 
> he carries on like this he could win it again.
>

I think most people have long got over the culture shock of him being black. 
When I look at him I just see President Obama.  Even the culture shock of 
him being someone different to George Bush after eight years has passed.

TWP

"Krak"  wrote in message 
news:har3ge$2p4h$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:


> So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not. 
> That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to 
> actually recieve an award.

Maybe we insipred Obama!

I'm sure he lurks around here from time to time for new ideas.


TWP

"Krak"  wrote ...

> On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
[snips]
>> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago 
>> (with
>> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the
>> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)
>>
>> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what 
>> you
>> say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us would
>> probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)
>>
>>
>> TWP
>
> So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not. 
> That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to 
> actually recieve an award.

The real question is whether Obama's discussions have achieved anything. 
Plenty of big ideas but not a lot of concrete results so far.

I'm not really sure why Obama was nominated so soon into his Presidency. 
Fair enough hedging one's bet but at that time he'd done very little, except 
upset Gordon Brown and British diplomats by not playing the diplomatic 
etiquette game ( maybe that was after nomination ).

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:7SjAm.1936$KR3.687@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "Krak"  wrote ...
>
>> On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
> [snips]
>>> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago 
>>> (with
>>> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the
>>> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)
>>>
>>> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what 
>>> you
>>> say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us 
>>> would
>>> probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)
>>>
>>>
>>> TWP
>>
>> So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not. 
>> That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to 
>> actually recieve an award.
>


Right.  It's their choice who the award goes to, but it's who the award goes 
to that makes the award worth having in the first place.  It's the company 
it puts you in - as Obama himself said.

The award is worth a lot more to everyone who receives it if it represents 
accomplishment rather than promise, and isn't awarded for political reasons. 
I'll bet you that's what Nobel wanted.


TWP

In message <XCPzm.78318$4t6.62317@newsfe06.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>TWP wrote:
>> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>>  The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace
>>Prize 2009  to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts
>>to strengthen  international diplomacy and cooperation between
>>peoples. The Committee has  attached special importance to Obama's
>>vision of and work for a world  without nuclear weapons..
>> The Norwegian Nobel Committee states that Obama has as President
>>created a  new climate in international politics. Multilateral
>>diplomacy has regained a  central position, with emphasis on the role
>>that the United Nations and  other international institutions can
>>play. Dialogue and negotiations are  preferred as instruments for
>>resolving even the most difficult international  conflicts.
>>  (moe)
>
>Obviously just a last minute sop to alleviate his pain over losing the
>Chicago Olympics ,,, As if his head wasn't swelled enough as it was.
>
>
>Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
>
>The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be
>met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and
>probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
>

I am going to have to agree with Jesse.. I can't see what Obama has done
to earn this.    Maybe next year he might have done enough but not this
year.

It all seems rather odd.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2009-10-11 05:24:31 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Krak"  wrote in message
> news:har3ge$2p4h$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>> On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
> 
> 
>> So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not.
>> That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to
>> actually recieve an award.
> 
> Maybe we insipred Obama!
> 
> I'm sure he lurks around here from time to time for new ideas.
> 
> 
> TWP

Well, lurk he may, but I sure hope that the process of "insipring" 
doesn't involve the exchange of any body fluids.

On 2009-10-11 14:05:23 +0200, "The Happy Hippy" 
 said:

> 
> "Krak"  wrote ...
> 
>> On 2009-10-09 15:31:33 +0200, "TWP"  said:
> [snips]
>>> Myself and HH were discussing complete nuclear disarmament years ago
>>> (with
>>> the exception of weapons for planetary defence)!  Why didn't we get the
>>> prize?  Actually HH can have the glory - I'll have the $1million! :-)
>>> 
>>> If all you have to do is say something but not actually accomplish what
>>> you
>>> say we'd be up to our neck in awards around here!  (and a few of us would
>>> probably be serving lengthy prison sentences...)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TWP
>> 
>> So did your discussions actually set anything in motion? Thought not.
>> That's why you were not nominated. That makes it kind of difficult to
>> actually recieve an award.
> 
> The real question is whether Obama's discussions have achieved anything.
> Plenty of big ideas but not a lot of concrete results so far.
> 
> I'm not really sure why Obama was nominated so soon into his Presidency.
> Fair enough hedging one's bet but at that time he'd done very little, except
> upset Gordon Brown and British diplomats by not playing the diplomatic
> etiquette game ( maybe that was after nomination ).

"So soon into his Presidency". I think he existed before that. Maybe he 
should of got the award for Literature?

On 2009-10-11 02:20:37 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "Krak"  wrote in message
> news:hapmvf$ap2$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>> On 2009-10-10 01:24:39 +0200, Jesse  said:
>> 
> 
>> Hope was the last thing left in Pandora's box, it has always been
>> something worth rewarding. My guess is that a lot of people are simply
>> carrying forward their dislike of a black president . And just think, if
>> he carries on like this he could win it again.
>> 
> 
> I think most people have long got over the culture shock of him being black.
> When I look at him I just see President Obama.  Even the culture shock of
> him being someone different to George Bush after eight years has passed.
> 
> TWP

But my guess is that you didn't have a cultural problem in the first 
place. Ask Jesse if he has got over it yet....

"TWP"  wrote ...

> http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22602/1/
>
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 
> to US President Barak Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen 
> international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAPJ481

<quotes>

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, 
"We simply disagree," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland ... "He got the 
prize for what he has done ... All these things have contributed to - I 
wouldn't say a safer world - but a world with less tension"
</quotes>

That could be read as the Nobel Peace Prize having devalued itself to an 
award for 'issuing reassuring words'.

Ahmadinejad must be kicking himself for missing out this year; a simple 
clarification of 'By destruction of Israel, I don't mean turn the place into 
a huge crater', could have won it. OBL would have been in the running with, 
"I have no intention of repeating 9-11", and Nick Griffin could have scored 
well with, "some of my best friends are black and Muslims".

If it comes down to 'reducing tension', I'm surprised Radox haven't had a 
look-in.

The award committee claim, "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is 
normally a big debate about it"; if so I can't say I recall debate and 
dispute on this scale since Kissinger int he 70's, nor the committee coming 
out in public to appear to be having to defend the award.