Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: “What Has He Done?”

About how fucked up this shit is

hahahaha that first comment make me laugh xDDDD
let´s give zecks an oscar! =D

"Fucked up" is allowing Bush to stay in office for 8 years despite all the fucked up things he was doing. So considering that I don't care -what- they do if it does no real damage.

Also: Iran is a shithole, Britain needs to colonize them like they did india back int he day.

well fuck you for saying so. India was never a shithole. Britain reduced it to what it is today, cos at one point of time it was the richest country in the world. The crown jewel that the filthy inbred royal family wears is from India, in case you didn't know.

Brits are nothing but a bunch of exploitative bastards. Colonising Iran would destroy it beyond repair. Atleast Obama is giving them a shot.

Except that Obama is still doing pretty much everything Bush was, but with different rhetoric.

Is Quitmo closed? Is th US getting out of Iraq any quicker? How 'bout Afghanistan? Peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?

I understand that these things aren't easy and will take time, but only time will tell if Obama can live up to any of his campaign promises, or do anything meaningful for world peace. That's why this award is premature.

So far, the only "change" he's made is to increase the likelihood that eastern European nations will develop nukes by making it look like the US can't stand up to Russia, bought Iran a bit more time to make their own, extended a hand to the Muslim world which was ignored, agreed to talk with dictators without requiring that they make any efforts on human rights first, and proved that nobody wants to vacation in Chicago.

Wow. He earned that peace prize.

He's only done nothing? =__='

-Reversed restrictions on stem cell research

-Appointed an assistant to the president for science and technology policy

-Created a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners

-Expanded loan programs for small businesses

-Extended and indexed the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch

-Expanded eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)

-Expanded funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners

-Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq
Sent two additional brigades to Afghanistan

-As promised gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration

-Granted Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba

-Restored funding for the Byrne Justice

-Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program

-Released presidential records

-Now requires new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions

-Pushed for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors

-Created a White House Office on Urban Policy

-Supported increased funding for the NEA

-Funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps

-Worked to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear

-Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees

-Pledged to weatherize 1 million homes per year

-Invested in all types of alternative energy

-Enacted tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars

-Provided grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes

-As promised appointed at least one Republican to the cabinet

-Extended unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspended taxes on these benefits.

Please keep in mind, the major things like closing guantanamo, getting out of iraq, etc take a long time to accomplish, and aren't as easy as taking everybody out.

I don't think any other president has had such unjustified criticism. He's been trying to do the stuff, and be patient because these sorts of things can sometimes take longer than 4 years.

Especially when it comes to getting things through congress.

Seriously, he's been in office 9 months and he's working his ass off and slowly making progress, but people think he was supposed to be some second coming and lickety-split fix everything that the Republicans fucked up. It's fucking zealous Faux "News" and right-wing talk shows that gets gullible people into a stink, they yell their diatribes so loud that the stuff that's getting done can't be heard.

He also spent $2-$3 trillion in his first 8 months, more than every president in history...put together.

He plans on spending trillions more on programs(health care, student loans, ect...) that the US cant afford to pay for.

The deficit has grown exponentially, and continues to do so everyday.

He has continuously appeased dictators around the world who have no regard for human rights, or individual liberty.

The war in Iraq would end in 2012 regardless of whether he said it would or not. The Iraqi government passed legislation saying we had to leave by then.

The National Endowment for the Arts is a waste of money, and by no means is it the federal governments job to pass out money to "artists"

The only "Republican" in his cabinet is the transportation secretary Ray LaHood, that sounds real freaking important. And you'd have to be ignorant to think ONE republican counts as "bipartisanship."

He's shredded the constitution and pissed all over it.

He's George Bush on steroids, who appeases our enemies rather than confronts them. Change? hahaha don't make me laugh. He hasn't done anything but dick around for the last eight months.

That's a long and unimpressive list of minor beurocratic decisions that have virtually no bearing on global politics and next to nothing to do with domestic or foreign peace.

