Peace prize awarded unjustly

By Chuck Fischer

Print this article

Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Illustrated by Erin Logan

Question of the Day

Do you think Barack Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize?

What has Barack Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

When Obama entered office, he issued many presidential memoranda for the withdrawal of troops. While the idea of that being a peaceful act is disputable, I think he had the right intentions. But therein lies the problem: intent.

I like to think Obama has the intent to make the world a peaceful place as did Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and yes, even Jimmy Carter. But the problem with “intent” is that it is not “implementing.” If Obama had pulled troops from overseas within his first couple of weeks, then yes, that can definitely be perceived as a peaceful act, maybe Nobel-worthy.
The problem is that his memoranda has not been implemented. Obama has certainly not made “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” as the Nobel Foundation said of his prize.

While I imagine Obama is concerned with the war on terrorism and other global issues, he has certainly not addressed these in an effective manner. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that there are many troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hmm ... seems as though that memoranda on troop withdrawal has been carried out quite nicely.

So, I ask again: What exactly has Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
He is trying to implement a health care plan that will cripple the nation because, while everyone can get health care, no one will be able to. He has sent Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton on separate trips to Europe and parts of Asia to signal the change of policies from the previous administration. He also has signed off on a major bailout for companies that needed to suck it up and take their medicine.

My, my, my. Those are some very peaceful accomplishments. A nation without health care, the ever-so friendly and kind Biden-Clinton whirlwind tour spreading their peace everywhere combined with a broke nation just make me all giddy inside. What does he have left to destroy? Economy ... check. Health care ... check. Foreign perspective of the U.S ... check.

So, one last time, what has Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? That is an excellent question. Whatever it is, he must be using that old play Carter always seemed to get by on: Just smile and look like you know what you’re doing.

I guess the Nobel Foundation has changed its policy on who gets the prize: instead of waiting until you have actually accomplished something, you get one for talking about accomplishing something.

Wait. I figured it out. You can now get a Nobel Peace Prize for impressing people while actually accomplishing nothing. Maybe I can get in on some of that action.

-Chuck Fischer is a junior in secondary education. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

mark

Fri Oct 16 2009 21:52

he should get a peace prize for weakening Israel's ability to defend itself against the same kind of ideology that smashed planes into our city? no way. I'm convinced Pres. Obama has his eyes on a global leadership position beyond his days in the oval office. And to those ends his means are completely egalitarian and subsequently, everything truly great about America must come down to the savage levels of our enemies. Besides, the degree to which he weakens the relative political power America has now will only make his international job easier in the future. Carter, Clinton, Obama. career international politicians.

Myles

Fri Oct 16 2009 15:53

It was pretty obvious that the Nobel selection team picked Obama not because he has accomplished a great deal, but because he has promised a great deal, and is in a position to follow through on those promises. What he has done so far (reaching out to Muslims, creating a feeling of brotherhood and mutual respect with most South American leaders, eliminating the nuclear weapons shield that was provoking Russia, etc.) has been light-years beyond what the presidents of the last thirty years have done. The really important fact (sadly overlooked by the author of the article) is that Obama has been weak in the face of right-wing Israeli aggression and settlement building. Obama needs a vision and the willpower (and support from home) to do what is right in the face of powerful adversity. That is the only reason that the selection makes sense. How can he sleep at night if he doesn't give 100% and live up to this award? America is really very powerful despite the rise of China and others, and the president can have a huge effect on the world. Obama has promised to live up to the power of the office, and if the prize helps him do that, maybe it is a good thing that he won, in spite of the fact that no one really thinks he has already done as much for the world as those other nominees.

Wed Oct 14 2009 14:12

i feel that rush is promoting palin. he's out of his mind....or he has a crush on her. probably the latter.

Your name

Wed Oct 14 2009 10:40

No one is voting for Palin, and this is coming from a Conservative Republican. NO ONE. Now if only Liberal Democrats had said the same thing about Obama, we'd be in awesome shape.

footnotes

Wed Oct 14 2009 10:03

i'm worried people are going to vote for Palin. it would be nice to see a strong competent woman in a leadership role, but Palin is clearly not that. Strong - maybe. Competent - hah.

Your name

Tue Oct 13 2009 21:51

The Nobel Peace Prize use to mean something. It has now sunk to the level of the Darwin Awards. It has become a joke.

Tue Oct 13 2009 20:54

Hey shouldn't we be glad that someone from the US especially the President, won the Nobel Peace Prize? I guess not. Oh if Palin won it you guys would be all happy...Cant we just forget about the political parties....

swamp donkey

Tue Oct 13 2009 14:37

Chuck,
You could have used this avenue to present an intelligent argument as to why this was a premature gesture, but instead you came off sounding like a rambling idiot on a soap box. What an easy subject to write about, and you managed to neglect anything that resembles a valid talking point. This doesn't do much to refute the stereotypes about education majors. Top shelf work, young lad!

sgm

Tue Oct 13 2009 14:36

veg head, he also agreed to pull the troops out of Iraq and where are they at? And by cutting our defenses, will end the end leave us defenseless. Wonder what side of the fence you are going to be on that side. One can tell just by reading the posts on here just how young you all are. Research further back, way further back.

veg head

Tue Oct 13 2009 14:28

time of nomination is irrelevant to why they chose to give it to him.

Constitutional Conservative

Tue Oct 13 2009 13:38

Hey I just started my college career...Can i graduate now? I mean...I'm probably going to graduate eventually anyway...Right?

COSwildcat

Tue Oct 13 2009 13:26

Given that Obama was nominated for this when he had been in office two weeks, it's clear that it was based entirely on the fact that he is not Bush and the hope by a few leftist Nobel committee members that he WOULD do something worthwhile. It was well before START discussion, or the Nuclear Posture Review, or cuts to the arsenal, or the reversal of plans for the Poland/Czech missile site. Those were NOT the "explicit reason" for him getting the award. Did you do your research, veg head, or are you just a blind Obama supporter?

veg head

Tue Oct 13 2009 13:12

You don't even know what START stands for, do you? Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - negotiations haven't concluded yet, and won't until December. But in July Obama already agreed to cut hundreds of nuclear warheads. He sent the Nuclear Posture Review back to the Pentagon, demanding more extensive cuts in our arsenal, and he reversed plans for Ballistic Missile Defense in Poland.

Why were none of these things mentioned in the article? They are all concrete steps towards disarmament, that have already results in real reductions in our nuclear arsenal. They were the explicit reason for Obama's peace prize.

Chuck, did you do any research at all, or are you just an angry Republican?

Erik V.

Tue Oct 13 2009 10:55

On Slate by user Reopines, "I saw the news about Obama's Nobel this morning in the elevator, and all I can think is that he has won this award for not being his predecessor. And you know what? He deserves it. The absence of a negative is a positive." Not only that, the assumption that not bailing out was choice that had to be made seems to lack some information necessary to why they were. Let's assume they weren't bailed out, all those big multi-billion dollar companies. Then what? Let those hundreds or so CEO and million/billionaires suffer at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people's lives? That would surely teach them a good lesson. That lesson being we are so disgruntled with the behavior, we're willing to let all those people and everyone even remotely involved with those companies lose their jobs, and fortunes because we want to prove a point. He's been in office for less then one year, and your already trying to compare his down points like he's the next George Bush.

Disgruntled post-grad

Tue Oct 13 2009 10:40

I started working on a thesis 9 months ago, it's not done, but the groundwork is there and I'll probably finish it. Can I have my masters now?

Your name

Tue Oct 13 2009 09:35

why should the "start" of anything be worthy to receive the nobel prize? Maybe i'll START doing some research and then i can get the nobel peace prize for not actually doing anything, but STARTING to do it. Sounds legitimate...not.

Add comment

I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.