Question: Did the Nobel panel hear these statements before making their decision?
"… as president, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
"In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. (John) McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
these statements are Obama's in 2008, how can the Nobel panel say that he is going to be bringing peace after those kind of statements?
(not bashing Obama here but the logic in their thinking seems a bit dim)
Relation Questions:
Answer:
So he didn't bring piece throughout the world, just because he supports this one war?
He has made other efforts to strengthen our relations with other countries, have negotiations with other countries about the economy and climate, and change the way other people think.
And the Nobel Peace prize is based on efforts for creating peace, not creating peace all on your own.
Because one man doesn't have the power to create peace. It is just based on efforts and how much hard work you put into it.
Dude, HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO END WAR AND CREATE PEACE. It says here it is rewarded for peace making efforts.
"Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace."
A fight against terror is considered peaceful by the Nobel panel. A random war in Iraq is not.
No they couldn't hear over their ipods playing the old Soviet Union National Anthem in their ears!God Bless
The Nobel Prize is based on politics, not on reality. Their choices have generally produced very little if any peace.
The "Nobel Committee" is a joke now. I lost all respect I had for them when it was awarded to slick liar, Rigoberta Menchu in 1992.
us republicans dont like a president who tries to get along with other countries ....we want a president who gets us into wars
They have an agenda. Think about it. Obama.....the great man of peace? He needs to get a surge going, get more troops in there, quit farting around, and win the damn war!
Those are statements that Obama made when he was campaigning for President. Apparently, the Nobel panel were basing their opinion on other statements that Obama made before and after becoming President.
You know, the speeches where Obama trashes America.. Just like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore... After all, it worked for them...
Actually, this would highlight a reason FOR, not AGAINST the choice of Obama for the peace prize. he is deferring troops from Iraq, where a futile war was being raged against the wrong people, and placing them along the Afghan border and in Pakistan.
He is trying to fight those who need to be fought in order to protect the innocent rest of the world, while minimizing casualties. IMO, that is the definition of Peace.
Taking on and defeating those who kill indiscriminantly though fanatical religous fervour is not contributing to peace???
Have you ever heard how much europeans envy America?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
The Nobel Prize for Peace is just so appropriate for Obama
1 He doesn't deserve it
2 he isn't even qualified
3 he has never actually done anything
4 He won the award by skilfully reading from a teleprompter.
This is exactly how he became President...see 1 to 4 ablove.
Obama is all image and no substance.
they were busy selecting the right guy for noble
like they were when they chosen yasir Arafat for noble.