The laughable exception to that list is "Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq."

He told his commanders to end the war as quickly as possible while requiring that they meet certain objectives? So did Bush. That's what almost every leader of every military of any country at war tries to do. That's like saying he told doctors to take care of sick people, or he told Japanese teachers to molest their students.

Maybe next he'll tell the sun to rise and get the Nobel science prize.

Yeah, he also stood in front of the bill of rights and talked about indefinite detention for people who haven't even committed a crime. He's also increased the number of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, not decreased them. He's in the process of closing Gitmo, sure, but Bagram Air Base will make a suitable replacement. The mean just oozes civil rights and commitment to peace doesn't he?

I don't know if you live in America or not. But you should probably realize, there is no major difference between Republicans and Democrats, except for the fact that Republicans are slightly more upfront about the fact that they are assholes. Democrats on the other hand still try to make you think they're not completely full of shit. Obama has done fuck all to deserve a peace prize. This was a political move.

He's only been in office 9 months...
He's trying...
These things take time...

Exactly. That's why he doesn't deserve this award. Let him actually do something first. It's not like he can't get it in 8 years, if he deserves it then.

Look at the people trying to scurry around Obama and defend him when he is no better and sometimes worse then Bush.

should we start listing every minor action as evidence he's doing something?. great you've proven he's signed some administrative paperwork that was placed in front of him. he's not literally sitting on his ass all day doing nothing. 2012 why don't we just elect a secretary? he/she would do the same thing and probably have less lies and promises. what about every major campaign promise he made but has yet to actually do, most of which his office itself has admitted he has put on the indefinite backburner that is DC politics, never to be addressed again.
half of the "achievements" you listed there were fundings and expansions ALREADY PLANNED. yes, the irony that even the Obama-loving press like the NYT has been forced to admit is that Obama has mostly just continued programs that Bush actually started towards the end of his presidency. the only difference is packaging them in Obama's name makes them sound good to the brainwashed public that doesn't want to think about how little he's done, for fear of looking at themselves in the mirror and admitting to themselves that once again they, in the words of Kathy Griffin trying to be a political/cultural analyst, voted for a guy they liked instead of someone with actual credentials.
whats funny is how the MSM tried their hardest to "fact check" the SNL skit on Obama and even then the best they could do to disprove it was to say at least Obama has started to close Gitmo (but he still hasn't CLOSED it).
so yes, OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING. oh not literally nothing, he's signed a few papers. He gets up in teh morning and sits in his office. kudos for getting so much done right? its funny to see his brainwashed supporters desperately try to say he has achieved so much, but he hasn't. nothing of consequence to anyone but the desperate supporter trying to trump up his credentials.

will he get anything done in the next 3 years? maybe. who knows. but to the ppl supporting him by saying "understand these things take time!", most critics DO understand that. believe it or not, i find WE UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER THAN MOST OBAMA SUPPORTERS.
YOU understand that the frothing Fox News retards are a loud but miniscule minority. most critics are just people, many who even voted for Obama, who aren't so blind as to mindlessly act like Obama is the messiah just because we're desperate for a political hero. He'll get all those major achievements done in time? so give him the Nobel Peace Prize THEN. not in his first year of complete (to quote that hilarious SNL skit) jack squat.

Man, fucking Republicans. Can't stand Bush sent us into a pointless war, can ya? Y'all piss and moan, and when you actually do something you fuck it up, and complain when the Dems come back in to clean things up. At least Obama has sensibility and common sense to his approach, instead of "hey, let's go to war with Iraq because...!...?" Yeah, that's what I fucking thought.

First: this “Nobel” is a consolation prize for the blackf4ce because of the HUMILLATION (or mega ownage, if you preffer) he got after he tried to promote Chicago as the host for 2016 Olimpics. Remember, almost every idiot can get a Nobel peace in the category of “peace”. Two idiots come to my mind right now: the barely literated Rigoberta Menchu, and the white and nerdy Al Gore.

