A prize deserved?
Why did he win?
The question seems to be on many lips: why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into his presidency? "What achievement is this about?" some ask. The nominations closed only two weeks after he came to power. "What had he done by then?" people ask.
I think it is pretty obvious. As so often, the mystery clears up if you bother to read the text, in this case the citation. The committee praises him for intentions that were key to his whole campaign. It singles out working through the United Nations, for putting the emphasis on negotiations, international diplomacy and co-operation, for creating a new climate in international politics. In other words, because he's not President George W Bush and has steered American foreign policy, or at least its strategy if not its aims, in an opposite direction.
Not surprisingly, Republicans are furious. John Bolton, Bush's ambassador to the UN, has just told the BBC that it is no coincidence that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore also got the prize, but, not say, Ronald Reagan. He says the committee is "preaching at America, saying 'do you Americans get the point yet?'".
Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?
By the way, apologies to Lord Trimble who won the peace prize in 1998 for his efforts in Northern Ireland and is of course British. (He won it jointly with John Hume, who as the former leader of a nationalist party presumably regards himself as Irish but would be entitled to a British passport were he to want one.) Yes, "reaching out" is an Americanism: we Brits might reach out for some crisps (chips) but not to another person, unless with lewd intent.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~05~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The prize was given to him so that he would visit norway. Its been a long time any sitting president visited norway.
Complain about this comment
Well Ronald Reagan did far more for the cause of peace than Gore and Cater. the latter was a monumental failure.
The criteria to win the prize is: Bash Bush or U.S policy.
But it has cheapened the award because unlike say Mother Theresa or Sadat and Begin they actually have accomplishment.
The Norway Head made no sense with his argument.
Complain about this comment
Trur anti-imperialist peace activists atre furious,too. The prize is definetly "a tool of those making a political point". The grisly point being, of course, that you can bomb the crap out of Afghan and Palestinian peasants like Imperialst-in-Chief Obama or in Indochina and East Timor like war criminal Kissinger and still get a "peace" prize. To paraphrase Churchill, some peace, some prize!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The award is political in the sense that everything that humanity does has a political element. It is unavoidable. I do not think that there is a 'left' bias in the award ceremony, but rather, that as of late, the Democratic Party, has been more apt to follow a European Worldview. That having been said, I think the Nobel Peace Prize is a bit of a joke in general, and especially in this case. I feel very sorry for President Obama. There are few things as getting an award that one knows one does not deserve. This is not to say that Obama might one day deserve such an award, but it is a farce to give an award to a human based merely on his rhetoric and ideals. Frankly, it reminded me of an award ceremony at a small private school that I attended. The school had the nasty history of having been one of those schools founded to combat integration. When one of the first black students graduated, he was laden with so many awards that it began to look like some ludicrous attempt to erase the heritage of racism at our school. He might have deserved a few of the awards certainly, but the heaps were just silly. He looked embarrassed just like Obama. Poor fellow. They should have waited till he had accomplished more than just reversing some of the absurd policies of our former fool in office. Oh well, let's hope it galvanizes him into action.
Complain about this comment
There is a very good reason why he won without actually having done anything.
President Obama was given the Award by a group of middle-age Swedish liberals because he is a charming, intelligent black man who has risen to the top of a white society that most Swedes think was trying to hold him down. In giving him this prize, the 'softest' of all the Nobels, the Swedes were celebrating Sidney Poitier in 'To Sir With Love', Martin Luther King, the black power salute at the Mexico Olympics, Diana Ross, Bill Cosby in 'I Spy', the Watts Riots and Jimi Hendrix. All the black iconography that appeared on the TV and move screens of 60s and 70s Sweden and must have seemed so exotic, so exciting.
As such, it may well be one of the most racist and condescending gestures Mr. Obama has ever had to endure.
Complain about this comment
A bit bored with the posturing in world politics. Think the Pres is doing as well as he can be he's not superman. He's a very accomplished politician otherwise he wouldn't be where he is.
The Nobel people are trying to encourage him but he will be lost in the swamp of domestic issues conflicting with world demands.
Hope he can hold on to his ideals whilst confronting real politik.
Good luck to the guy.
Complain about this comment
4. Andy.
Agreed on both points.
Complain about this comment
6. Hubert
What are Swedes doing in Norwegian Parliament?
Complain about this comment
President Obama was given the Award by a group of middle-age Swedish liberals because he is a charming, intelligent black man who has risen to the top of a white society that most Swedes think was trying to hold him down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it were the swede, he would never have won the prize..its their cousins further in north. The norwegians who are being condescending. The nobel peace prize is given by norway, the rest the important ones by sweden.
Complain about this comment
by the way, there are several other British/UK recipients awarded the peace prize - in 1903, 1933, 1937, 1949, 1959, 1976 and 1995 in addition to Chamberlain (1934), Henderson (1925) and Trimble/Hume (1998). Also, UK-based organisations were recognised in 1947 and 1977 (Amnesty International)
Anyway, I don't agree with the principle that the prize is awarded to encourage vision or direction instead of rewarding actual achievements. I also don't understand the prestige associated with the prize - it's hardly awarded by a panel of experts like the other prizes, just five retired Norwegian politicians.
