coffee_rules Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 This award will be the reason for him losing it in 2012, unless he rejects it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeXteR Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 for those who haven't read the exact statement. not justifying it' date=' just posting here for reference.[/quote'] I read the complete statement . But still he has not done enough work. He assumed his office about nine or ten months ago barely. Its too early. Are awards are given for vision && giving speeches of peace.?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I think this is surely the crappiest Nobel Peace Prize ever given out... he has hardly done anything and he was just selected president a few months ago .. and he has already won the peace prize... WTF .. the award will lose its credibility if it is given out to such undeserving persons Can't be any worse than when they gave it to Yasser Arafat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Are you Indiafan at padosis.net ? :hmmm: Yes. I thought everyone knew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Look at this way. After Bush' date=' anyone who takes the post, will seem like the epitome of peace[/quote'] While Bush was a war-monger, it must also be noted that no US President did more for Africa than he did. Honestly, how many of us knew? On the other hand, Obama is hero of Africa, for he gives them "hope" that the biracial son of Kenyan origin can become the leader of the world. It is more important to "look" and "talk" the part than "do" the part. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa. The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion. The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest. "I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States. ad_icon Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year. Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001. "He should be known for increasing -- doubling development assistance and tripling it to Africa after a period in which U.S. development assistance was essentially flat for decades," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "He should be known for the largest single investment in AIDS and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government program ever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Online Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Adolf Hitler, was nominated once in 1939 by E.G.C. Brandt, member of the Swedish parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Here's the kicker, friends. Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress. Sometimes the words come first. Sometimes, it's better to let actions speak for themselves. From this article: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1929395,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SachDan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Look at this way. After Bush' date=' anyone who takes the post, will seem like the epitome of peace[/quote'] :haha::haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikred Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yes. I thought everyone knew cool.....I didn't know that. :smiley: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 cool.....I didn't know that. :smiley: nikred is nikred there tdigi is tdigi there indiafan is just 2 cents here? pj ends here :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4te Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 brb, checking fox news :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 "The committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," the statement said. "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." The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." A world without nuclear weapons lolllll Like the US will be giving them up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 A world without nuclear weapons lolllll Like the US will be giving them up http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/nuclear-disarmament-russia-us http://www.slate.com/id/2215493/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 So they're still keeping 1000, I think that is more than required anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Blaster Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 A man rising to role of commander and chief of a country where blacks were persecuted, treated as slaves. His example is going empower generations Martin Luther King would be proud Yeah hey why not gift wrap that nobel peace prize because his "race" suffered over a century ago? Get a clue, the prize is given to a particular person who's actually done something (let alone some work for fraternity between nations). What has he done to deserve this award? All he did was make those cheesy a** commercials about HOPE which started making me watch desperate housewives. And I thought Shakib al hasan was a bad choice.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Yeah hey why not gift wrap that nobel peace prize because his "race" suffered over a century ago? Get a clue' date=' the prize is given to a particular person who's actually done something (let alone some work for fraternity between nations). What has he done to deserve this award? All he did was make those cheesy a** commercials about HOPE which started making me watch desperate housewives. And I thought Shakib al hasan was a bad choice..[/quote'] Not to mention that does not really represent the heritage of the African-American slave descendants. His father was Kenyan, his mother a white American. On neither side was there a history of slavery. The only thing he shares with the African Americans who suffered through slavery and discrimination is the color of their skin. Sadly, the world fails to see this for what it is. If giving hope to slave-descendants were a criterion, Michelle Obama is better qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I want world peace too. Where is my Noble prize? I am more deserving. I promise that there will be world peace very soon. You did not promise. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 ^^ Intentions ?? If Nobel prize are given for intentions..i should be given one:--D Obama has had very "good" intentions. He's bombing our "padosis" in order to kill terrorists , but the news reports show more of civilian causality. I despise killing of innocent people anywhere ,even if its padosis. US armies still present in Iraq and Afganistan!! and Obama is going to get peace prize for that? he should not take that prize and degrade the credibility. People like Gandhi , were not given!!! there are others like San suu kyi ..really deserving. And Obama gets award !!!OMG There are many others deserving Regarding Afghanistan, that was necessary. I dont think there is anything wrong in the Afghan war as the Talibans and Osama were against world peace. But according to me (and most Americans also agree) was the Iraq war. Saddam was a terrible leader and is not liked by most outsiders but that does not mean that he was terrorist and that he is harming the outside world. There was no proof that he has done any terrorist activities especially outside Iraq. Afghan war would have hardly affected the US economy but it is the Iraq war which cost them their growth and economic stability. Similar is the case with North Korea and Iran. Although both the countries are not liked as they are not members of the global community but that does not mean that they are terrorist countries. If the US attacks any of these two countries then I would not be surprised if US economy is destroyed forever. But I firmly believe that US should end all the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan before leaving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texy Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 sometimes it is given to encourage further good work... like back in 70s when Arafat and others were given joint award Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Blaster Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Why not give it to me and encourage me then? I'll save the entire world like captain saved a ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts