Enormous weirdness, or: WTF

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Matrix

To tackle global issues, e.g. global warming, we simply need the US. Bush thought that because of this he could do whatever he wanted, while Obama thinks the US also need the rest of the world.

In short: Obama drastically reduced anti-Americanism and changed America's line of approach in global diplomatic matters. He seeks cooperation over conflict. Now how can that not be peaceful?

Undeniably true, but that's not a difference between Obama and Bush, but in reality the difference between the Democratic and Republican Party in the US. Should every US president belonging to the Democratic party then get the Nobel Peace Prize from now on?

Basically the Nobel Peace Price has become somewhat of a joke in the past few years. It is no longer about achievement, merely about public perception...

I'm not saying Obama couldn't earn this award in the next few years, but as of right now he's not a deserving recipient of the award (IMHO!). But then again, neither were (like you said) Al Gore and the IPCC...

[Matrix]

Originally Posted by Darkness

Should every US president belonging to the Democratic party then get the Nobel Peace Prize from now on?

Perhaps.

No, perhaps it would've been better to make a less controversial choice, like Václav Havel. But I just understand the commission's reasoning and don't think it's a bad choice, though perhaps not the best choice.

[Rik Meleet]

Albert Schweitzer also was a bad choice.
He is undeniably a good man, but has done nothing for peace.

[Shabbaman]