Complain about this comment
The Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine are generally awarded after the scientific work has been proved and generally accepted. This is more difficult for the Peace Prize, which is by its nature more subjective and political. I think the prize is devalued when it is awarded too early, before a mature view has had time to form. Consider the achievements of Norman Borlaug, who received the Peace Prize in 1970 and who died recently. His achievements in feeding hundreds of millions of people are worthy of such an award. If Barack Obama can achieve even a fraction of that, his prize will be well-earned. I hope he can but I think it is too early to judge.
Complain about this comment
If one goes only by the wording of the citation then, yes, I suppose he's entitled to win the prize.
No, I don't think it is a political tool aimed at America. If it is, it's a very poor one, since most Americans don't take advice from foreign bodies or nationals, and deeply resent such advice when it is given. Especially as regards our political leaders. Which may be the spin Bolton is trying to give it. So by extension, we ought to resent Obama for being "Europe's Darling" or some such nonsense. I think you'll find average Americans are pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. Most of the people I've spoken to just shrug or laugh and say, "Whatever."
In that regard it neither cheapens nor makes more potent the awarding of the prize, even if it politically motivated. It's just more silliness by Europeans Obamaniacs. We're glad he's been well received around the world, but it won't influence my vote in 3 years, nor will it make me want to achieve something "higher" when it comes to national security. It also wouldn't matter to me if the world comes to hate Obama. I didn't elect him to save the world or lead it to the promised land. I elected him to get health care reform passed. For the most part, my interest in his, or the world's agenda, begins and ends with that.
Complain about this comment
It's clearly a left-wing biased lobby group which in this case, has made itself look very silly. Obama may very well bring about a total change in the geopolitical world (and I hope he does) but the time to award him this prize is in 5 years - when he does or does not achieve this goal, not merely state it.
When you think back to the world of the 1960's and 70's, it is absurd that Reagan did not get an award while Gorbachev did. If F.W. De Klerk can share one with Mandela, then clearly Reagan is deserving.
Gandhi didn't get one. John Paul II didn't get one. Obama has one. I am very pro-Obama but this is crazy. I hope Obama can deliver on his message but the fact is, it is just a message so far. He will be judgeed on his achievements not his promises.
Complain about this comment
I find it amazing that one can win such a prestigious prize in a non-literary category based strictly upon what one says. It appears sufficient for the man not to have done anything at all, but to simply have said he wants to do it. What this political posturing does is cheapen the Nobel award for others. To win in the areas of Science and Medicine, one has to have done exceedingly extraordinary things, usually the result of a life time of hard work and devotion. Now a charming incompetent media creation gets a Nobel simple for saying the political equivalent of "When you wish upon a star....." To other Nobel winners this must be a major embarrassment!
Complain about this comment
Sure it's political, but so are a lot of things. It's the prerogative of the Nobel Peace Prize committee to support the political causes which they believe exemplify the ideals expressed by Alfred Nobel in his testament. If Nobel thinks they have sometimes gone a bit outside of his charter, he's in no position to object to it.
Complain about this comment
Of course it is and why not. In asking such a question are you coming from the position of belief in the chimera of objectivity and apolitical action? What the raging Bolton and his ilk need to realize is that the Nobel organisation espouses and rewards certain values that paranoid aggressives do not embrace. Of course Republicans realize, and champion, the right of a person or body to spend its own money as it sees fit, and this is a perfect example of a respected institution doing that. What riles them is that this award valorises President Obama's more peaceful trajectory and shows Republican's lack of Nobel values in high relief in an internationally esteemed spotligh. So why are we focusing on the nasty grumbling of a hawk instead of the prospects for peace that have been ushered in by the President? Is this another example, as in the so called health care debate, of members of the press gravitating towards the vituperative churlishness of rabid Republicans and mistaken Libertarians because it makes for better copy. How sad to think that you prefer to make so much of the conflict and dissatisfaction rather than report fully on the more positive and productive aspects. How chastening to realize that there is a little Murdoch in you. How long will it be before you start featuring revealing photos of bosomy birds on your blog?
Complain about this comment
6. At 9:53pm on 09 Oct 2009, hubertgrove wrote:
There is a very good reason why he won without actually having done anything.
President Obama was given the Award by a group of middle-age Swedish liberals because he is a charming, intelligent black man who has risen to the top of a white society that most Swedes think was trying to hold him down. In giving him this prize, the 'softest' of all the Nobels, the Swedes were celebrating Sidney Poitier in 'To Sir With Love', Martin Luther King, the black power salute at the Mexico Olympics, Diana Ross, Bill Cosby in 'I Spy', the Watts Riots and Jimi Hendrix. All the black iconography that appeared on the TV and move screens of 60s and 70s Sweden and must have seemed so exotic, so exciting.
As such, it may well be one of the most racist and condescending gestures Mr. Obama has ever had to endure."
Your assessment of the people of Sweden is no doubt due to long residence in that country, a fluency in its language and a profound understanding of its culture and history.
Otherwise your remarks would be extremely condescending wouldn't they?
Sadly for you the peace prize is not actually awarded solely on the suggestion of Swedes which indicates your analysis is flawed to say the least.
Complain about this comment
Obama, should first send Biden over to Norway and tell them that, the president would gladly accept the award at a later time if they feel he still deserves it.
Wow What a time to live in? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Accepting the Nobel peace prize is the equivalent of the invention of dynamite in this case also. To accept it is to say he won't send more troops into Afghanistan. To reject it is to deny he deserves it. I say give it to the UN and all the peace keeping forces of the world. Let them all share either the embarrassment or glory.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Re: Bolton's comments about Reagan. Why on earth would the Nobel committee consider the man who not only bombed Libya, invaded Grenada, and aided the Mujihadeen, but supported the right wing death squads in Central and South America who targeted, amongst others, priests and nuns!? Moreover, the INF Treaty was instigated by Gorbachev not Reagan.
And besides, the Republican Kissinger won the peace prize on the day satire died so it's not only democrats who win.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
4. At 9:48pm on 09 Oct 2009, AndyPost wrote:
1.) Although I support the President, I would rather he were awarded the prize for accomplishments, not just for adopting a new methodology.
2.) Bolton's a jackass."
Your second point is well made. Bolton would do himself (and the republican party) a favour if he returned to Boston and got rid of the enormous chip on his shoulder concerning his past.
He is an extremely bitter man and the very idea that he would be let anywhere near any diplomatic job is farcical in the extreme.
Complain about this comment
The Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine are generally awarded after the scientific work has been proved and generally accepted. This is more difficult for the Peace Prize, which is by its nature more subjective and political. I think the prize is devalued when it is awarded too early, before a mature view has had time to form. Consider the achievements of Norman Borlaug, who received the Peace Prize in 1970 and who died recently. His achievements in feeding hundreds of millions of people are worthy of such an award. If Barack Obama can achieve even a fraction of that, his prize will be well-earned. I hope he can but I think it is too early to judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have criteria. In this particular case the prize is being given prematuraly or pre-emptively.Martti Ahtisaari was awarded for his services for his contribution to solve conflicts in all most all the contientens for 3 decades Gore got his prize for working for envirnoment not for just talking about it. The bangladeshi guy before him got for his work, and not for his vision. the iranian woman got it for her efforts towards democracy and human rights, not for some vision. Arafat and rabin for signing the peace agreement not just talking about it, otherwise sharon would have also got it, because noone talked more about peace than him.
Complain about this comment
16. At 10:21pm on 09 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Sure it's political, but so are a lot of things. It's the prerogative of the Nobel Peace Prize committee to support the political causes which they believe exemplify the ideals expressed by Alfred Nobel in his testament. If Nobel thinks they have sometimes gone a bit outside of his charter, he's in no position to object to it."
Well said. It's their prize to award it to whom they wish. It is not decided like the X-Factor on public phone ins.
Complain about this comment
For the most part, my interest in his, or the world's agenda, begins and ends with that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very strange statement. No wonder americans couldnt understand why they were attacked on sept 11. The dictators in the world would love to have you as their citizen..
Complain about this comment
Barack Obama received the 2009 Peace Prize just 8 months after being sworn into office as The President of the United States, and his nomination was made on the first day after his inauguration.
Complain about this comment
The simple criteria of Alfred Nobel was that he wished the prize to go to the person who ENDS militarism and wars..The emphases is on ENDS. he didnt say the award should go to people who have vision or talk about ending the war, being the inventor of weapon he surely knew that people could talk about ending, but keep on finding ways to fight.
Complain about this comment
In other words, because he's not President George W Bush and has steered American foreign policy, or at least its strategy if not its aims, in an opposite direction.
__________________________
This seems to be the emerging opinion in many columns today and frankly I am disappointed. If this really was the guiding light in awarding Obama the prize, they might as well stop awarding it.
I like Obama, or rather I can agree with most things he says he stands for; he has certainly changed the image of the US in the world significantly in these past few months he's been in the office. He has indeed made a complete turn when it comes to the politics of the President before him so that is commendable.
The problem is, that the fact that he is doing the right thing, does in no way make it something special. He has not solved the ME problem, Iraq and Afghanistan are very much a present issue, Iran and N. Korea as well and countless others. It would be unrealistic to expect this anyway but the fact remains that this reduces his 'achievements' to behaving as one true democrat should.
Awarding him for returning the US to the path it never should have left in the first place is not a huge achievement. In fact, my only thoughts were well done, now let's get something done. Well, nothing else was done, and yet he was awarded the Peace prize.
Will he do something deserving in the future? We do not know, he certainly has the potential I think, but, and I do agree with him here, it is definitely not up to him alone, no matter how influential and willing he is.
Does he deserve the prize now? Definitely not.
Complain about this comment
10. At 10:10pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
"If it were the swede, he would never have won the prize..its their cousins further in north. The norwegians who are being condescending. The nobel peace prize is given by norway, the rest the important ones by sweden."
________
Yes, well.
Norway is actually mostly west of Sweden.
But no worries: there are lots of other posters here who can't tell which way is up either, and we already knew from your postings that your gyroscopes were in need of recalibration.
Complain about this comment
10. At 10:10pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
President Obama was given the Award by a group of middle-age Swedish liberals because he is a charming, intelligent black man who has risen to the top of a white society that most Swedes think was trying to hold him down.
...Apologies for my error. You are of course right. It is a society even whiter, more naive and self-flagellating than the Swedes that dish out the Peace Price - the Norwegian.
Complain about this comment
An interesting take on this Mark - it's curious, though, that the Nobel Committee gave the award on the basis of what Obama might potentially do, given the election promises he had made. (Call me cynical, but I find it hard to take these kinds of promises at face value.) Presumably, though, the Committee has a set of criteria which they use when deciding who to dish the award out to. It would be interesting to know if future foreign policy accomplishments meet that crieria!
http://musingsfrommitteleuropa.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
Obama won a prize. Maybe it wasn't justified and certainly, many, including his supporters, disagree with or are baffled by this decision. However, this doesn't seem to be one of those issues that everyone should be overly passionate about such as healthcare or the state of the financial world today. This doesn't change anything or affect anyone - really.
As a major supporter of Obama, I was pretty surprised to learn of this award - asking the same question: why? But is it really worth getting all bent out of shape. It doesn't cheapen anyone else's win and to be honest, is the prize really that important?
Perhaps we should stop screaming, ranting and raving about it and just hope that it DOES influence him to continue working towards a more peaceful USA, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Since it's not a prize that has an actual affect on anyone, why don't we just try and see the positive side of it?
Complain about this comment
"Your assessment of the people of Sweden is no doubt due to long residence in that country, a fluency in its language and a profound understanding of its culture and history.
Otherwise your remarks would be extremely condescending wouldn't they?
Sadly for you the peace prize is not actually awarded solely on the suggestion of Swedes which indicates your analysis is flawed to say the least."
Yes, my typo invalidates the entire point. Nice one.
Complain about this comment
I think the nobel commitee has given him a carrot to motivate him to do whatever he has said he would do.From hence forward, all those who will have to work with obama, including his foes, will be seen not all motivated to work for peace..When after four yrs he doesnt win again, his supporters will blame the international world, those will not give in to his unreasonable demands for not allowing obama to fulfill his words..And countries like afghanistan and pakistan and iraq will have to work hard to ensure that obama's vision turns into reality..But just in case it doesnt, we have always taliban to blame for sabotaging his efforts. Everytime he fails, we will surely hear from the defenders of his getting award and himself saying "obama wanted it, it was his opponent who deliebrately wanted him to fail because they wanted him to fail as the winner of nobel prize".
Complain about this comment
To Quote Obama:
"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements," he said.
"It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."
Enough said on the achievements issue, sometimes "its the thought that counts".
Complain about this comment
1. I don't know if it's a political tool. If it is, it seems more like a reward or payoff than any tool which could accomplish something politically. I cannot be convinced that Gore deserved to win in 2007 for a book and a video more than Irena Sendler, who risked her own life (and suffered for it) to save 2500 children from a horrific fate, as well as preserve their identities. I could be convinced that it was either sympathetic "compensation" (let's make it up to him) for losing the election in 2000. But atleast he actually did do something.
2. Well, at this point I don't know that I pay considerable attention to the Peace prize- it seems to have become more of a pat on the back lately, but there have been recipients who truly deserved it. I think it is as with all things-- it is not disconcerting when I agree with or understand the decision; it can be quite so when I do not.
I think really this award is a pretty poor "gift" to the President. He may indeed merit the prize in the future, but the prize should be for achievements, not be in itself an achievement. He has only been in national politics since 2004, and only completely international since this year. How sad it would be to be crowned with laurels before running a race when others who have won other competitions wait and watch. To articulate ideas is a good thing; to accomplish their implementation is another thing entirely. There were nominees on that list who deserved this recognition. Perhaps in a few years, Obama will deserve it as well, but having recognised his ideology, they will not be able to recognise the man when he has really done something.
This is a millstone on his neck.
Complain about this comment
Norway is actually mostly west of Sweden.
But no worries: there are lots of other posters here who can't tell which way is up either, and we already knew from your postings that your gyroscopes were in need of recalibration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you are not from sweden otherwise you would have noticed the subtle well hidden pun in my post..
Complain about this comment
I like Obama, or rather I can agree with most things he says he stands for; he has certainly changed the image of the US in the world significantly in these past few months he's been in the office. He has indeed made a complete turn when it comes to the politics of the President before him so that is commendable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what gaurantee can you give rest of the world, that the next guy would not rechange the image of us in the world? The world isnt naive to keep on changing its image about america every four year..Change is good, but this kind of change will leave the world in total confusion. The world knows that face of the representative of usa can change every four years, and ofcourse the methodolgy would also change, but the policy is fixed.. You slap a person face with your left hand or change the method by slaping him by your right hand, but the guy being slapped would know that he is being slapped.
Complain about this comment
The decision to award this to Obama is inapprehensibly premature. There will be numerous individuals all over the world who deserve this award more than Obama. The nature of politics belittles these individuals, so more well known individual always get the prize. Perhaps the Nobel Committee has good intentions at heart but the manner in which they have flattened the honour in attaining their award is sorely absurd, even comical.
The Committee's publicised reasoning behind thier decision is poor justification too. Obama may want good things for the wider world but he will always put America's strategic self-interest first; so I can't even see him even deserving this award a few years on.
Complain about this comment
The reason for the award is simple, but people don't seem to see it. I think that is because people on this board as well as in the Western media do not look at the Nobel peace prize award criteria from the perspective of world peace. They look at it from their own short term interests.
The simple reason why he won it is because the world is a more peaceful place with Obama at the helm in the US. Under Bush, the US was fundamentally an outlaw nation - a pariah nation. And when the worlds greatest military power happens to be an outlaw nation, it is enormously dangerous to the rest of the world. Obama has changed that.
Complain about this comment
"Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?"
The committee that awards the Nobel prizes follow a criteria that is largely devoid of political influences and encompasses subjective as well as objective accomplishments. If the intent of this committee was to impress the American public they would have given the Nobel Peace prize to Michael Jackson whose passing gelicited more media coverage than the death of any former US President!
In this case, after decades of deceit, threats, invasions, bombardments, destruction, and hundreds of thousands of people killed, maimed, imprisoned indifinetely, tortured or displaced, we have a President that has offered a vision of a world where differences can be solved by respecting each other, talking to each other, being willing to compromise, and finding solutions that address the main grievances of both sides, lead to peaceful coexistence and prosperity for all.
While his vision does have an element of idealism that ignores the pervasive influence of the special interests that control so many governments and policies, and whose perspective of the future does not include a world at peace, I suspect the Nobel committee looked at the intent and early successes of President Obama's foreign policy and decided to recognize the unprecedented position taken by a young American President whose performance thus far is diametrically opposed to so many of his predecessors.
Mr. Bolton should remember that Nobel Peace prizes are not given to Presidents that order attacks against tiny indefensible islands, or engage in dealings with our purported enemies to achieve geo-political goals (Iran-Contra) and then offer a sacrificial lamb to wash his hands the way Pontius Pilate did two millennia ago.
Complain about this comment
25. At 10:35pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
This is a very strange statement.
No stranger than some of yours. And at least I'm not dishonest about my agenda.
Complain about this comment
Why is so much prestige and fuss attached to this Prize, which after all is just the embarassed legacy of a Scandinavian arms dealer trying to atone for the sins of his life? The panel is hardly a balanced apolitical body either. Given that Ronald Reagan, John Paul II and Mahatma Ghandi never got a prize, yet Yasser Arafat did (an unrepentant terrorist personally responsible for many deaths and for rejecting the best peace offer his people are ever likely to get) means that this Prize has been pointlessly devalued for some time now. At least Obama had the grace to look embarassed and question his own suitability for it - if he were a truly great man worthy for consideration in the future, he should refuse to accept the prize given his lack of accomplishment in the field so far and insist it be handed on to someone more worthy. I don't like the man at all but that would be the mark of true greatness.
Complain about this comment
Right on target, Mr. Mardell. This morning I found myself saying, "President Obama makes beutiful speaches, but what has he been able to do as yet?"
I said, in Jest, "The Nobel Committee has a new prize, the 'He's not George W. Bush' prize.
I wish him well, and hope all those expectations can, in fact be achieved. Bus, as for the Peace Prize, I believe the British expression, "Early days" applies.
Complain about this comment
It's laughable but if it infuriates the likes of Bolton I'll laugh along.
Complain about this comment
27. At 10:52pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
The simple criteria of Alfred Nobel was that he wished the prize to go to the person who ENDS militarism and wars..The emphases is on ENDS. he didnt say the award should go to people who have vision or talk about ending the war, being the inventor of weapon he surely knew that people could talk about ending, but keep on finding ways to fight."
Well if he did want to award a prize to someone who "ends" militarism and wars it would never be awarded.
In fact his statement has been translated: ""the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Nothing about ending wars since that would mean victorious generals are eligible.
Complain about this comment
30. At 10:59pm on 09 Oct 2009, hubertgrove wrote:
10. At 10:10pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
President Obama was given the Award by a group of middle-age Swedish liberals because he is a charming, intelligent black man who has risen to the top of a white society that most Swedes think was trying to hold him down.
...Apologies for my error. You are of course right. It is a society even whiter, more naive and self-flagellating than the Swedes that dish out the Peace Price - the Norwegian."