Second: no matter how butthurt liberals are: GEORGE W. BUSH IS A GRAND MAN and was the best president the United States had in the past 20 years. He will be honored as Lincoln or Washington because he was a patriot who endured a trial no other president had faced in history; and he was VICTORIOUS. Bush was re elected without trouble. Obama will be another Jimmy Carter. Keep it in mind ;)

In all fairness though, how exactly can the not yet closing of Gitmo be laid at his feet, when it's been Congress who's been blocking the plans that the President has?

As for naming Republicans to his team.
He maintained the Secretary of Defense, who is a Republican.

LaHood is indeed the second as Secretary of Transportation.

There's Jim Leach who is Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

And from what I recall, he did ask other Republicans to serve as well. Judd Gregg for Commerce comes to mind. Think there was another one as well.

Then there's the appointment of Eric Shinseki as the Secretary of Veteran Affairs. That chap seems to call them as he sees them, so one would think that the more right leaning folks would appreciate his appointment as well.

I really can't tell if this last comment is trollmode or not.

Mine wasn't, the one of mine, probably.
Although, I can't rule out mental illness either.

*sigh* Going too fast again, that should've read.

Mine wasn't, the one above mine, probably.
Although I can't rule out mental illness either.

Waaahhhh go cry Republicans didn't get a prize. so sad, too bad.

Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize has been downgraded to below a Grammy.

Maybe he can trade it for the Olympics?

stupid anons ._.

stupid Maikeru ._. FIXED

Indeed, now Nobel Peace Prize is even below Grammy Latino.

itt people who can't do any better criticize their superiors

So whoever had that long rant to begin with concerning Obama's glorius accomplishments never did answer the question. Let's restate it one more time: Exactly what is it that his excellency Mr. Obama did to merit a Nobel Peace Prize?

So just when is Obama going to fix the economy? Is he just too busy fixing everything else before he gets to it?

Why he destroyed small businesses, set up a nanny state, and has put us about a trillion dollars in debt to China. It's funny he didn't win the Nobel Prize for Lit. I mean at least he has written a book. It sucked, but he did something that would qualify him for that category.

SORRY, ALL I SAW WAS

-SPEND MONEY

-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY
-SPEND MONEY

I want one too ( >_>)...soo gimme! >_<

Shouldn't we be taking up issue with the Nobel Peace Prize committee too? Sure, he hadn't done anything at that moment to get nominated, but that's just that: a nomination. The committee still chose him over other candidates even in the face of his lack of results. He didn't deserve it then, doesn't deserve it now, and they still picked him.

If I were him, I would refuse the prize on grounds of "I haven't done anything yet."

I'm a Democrat for whatever that's worth.

This is a long chain of comments. I wish to be a part of this long chain of comments.

People should go outside of their room, he did already so many huge things in that shhort time.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Ayu, beautiful, good to see you here again.

However, I respectfully disagree of your viewpoint. Neither you or I are Americans, but at least the few Americans I know are kinda bitter about Obama's lack of significant archivements.

He is not a visionary like Ronald Reagan, who envisioned modern economy or faced the last days of cold war... "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

If you compare him with the most other politicans he does really a good job. The most people only say promises they will never make reallity just to get votes witout even trying to keep them. He trys at last to do them all what is rare these days at politicans.

FUCK BUSH, FUCK OBAMA FUCK ALL :D

Congratulations you succeeded on becoming a part of this long chain of comments, and now, so too, have I.

Ok Miss Ayu, but still, I have the impression that "cash for klunkers" (or wathever is called) is not an endeavor notable enought to deserve a Nobel prize in shit.

Even if he is trying he still doesn't deserve the prize at the moment. Put him back on the list in at least a year, or hell, the end of his term. He basically got this award solely on "future potential" and not "past achievements."

OK, politifact is a joke, but if you want to use it...according to politifact, of the more than 500 promises he made, he's kept 47.

