• Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      It’s essentially a meaningless gesture anymore. I know ill get hate for this but they gave one to Obama and well in my opinion he hadn’t done anything to deserve such a "prestigious " honor other than being the first black president. Meaningless

      It should be reserved for intellectuals, artists, scientists etc. The only world leader that deserves an honor such as this would be one that ends hunger or homelessness

  • gramie@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I love the idea of giving Obama a second Nobel Peace prize, just to piss Trump off.

  • etherphon@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Efforts? The peace prize is a participation trophy now? I thought they hated that shit lol. Fucking loser hypocrites.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 day ago

    Given that they gave it to Kissinger in the 70s, and then gave it to Obama before he actually did anything just for not being George W. Bush, the precedent would be that Nobels may be dispensed wherever politically expedient.

    • Kairos
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      TBF not being George Bush is very peaceful, in comparison.

        • Kairos
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          That’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.

          • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            It’s a dumb metric as well, seeing as warfare evolves and modern drones were mostly untested before Bush 2.0.

            Bush did the beta testing, it worked. Obama continued their use. It’s like saying more people used iPhones in 2015 than in 2008.

          • Magnum, P.I.@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            How is that better. You do realize this is very sophisticated bombing. Would you rather have a guy run into your house or the house of your family or some super sonic mach 3 drone? What kind of contest is that anyway.

            • Kairos
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.

              • Magnum, P.I.@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                That’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.

                Sounds like you were saying getting drone striked is probably better, but English is not my native language so you are probably right

                • Kairos
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 minutes ago

                  If I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose whether a ground/army invasion is better than the drone strike, I would choose the latter.

                  However, I’d prefer neither happen.