Don't all flagellants do it to themselves?
And no the Norwegians do not decide the prize either - oh dear!.
Complain about this comment
23. At 10:32pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
The Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine are generally awarded after the scientific work has been proved and generally accepted. This is more difficult for the Peace Prize, which is by its nature more subjective and political. I think the prize is devalued when it is awarded too early, before a mature view has had time to form. Consider the achievements of Norman Borlaug, who received the Peace Prize in 1970 and who died recently. His achievements in feeding hundreds of millions of people are worthy of such an award. If Barack Obama can achieve even a fraction of that, his prize will be well-earned. I hope he can but I think it is too early to judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have criteria. In this particular case the prize is being given prematuraly or pre-emptively.Martti Ahtisaari was awarded for his services for his contribution to solve conflicts in all most all the contientens for 3 decades Gore got his prize for working for envirnoment not for just talking about it. The bangladeshi guy before him got for his work, and not for his vision. the iranian woman got it for her efforts towards democracy and human rights, not for some vision. Arafat and rabin for signing the peace agreement not just talking about it, otherwise sharon would have also got it, because noone talked more about peace than him."
That would imply that Obama has done nothing in 8 months and he has not remained inert has he?
And er neither Arafat, Shamir or Peres actually achieved peace did they?
Complain about this comment
Is it not an accomplishment to bring the United States back into the forefront of global politics? Is it not an accomplishment to repudiate years and years of torture? Is it not an accomplishment to restore respect for our rights as articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
I welcome the decision. Smart choice!
Complain about this comment
I may be old fashioned.
But I was raised with the adage that the talk is cheap..action speaks volumes.
For those that think this award has merit in this case consider this....
If our president now states that he wants to attend medical school and become a qualified doctor...does he then rate a diploma and thus is allowed to practice medicine..without even doing the prescribed work?
All his efforts so far have only given him calloused lips..and not a blister upon his hands.
I am a rancher..we have a saying here about a person like this.
"All hat and no herd."
Complain about this comment
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:
One part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Surely one would honor a dead mans will?
One fifth of the prize money, and that would be either one fifth of 4% of 190 million or about one fifth of 4%o of 400 million dollars which ever one is correct.
This could be a few million dollars extra for winners. Notice that the text reads for the abolition or reduction and promotion, and this qualifies Obama and many participating world leaders.
Since he was nominated on his first day as president, now he has been awarded. Although, it is a joint venture, with the assenting countries heads.
Complain about this comment
Well if he did want to award a prize to someone who "ends" militarism and wars it would never be awarded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was his prize and he wanted it to be awarded to those who end militarism and use of weapons..And if people didnt and dont deserve it because its not possible to do that, then, the award shouldnt be given..But a person who invented dynamite and then regreted it so much that he invented all the awards including peace, would not at all liked what happened today. You cannot award someone who sends drones to a counry the new invention in weaponary. Its bigotry, its hypocracy, its against the very principles of Mr Nobel.
Complain about this comment
43. At 11:27pm on 09 Oct 2009, Markasol wrote:
Why is so much prestige and fuss attached to this Prize, which after all is just the embarassed legacy of a Scandinavian arms dealer trying to atone for the sins of his life? The panel is hardly a balanced apolitical body either. Given that Ronald Reagan, John Paul II and Mahatma Ghandi never got a prize, yet Yasser Arafat did (an unrepentant terrorist personally responsible for many deaths and for rejecting the best peace offer his people are ever likely to get) means that this Prize has been pointlessly devalued for some time now. "
You mean the Yasser Arafar who defied Israeli oppression and gave his people their national identity and forced the world to recognise their very existence.
You oddly fail to mention the joke of giving the prize to Shamir and Peres ( a former gunrunner) who did much to create the Palestinian tragedy.
Of course Shamir got his, at the hands of the very fanatics he had once been so keen to encourage.
Complain about this comment
Very unusual nomination and award indeed. However it is their ball, it is their game. They have to explain nothing as they did not, awarding a thug like Kissinger, a failure like Arafat or a traitor like Anuar Sadat.
Many times we do not agree with the Oscars or the Emmys. We did not argue with the Nobel award to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn because he was against the Soviet Union. At the same time nobody complained when Nikos Kazantzakis -10 times better than Solzhenitsyn- did not get his because the Greek Orthodox Church disapproved. At least be grateful it went to a person of principle and be positive that by the end of his term it will be well deserved. As about Bolton, you know........
Complain about this comment
In fact his statement has been translated: ""the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama unfortunately doesnt come under Alferd Nobel's original criteria nor the does he fullfill the translation of his statement.."The person who shall have done".
Complain about this comment
I believe the award was rewarded to soon, but it looks a bit underhanded that he was rewarded this because he's not G W Bush. Nevertheless, he deserved the reward because of his hand reaching out and working with the UN. Those are what the Nobel prize committee reported.
I also see a further party seperation between the left and the right over this and the health care push. I am not surprised about the RNC remark "what has he done" and other critizise the committees picking. Someone said Gorby got it but Reagan did not.
Reagan's rhetoric "please tear down the wall" was all it is. It is almost 20 years since "the wall" been torn down. Gorbachev knew the arms war between the US and the former USSR was bancrupting his country, knowing that the only way to save the country was to give his hand out an olive branch. We are reminded of the possible massacre in Leipzig almost 20 years ago, which was just on BBC news today. Gorby picked up the phone and stopped the possible massacre.
IMHO the award should be footnoted as a "good job, keep up the good work - hint hint"
Complain about this comment
32, pittswim:
Since it's not a prize that has an actual affect on anyone, why don't we just try and see the positive side of it?
This is a good suggestion. The prize will have an actual positive effect on someone: the charities to which Obama gives the prize money, and the needy people they help.
Complain about this comment
This could be a few million dollars extra for winners. Notice that the text reads for the abolition or reduction and promotion, and this qualifies Obama
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me where obama has abolished or redused armies? Show me one reduced soldier or rifle that he ordered..
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
50. At 11:43pm on 09 Oct 2009, marineSemperfi wrote:
I may be old fashioned.
But I was raised with the adage that the talk is cheap..action speaks volumes.
For those that think this award has merit in this case consider this....
If our president now states that he wants to attend medical school and become a qualified doctor...does he then rate a diploma and thus is allowed to practice medicine..without even doing the prescribed work?
All his efforts so far have only given him calloused lips..and not a blister upon his hands.
I am a rancher..we have a saying here about a person like this.
"All hat and no herd."
Really? So going by your criteria that old jewish guy, what's his name? Ah yes Jesus wouldn't qualify would he - the so called Prince of Peace.
Complain about this comment
And er neither Arafat, Shamir or Peres actually achieved peace did they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They signed up a peace treaty. they reduced military confrontation..And thats what matters..
Complain about this comment
Even JESUS preached HOPE that has now endured for 2000 years!
Were Jesus to live today, he could have deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, although he as well never had any treaties signed.
I don’t agree that President Obama would then deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, had a peace treaty been signed. Any treaty signed on paper might also be declared null and void at a later date, even if a Peace Prize has already been awarded by that time.
The signing of a peace agreement is only for documentation and reference purposes. Real peace is just a “will” or “willingness” by a people to strive for peace and is always aimed at the future and is as such only HOPE - because a treaty can be valid today, but be nullified tomorrow, especially if a new regime comes to power. And because peace holds from the present day to the future and because the future is much longer than the present (today), then peace is mainly HOPE - thus you hope that the signed peace treaty will hold even tomorrow. Therefore it is HOPE!
If the future was say 100 years and hence 36500 days, then HOPE would be valid for 36500 days, but a signed peach treaty holds only until a new regime rejects it. That could be, say, the next political regime in 1 year. Thus a signed peace treaty would then just be valid for some 365 days, for example. So if someone gives humanity HOPE for peace, he does inspire the coming generations to perpetuate that HOPE for peace.
So if one politician signs a treaty that holds for only one year, and he is deservedly awarded a Peace Prize within that one year, the effect would be much smaller than the effect the HOPE for peace perpetuated over 100 years would have.
For example, Jesus gave humanity HOPE that has now endured for 2000 years. Jesus never signed any treaties at all. Were he born today, Jesus would have been a candidate for and deserved Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
On the contrary, there have been many treaties signed and nullified over the years. So, although somebody does initially deserve the Nobel Peace Prize by facilitating such a treaty, the net effect to humanity is zero, e.g. the to-and-fro negotiations in the Middle East.
If Arafat and Rabin deserved the peace Prize they got, how come that the Middle East is not yet at peace? But, Obama’s inspiration to young people will always be renewed by new young people that will try to copy his attitude to humanity and peace.
So one cannot reverse what Obama has achieved to date, not even Obama himself. If he were to backslide from this course, other people copying his actions to date would be able to do the same good work.
Obama’s attitude is a political FORMULA; you can apply it any where and achieve the same results.
So I prefer somebody who gives Humanity HOPE and President Obama has just done that in a very short time and you can‘t reverse history. So he has done it already and he deserves the prize.
Complain about this comment
52. At 11:49pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Well if he did want to award a prize to someone who "ends" militarism and wars it would never be awarded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was his prize and he wanted it to be awarded to those who end militarism and use of weapons..And if people didnt and dont deserve it because its not possible to do that, then, the award shouldnt be given..But a person who invented dynamite and then regreted it so much that he invented all the awards including peace, would not at all liked what happened today. You cannot award someone who sends drones to a counry the new invention in weaponary. Its bigotry, its hypocracy, its against the very principles of Mr Nobel."
Perhaps instead of trying to interpret what Mr Nobel wanted through your own prejudices you should read what he actually wrote down? He was fairly clear.
And he did not even say that the award should not go to someone who starts a war.
He said nothing about ending militarism
Complain about this comment
First a note to the moderators:
You have no problem in allowing defamation of John Bolton a man of far greater intelligence, depth and understanding than the head of the nobel commitee.