The truth is, nobody cares if he's working towards his promise to "ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks," or if he said he would "'throw his weight around' to lobby for a college football playoff system, which he said would only add three weeks to the season."

War, terrorism, the economy, nuclear proliferation, health care, etc, are the areas where the promises he made got him elected. On those issues he's accomplished little if anything worthy of praise, and nothing deserving a Nobel peace prize.

It can be argued that he's tried, and I'd agree, but if he knew he wouldn't be able to keep his promises he shouldn't have made them. If he didn't know, he should have, because there were plenty of people (not least of all his republican opponents) who told him he was overestimating his capacity to effect change and underestimating the magnitude of the political inertia he would have to overcome to fulfill his promises. Perhaps if he's had more experience...

Given time, he probably will be able to do something meaningful. When he does, I'll be the first to acknowledge his success. Then he may be worthy of a Nobel prize. Right now, it's simply too soon.

The most any politician can really ever promise is that they're going to do their best to get their policies passed. No politician and certainly no President can force the entire Senate and House to completely agree with his/her point of view. So the best we can ask of Obama is to take action on the things he promised, and that he work as hard as possible to make them happen. Compared to Bush, who took vacation for 42% of his presidency, I think everyone would agree that Obama is putting his nose to the grindstone to get his promises done. The rest is up to Congress and the American people.

The problem is that the promises he made were clearly impossible. People were just so desperate to get a democrat into office that they turned off their brains. Obama could have said he'd cut military spending in half and buy everybody a dinosaur and the next day half the country would be talking about what a great idea it was.

Yeah, Obama is putting his nose to the grindstone and trying to keep his unrealistic and impractical promises. I can promise people that I can fly and put my nose to the grindstone flapping by arms, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to or that it's a good idea. All it means is that I'm an idiot who makes pointless promises and I'm not worth listening to.

I still waiting for my dinosaur!

Tell Obama to make it with steam cells taken from aborted fetuses.

Really? Who cares? I mean, Europe can suck Obama ass as much as they want, but if Mr.Blackface continues to be laughing stock for SNL every weekend he won't be re-elected.

Of course he's well liked. Everybody likes a doormat. I'm sure America's enemies will think twice before opposing a president that gets a peace prize for doing nothing.

You really honor your nickname, "First Posting Idiot" LOL

FirstPostingIdiot, you really honor your nickname.

Uhhh, guys, this is the 21st century and we've entered a global economy. You can talk about doormat shit all you want, but unless you think the US is ready to forcibly take over the world, we're going to have to learn to play nice on the playground. =\

Uh, it's been a global economy for the last few centuries.

Don't worry too much about US participation though. Seeing as it's the largest single economy in the world, the world economy is pretty much dependent on US participation.

And sorry, but until the EU gets off it ass and builds something resembling a military, the US can't afford to play nice. It's fine to bitch about the US being a bully and point out all the mistakes the US makes when the entire world enjoys the stability paid for by US diplomacy and the military, but I don't see any other countries volunteering for the job. They're pretty quick to complain when the US doesn't act though, if US intervention would benefit them.

What you're not getting is that it hasn't been until the past 50 years or so that global economic systems have become so closely tied with one another. Product shipping and networking technologies have expanded to astronomical proportions in the last 20 years - the bonds between economic systems are much more closely intertwined than they were in centuries past. The whole "we'll do whatever the fuck we want" attitude won't cut it in a global marketplace anymore, and quite frankly just on it's own merit it's a piss poor approach to foreign relations in general.

And don't get a big head about the US paying for a lot of shit around the world. Last I checked, the US had the largest debt of all the developing countries in the world. Americans live in fucking wealth, even the poor people have it better than a lot of the countries in the world (trust me, I've seen both sides of the coin and all levels of extreme).

Could you please reread that last paragraph and tell me if that's actually what you meant to say?

BETWEEN THE LINES!!!!! ,when has between the lines actuly been used in politics except for republicans when they r fear mongering

Agree wint Anon 13:57.

