Did Obama Snub the Nobel Prize Committee?

[The Larch]

BTW, I'd recommend you guys to read Obama's acceptance speech. He makes some points that you may find interesting. I quote some parts:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

[The Larch]

What grumbler said is not outrageous at all.

It was an incredibly stupid post.
How could anyone short of a conspiracy theorist possibly say it was Obama's fault for winning the nobel peace prize? There's just no way that could possibly be the case.

He doesn't say it was Obama's fault, read it again.

[Viking]

forgive my ignorance, but..

how many other winners of the nobel peace prize who participated in these events were the acting head of government at the time of their acceptance? i suppose the real question might be, how long would it take to get through the traditional events? there are some heated topics going on in the united states right now, and i'm not sure the president would want the possible backlash from being shown running around in norway with his peace prize while the issue of health care is still on the floor. his administration might feel that it would just add more criticism

Woodrow Wilson, FW de Klerk, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-Jung and Barack Obama.

Edit: Teddy Roosevelt refused to accept the prize while president.

[Caliga]

How could anyone short of a conspiracy theorist possibly say it was Obama's fault for winning the nobel peace prize? There's just no way that could possibly be the case.

At comprehending grumbler's post you get an EPIC FAIL.  It was perfectly reasonable and, like virtually everyone else, I agree with it completely.

[Admiral Yi]

Good speech. 

At what point did the committee walk out?

[LaCroix]

forgive my ignorance, but..

how many other winners of the nobel peace prize who participated in these events were the acting head of government at the time of their acceptance? i suppose the real question might be, how long would it take to get through the traditional events? there are some heated topics going on in the united states right now, and i'm not sure the president would want the possible backlash from being shown running around in norway with his peace prize while the issue of health care is still on the floor. his administration might feel that it would just add more criticism

Woodrow Wilson, FW de Klerk, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-Jung and Barack Obama.

thank you.

[Ed Anger]

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

USA! USA! USA!

[Josquius]

At comprehending grumbler's post you get an EPIC FAIL.  It was perfectly reasonable and, like virtually everyone else, I agree with it completely.

He was accusing me of believing that. Which as I said is just nutty.

Obama as a NPP winner is a fake -no where did I say this was his fault.
Just imagine if you wake up tomorrow to a phone call saying you've won the nobel peace prize.
My first reaction would be 'wtf' and through all the hoopla would see myself as a fake, in a position I don't belong. I'd be thinking 'any minute now they'll realise they've made a mistake somewhere' and would not be comfortable with anything to do with the NPP.
Of course Obama is in a less fake position than I would be (due to already being on the world stage) but still. Perhaps he does see his victory as unjustified.

[Caliga]

I suppose he does feel it is unjustified.  Then again, I also suppose he is a narcissist--so who knows exactly what he thinks when he gets yet another undeserved accolade.

[Razgovory]

I also agree with Grumbler.  Personally I think it would have been better not to accept the damn thing at all.  Still it is like a million bucks.  I'd take it.

[Ed Anger]

I also agree with Grumbler.  Personally I think it would have been better not to accept the damn thing at all.  Still it is like a million bucks.  I'd take it.

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man.

[Caliga]

Like he needs the money.   He's gotten rich off his book sales and, like Clinton, will be able to turn his post-presidency into an extremely lucrative career.

I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that.  He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.

[Admiral Yi]

I TAKE A STAND with poor Joe Squeeze.  "Obama is a fake" obviously referred to the validity of the prize, not to Obama's authenticity as a person.

[Razgovory]

Like he needs the money.   He's gotten rich off his book sales and, like Clinton, will be able to turn his post-presidency into an extremely lucrative career.

I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that.  He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.

I would have taken the cash.  I've done alot for world peace.  I mean, I did save those planets from the Zerg a while back.  Well some of them anyway.

[DGuller]

I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that.  He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.

Agreed.  He was put in a lose-lose situation.  Not sure if he took the best of the bad options, but there were only bad options.