Bullets 'n' Babes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

What for? He hasn't actually done anything yet Though I think he's trying to change things and is better than Bush, he hasn't persuaded Israel to stop its occupation, USA still gives Israel $3Bn a year to kill Palestinians.
Should have waited until he had actually brought peace before giving/considering him for the prize. He was nominated duing his 1st two weeks in office or so I heard - was his main contribution to peace not being Bush? Why use this award for that?
Still, at least Obama is talking to Israel/the Middle East.

grim_tales wrote:was his main contribution to peace not being Bush?

Always a good start

Farcical ass-kissing.

WTF? He is considering to send more troops to Afghanistan.

But he's pulling some out of Iraq isn't he?
I heard on the news the reason he got the award was "encouragement" or something like that, as if it was for things he may do or looked like doing (?) Nominating him for the award when he hadnt done anything is ridiculous.

gasteropod wrote:

grim_tales wrote:was his main contribution to peace not being Bush?

Always a good start

The BBC report basically said he got the prize for not being Bush Fair enough if he'd been in power for a time and done something before he got the award but to get it after just 10 days in office, for "encouraging signs" and talking to people is just crazy.

The Nobel Peace Prize is constantly devalued.

I turned one down just last month.

Obama has given his prize money to charity.

I didn't realise they got money also.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33237224

I agree he should have gotten the award when he'd actually achieved something and not based on "promise" which I heard was the reason he won. It's like giving some guy an award for being the best athlete as they did well in training but haven't actually won any races yet.

thelostdragon wrote:WTF? He is considering to send more troops to Afghanistan.

I didn't support the war in/against Iraq (which had noting to do with the war on terrorism or Al Qaeda), but if you ARE going to go after terrorists, and in our case Al Qaeda, then it's logical to put the focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan. And yeah, they will need considerably more troops and effort in that region if they want to have a chance of succeeding, so I fully understand the decision.

About Obama getting the peace price: I can understand the reasoning behind, although obviously it seems a bit too early.

But just 12 months ago the USA was the most hated country in the world, with enemies all over, and Obama changed all that. He reached out, changed the way the USA has positioned itself in the international world, and just completely changed the tone of the discussion when talking about our relationship with the middle east and the arabian and islamic world.

That's important. Very important.

Now obviously, we all want him to do much much more. We want him to do more about the Israel-situation, and we want him to take care of QB, and lots of other stuff. They guy has just been in office for 8 months orso, in the most difficult situation since many many years.

Personally, I don't mind one bit that he got it. I can fully understand why, yet I can also understand the people who are criticizing it...

In the end though, does it matter!?

I can understand both sides too, I can understand he changed the climate a bit, and people are more optimsitic because of "change", it just seems a bit too early. As you say, we want him to do much more, sort out Guantanamo (sp?), the Israel situation and other stuff - is he closing G. Bay?

grim_tales wrote:I can understand both sides too, I can understand he changed the climate a bit, and people are more optimsitic because of "change", it just seems a bit too early. As you say, we want him to do much more, sort out Guantanamo (sp?), the Israel situation and other stuff - is he closing G. Bay?

On his first day in office he gave the order to close QB, but the prisoners are still there, cause they don't know what to do with them: some can't return home, others should still go on trial, etc etc. So the gesture was nice, but in reality it hasn't changed yet.

We've got to wait I guess.

Barack Obama to increase spending on nukes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Bush.html

Didn't he just say he seeks a world without them?! He said that in 2008, and even said that in the address this year. You can't have it both ways.

Another Daily Mail low-content news article dressed up as political criticism with a fear-mongering headline. He's not spending the money on production, just to improve the facilities and workforce that maintain them. I don't know about you, but if complete nuclear disarmament isn't on the cards right now, then I'd rather live in a world where the nuclear bombs already made are maintained properly rather than left to rot inside inadequate facilies until they become a serious problem!

I heard in President Obama's latest budget he's cancelled the program to take humans back to the moon - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8489097.stm