If you really pay attention to newspapers you will find that most of Democrat congressman supports censorship and moral codes to sanction movies, T.V. & videogames. Yes, there also republicans who support that bullshit, but most of republicans don’t give a rat ass about TV or videogame violence while it generates some wealth.

By the way in an election (any election) you are NEVER really free to choose whoever you think is the best, Instead you are forced to choose between a narrow selection of pre elected candidates that most of the time cant’ even expose their true viewpoints on key facts. So, I can say than in most of the elections you only can choose between be fucked or be screwed. Like the South Park episode where they have to choose between a turd sandwich and a douche.

Anon 15:19:
"By the way in an election (any election) you are NEVER really free to choose whoever you think is the best, Instead you are forced to choose between a narrow selection of pre elected candidates that most of the time cant’ even expose their true viewpoints on key facts."
I agree insofar as the US political system is concerned, but there are better ones where more than two parties actually get a say in running the nation. Of course there's still usually only one head honcho, but at least he finds it a bit more difficult to push his party line through effectively. To me this indicates that the American system is in dire need of a massive overhaul. It may have worked fine in a federation of small ex-colonies centuries ago, but I doubt it's appropriate for a >300-million-citizen superpower these days.

Oh ffs, display fail, screw it.

If you want a patriot, vote for Republicans, if you want a douche, then vote for a Democrat. This time a douche won, but there is always posible not to be re elected ^_^

if your such a patriot then go watch G.I. joe or a michael bay movie instead of posting on asite about chinese cartoon kiddie porn made by godless commies

If YOU'RE such a patriot, Anon 23:26, why don't you do all those things yourself?

The only reason world leaders like him is because they know he'll bend over and take it rather than risk being unpopular. Except it isn't him who's getting fucked, it's the American people.

And why Obama has to apologize for the things a past administration did? If Bush committed any mistake, it’s HIS responsibility to apologize for it and to face any consequences their actions provoked.

I don't understand the double standards of sick liberals.

Agree with Anon 17:25. A LEADER has to FACE polemic decisions that may be not welcome by everybody. A leader has to have balls. And Obama is not a leader, he is an attention whore, willing to do anything she can to be popular. America is a country who deserves respect and I hope Obama won’t get re elected.

Even though the face changes, the machine that is the United States lives on. Apologizing for the past mistakes of this machine shows humility and that the view has changed from war-mongering zealots to open-minded diplomats.

Why it is Republicans think that you have to be an asshole in order to get respect from the world I'll never understand.

This is oversimplified, but still true.

It isn't about respect. People absolutely hate you. They want you dead. It's not because of anything you did, just that your very existence disgusts them. The only things you can do to change their minds are to surrender your free will and live your life according to their desires, or to oppose them.

Appeasement is easier in the short term, while opposition is the only long term (as in centuries long) solution. In order to enjoy both long term and short term benefits, most leaders, and most countries, try to both appease and oppose, though usually one more than the other. Obama falls more on the appeasement side, while Bush was far more on the oppose side of the spectrum. Respect may increase the likelihood of long term survival, but survival, not respect, is the ultimate goal.

Learning to gain mutual respect globally is what the final goal should be. Learning to work together is what we should be aiming for. Everyone knows we accomplish more working together than apart, and the longer we push against a world that we depend on for survival the more they're going to push back. "I defeat my enemy when I make him my friend."

Like how Russia tried to be Germany's friend?

+1

I mean vs. Kerry in regards to percentages.

He may be wrong about the voting issue. But he is not entirely wrong about the policies. While he and GWB had some different policies, they also had some of the same policies. People were against those policies when they came from GWB. But now that they are coming from him, they are suddenly for those very same policies. That's WORSE than simple irony. That's utterly moronic.

People are blinded by ignorance. They're not supporting policies because they believe the policies themselves. They're supporting policies because they believe the person spouting them.

Why not giving Zelaya a Nobel Prize for being the biggest LOOSER of the Year?

Or a Nobel Prize to Berlusconni for being horny and disgusting?

Or a Nobel Prize to Felipe Calderon for being a midget!

Or maybe the US is right and the rest of the world is out of touch? That's the problem with subjective standards.

Trust me, I've lived in a lot of places around the world including the US, and it's most definitely that the US is out of touch. Other countries make assumptions and sometimes take them too far, but not NEARLY to the scale of obliviousness that the US takes it to. You guys REALLY think you have a good idea of what the rest of the world is like, without even having seen it for yourselves. (-_-) *shakes head*

You all have good intentions, but there is often arrogance behind it, and an unwillingness to understand the other side's point of view, especially true under Bush. At least Obama is diplomatic, but I guess a lot of you take diplomatic to mean weakness (verrrry stupid if you want to cooperate in a world economy, my friends).

"You guys REALLY think you have a good idea of what the rest of the world is like, without even having seen it for yourselves." That's an interesting assumption. I don't suppose it's occured to you that maybe it's you who makes assumptions and takes them too far.

In any event, I've lived in Japan, Germany, and the US, and with the exception of Antarctica I've visited every country on earth. Clearly I don't have the world figured out as much as you have, but I've seen enough to know that sometimes the majority can be wrong.

If you disagree with what the US does, fine. I disagree with a lot of the things the US does. But before I assume that a person's or a nation's actions are irrational (or stupid), I ask myself if it's possible that I'm simply unaware of or don't truly understand the rational behind those actions. You assume the US is oblivious and arrogant, but have you considered the possibility that the US may have good reasons for doing some of the things it does, and that perhaps it's you who's oblivious and arrogant?

*meant to say every continent, not every country

Bzzzt. I LIVE in the US, and have lived in Germany and Guam, and have been to Japan a number of times myself, as well as traveling to maybe 20 or so countries and hundreds of cities around the world.

Tell me, what was the "rationality" of going to Iraq? The US (or rather Bush and administration) said "WMD" out the wazoo, and it was a crock of shit.

Sure many nations have done things like this in the past, and continue to do things like this even to the present day. But for such a culturally and intellectually advanced nation, that was a pretty stupid mistake. Having such a bellicose leader like Bush in office for 8 years was TRULY a mistake, not only for the United States' foreign relations, but also for its economy.

Almost all countries have their problems, and certainly there are many countries who criticize the US blindly the same way the US does. That doesn't take away at all from the fact that the US is still itself very blind and arrogant to the way a lot of the world thinks.

For Obama to have a compassionate and open-minded approach to world diplomacy, focusing on understanding before condemning, talking before attacking, that's a huge step forward for the US. You all should be very proud of that, instead of seeing it as some sort of weakness.

Saddam Hussein was a global menace that needed to be stopped and only USA and Israel had the nobility, resources and COURAGE to make it happen.

If you happen to be one of the few left wing faggots who don't understand the treat Saddam was, then you are as queer as is Elton John and as blind as a mole.

COURAGE is the word here; only with courage you can DEFEAT the enemies of freedom, justice and the American way of life.

Wow, we have a right-wing nut here, huh? And how exactly was Suddam Hussein and his tiny little nation, with their NON-EXISTANT Weapons of Mass Destruction, a global threat in ANY sense of the word? Fuck, we only need to use HALF of OUR nuclear arsenal to totally vaporize ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

COURAGE BULLSHIT MY ASS. You're the fucking queer, you dumbass faggot. Take you're fucked up logic back to the 14th century along with Bush and all your cavemen buddies.

"Tell me, what was the "rationality" of going to Iraq?"

I don't know, but I believe Bush thought that it would be quick and easy war with at most a few years mopping up before the US could establish another power base in the middle east. If Iraq became a capable ally and with the US military already in Afghanistan, as well as NATO and potential NATO members to the north, Iran would have been quite literally surrounded, and would likely have fallen in line. A large US military presence in the middle east along with the elimination of two oppressive regimes and the curtailing of a third may have brought stability to the region, and since so much of the world is dependent on middle eastern oil, greater stability in the middle east would have brought greater global security.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bush knew full well that Iraq wasn't a threat, but calculated that by the time anybody could prove it the war would be over and the US would get a "pass" in light of 9/11 and the likely benefits of the potential for greater peace in the middle east.

The plan itself has obvious problems, but isn't necessarily terrible. The real problem was how it was implemented, which was haphazard to say the least and underestimated potential resistance, negative sentiment from the US attacking another Muslim nation, and the ability of the Iraqis to build a functioning government after decades of totalitarianism.

It's quite easy in retrospect to point out all the pitfalls (if I'm even right in my assumptions), but what if it had worked? If Iran had publically denounced terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan began building modern and moderate democracies, the Isrealies and Palistineans had been able to find peace and we all sat around the campfire singing cume-ba-ya...people still would have real and imaginary issues to bitch about.

That is because it is quite literally imposible for the US to ever do anything without most of the world and usually all Europe complaining, so why even bother trying to care? The US isn't a puppet or an errand boy meant to sit idly by until the EU or UN needs it. That's probably the real reason Obama is so popular though. It isn't for anything he does, but for not doing anything. That's fine for now, but a country that doesn't pursue its own interests while it can will soon find itself deprived of that capability.

It's easy to complain about all teh things the US does, and often it's justified. But realistically imagine what the world would be like if tommorrow Obama announced that all US troops in every country from Korea to Germany would be home in a month and all US basses would be closed and abandoned. If the US withdreew from NATO, the UN, etc and pretty much told the world to go fuck itself.

Of course Obama isn't going to do that and he'd be inpeached and removed if he tried, but my fear is that on a smaller scale he's already overestimating the willingness of other nations to cooperate and the ability of the carrot without the stick to achieve anything meanigful. I hope I'm wrong, but I've yet to see any evidence that I am.

Afghanistan will be the real test. If he hands the country over to the Taliban and abandons the people of Afghanistan the same way the US did to the Vietnamese I will lose the last bit of faith I have in him, and I fear it will establish a trend in which capitulation is interpreted as peace...

Well, I will at least give that you're very upfront and honest in how you see the politics of some of the things that have happened, and I agree to most of the points and concerns you have listed above. It is troublesome, though, that most people in the US do not at all seem to take the time to think through the reasoning of such things - admittedly you must say you are also a special case, in that most US citizens have NOT traveled the world and yet many of said are ready to condemn it.

And also despite your reasoning, it still does not justify the actions that the US has taken in many cases. Fundamentally there is a "right" thing to do, and I would guess that the US being such a moral nation would understand this. Iraq is a mistake and should be apologized for. If we want to accomplish things in the middle east there is a right way of doing it and a wrong way. There are many paths to reach the goal, and sometimes you have to choose between what's easy and what's right, and the US does not always choose the latter unless it's what's "right" for the US.

Yes, because Iraq began to stabilize while Bush was still in office, Obama is able to pull a few troops out. Wow...that's so fucking cool. He's totally my hero!

He's outlawed torture, unless it's deemed necessary by whoever's conducting the interrogation or they call it something other than torture. Same as Bush. If you'd pull his cock out of your mouth long enough to read the actual executive order, you'd know nothing's changed.

He'll close Gitmo, just to move all the prisoners somewhere else, and they'll still be tried by military tribunals, just like Bush did. Now that's change you can believe in.

Bush negotiates with Russia to cut nuclear stockpiles by half and nobody notices. Obama signed a joint understanding to eliminate some of the same nukes Bush already agreed to get rid of and liberals orgasm. Truly a great day for America.

Wow, hey, doing a great job there of pointing out some of the mistakes Bush made that he had to try and fix and that Obama has to continue trying to fix (torture, the war in Iraq, etc.) BRAVO!

No problem, if by "fix" you mean "realize were necessary to continue while trying to fool the people who voted for him by calling the same policies different names."

Torture and the Iraq war weren't things that Bush "needed to continue." They were MISTAKES that he and his administration STARTED.

The fuck man, you think a war like that can be ended right off the bat? Sure, if we want to happen in Iraq what happened in Afghanistan in the 80's, be my guest, we're just setting ourselves up for another Taliban.

Being an inspiration for peace really is just as well. Do you think anyone beforehand who's received the award has actually achieved world peace? You Americans have never had any understanding at all of how the world has perceived you, you just fucking assume you understand but most of you have never even left your own country, and now that the world is starting to warm up to the US because of your new President you're fucking bashing him??? Y'all are looking a fucking gift horse in the mouth! XD

There are things that are more important to the US than how it is perceived by a bunch of assholes who subconsciously probably wish for its destruction due to their own lack of understanding leading to the assumption of US arrogance. Things like having a job and not being attacked.

I'm glad Obama is doing all he can to make the US look better. I just wish he would worry a bit more about reality than perception.

The REALITY is that we started a pointless war in Iraq. What does taking over a tiny nation that didn't have any WMD's have anything to do with "having a job" or "not being attacked?" If anything, it has the reverse effect.

I'll admit, we need to stop focusing on healthcare and look more at the economy first, but globalisation is happening right now as we speak, we can't keep being the bully on the playground and expect to get away with it.

You've gotta' admit tho, Republicans sure have been coming across seething during Obama's short term so far, and for lesser things than what Bush screwed up on during his Presidency (well, maybe Obama's messing up things [can we also say it's too soon to see that yet, Reps??? XD], but at least he doesn't seem crazy like Bush =P).

His life struggle and diplomatic approach to foreign policy has been an inspiration to the world and changed the face of international politics. And you don't think that's a worthy reason for receiving the prize?

No, I don't.

"Inspiration" is not worthy of a Noble prize. I want action and I want closure and he has yet to do so, give him the price when he has. Be honest, the reason he got the prize was for being the first black president in the USA like someone said before.

In a couple of years he might be worthy but not now with only 8-9 months in the office.

So you're saying just because he lived through his life to get to where he is now, its good enough to warrant giving him an award for successfully achieving something which could potentially lead to world peace....wrong award.

Foreign policies?The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is still going on the last time I checked.How about we wait until it actually ends before giving him a pat on the back?

Man, why do you all think the prize needs to be awarded for his work in office??? You're PROJECTING expectations of his work in office as a pre-requisite for winning the award.

Obama lived a difficult life and has become a shining example to the world of overcoming adversity through hard work and education - he's living proof of the so-called American dream. The world sees THAT - why can't you Americans see that???

Getting a nobel prize for a live of "archivements" is like getting a nobel prize for being gay. It makes no sense at all...

and democrat.... ugh

Indeed, McCaine isn't a conservative politician , he is a maverik.

BTW, din't knew you were Rep, Tex ^o^

Wow, so now the Republicans are disowning Bush?

Bush is a great patriot, an example to the youth of America and a best president to any of the latest 3 democrat presidents, regardless, Bush has some flaws, like any other human being. Pointing at some of his flaws is not disowing Mr. Bush.

@Anon22:21 If crazy + war-mongering + letting your council make decisions for you + destroying the economy + taking away civil liberties + getting the world to hate you = a great patriot, then I suggest you take mathematics over again my friend, you get a failing grade.

I'm NOT a republican, in any sense. I do share the adhere to some of the original principles of conservatism, though.

A1944: the original Maverick was a Texan, and actually more of a anti-regulation leftist. His son founded the ACLU. McCain is just an opportunist. See his stance on POW recovery, for example.

A2221: I Will agree that nothing has made Bush a more sympathetic figure then everything Cheney has said or done since leaving office.
As bad as it was, it could have been much worse.

That Cheney had so much control over the Bush administration puts a lot of fault on Bush's shoulders too, though. He was the President, not a lap dog.

great spelling

allowed*