And to the commitee George Bush did far more for peace through his fight against international terrorism than your narrow minds in your comfy norweigian isolation can understand.
Your recent awards to appeasers and failures are worthy of contempt
Complain about this comment
55. At 11:51pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
In fact his statement has been translated: ""the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama unfortunately doesnt come under Alferd Nobel's original criteria nor the does he fullfill the translation of his statement.."The person who shall have done".
Unfortunately the committee charged with interpretating Nobel's prize disagree with your exalted self. They consider he has done more than the other nominees.
Complain about this comment
60. At 00:04am on 10 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
And er neither Arafat, Shamir or Peres actually achieved peace did they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They signed up a peace treaty. they reduced military confrontation..And thats what matters.."
Oh right. Well Obama did dramtically reduce military confrontation over Poland. Why does that not matter?
Complain about this comment
As an American, and a supporter of Obama, I wish he had turned it down. He must realize he has not truly accomplished anything of true value to date. An honest response would have been to say, "I am honored and humbled by this award, but I do not see myself as worthy of it. I must most respectfully decline."
Complain about this comment
Really? So going by your criteria that old jewish guy, what's his name? Ah yes Jesus wouldn't qualify would he - the so called Prince of Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of a non sensical post is this..Jesus was overqualified for this award..You generously assume that vikings somehow were awarding peace awards? they were too busy doing the viking stuff, they didnt even know at that time there was a thing called peace.Maybe here lies the problem..the decendents of vikings in 21st century still havent understood the meaning of peace.they think talking about it is enough.
Complain about this comment
There is nothing left wing about recognising the dangers climate change pose to each and ever one of us. That single change alone is enough to be awarded the prize.
He has beaten in a fair election a regime that has deliberately tortured people, a regime that had to cheat in order to remain in power. And he is closing down the era of that torture. That makes a difference internationally.
He has spoken at the UN, and is working to improve the effectiveness of that institution unlike the President he replaces.
And importantly, he has, by winning the American election changed the world view many of us held of America, from a selfish, pathetic joke, to one where just maybe, the world seems a brighter place, a place with a little more promise and hope than two years ago.
America is still looking rather nasty when it comes to internal politics, but on the international stage, America has an improved image and, with others is working towards world peace with a new energy.
Republicans are repeatedly isolationists, so it is no surprise few of them could make it in the running for the prize.
#50. marineSemperfi
You my dear, appear to be all hat and no brain!
There isn't an exam for the Peace Prize, sweetie.
It is awarded by a committee who are presented with a list of nominees. Medicine and science require a lot of hard work in order to learn and importantly, understand the material on which you will be examined at a university. Do you really suppose the Peace Prize nominees are required to attend class? But, you wouldn't count that kind of thing as real work, obviously. Not like the real work that you do on your ranch.
Your vet will explain it to you honey, real nice and real slow, next time he is out on your ranch tending to your animals.
Complain about this comment
Obama joins Carter and Gore, that should be enough for any one with a modicum of common sense to realize that this "prize" means nothing.
Complain about this comment
Well done - a clever and motivating, early decision. both, Praesident Obama and the Nobel Prize commitee are to be congragratulated on.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
63. At 00:09am on 10 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
First a note to the moderators:
You have no problem in allowing defamation of John Bolton a man of far greater intelligence, depth and understanding than the head of the nobel commitee."
And he has an excelent complexion does he not?
Much better than Nelson Mandela, President Obama, Desmond Tutu
"And to the commitee George Bush did far more for peace through his fight against international terrorism than your narrow minds in your comfy norweigian isolation can understand."
He succeeded in making OBL a global figure, if you count that a success, OBL probably does.
Your recent awards to appeasers and failures are worthy of contempt.
63. At 00:09am on 10 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
First a note to the moderators:
You have no problem in allowing defamation of John Bolton a man of far greater intelligence, depth and understanding than the head of the nobel commitee.
And to the commitee George Bush did far more for peace through his fight against international terrorism than your narrow minds in your comfy norweigian isolation can understand.
Your recent awards to appeasers and failures are worthy of contempt
Giving the awrd to Shamir and Peres was a joke, though understandable. Unfortunately it cost Shamir his life at the hands of terrorist fanatic.
Complain about this comment
I'll let Pesident Obama accept the award, but Beyonce has done more to promote world peace than anyone else in the history of the world.
Complain about this comment
# 63 MagicKirin wrote:
"You have no problem in allowing defamation of John Bolton a man of far greater intelligence, depth and understanding than the head of the nobel [sic] commitee [sic]."
Almost amusing to see someone who relentlessly smears anyone to the left of Genghis Khan wailing about 'defamation'.
"And to the commitee [sic] George Bush did far more for peace through his fight against international terrorism than your narrow minds in your comfy norweigian [sic] isolation can understand."
You couldn't, as they say, make it up.
Yes, GWB's work for peace in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Why, as I recall, he personally reached the Mission Accomplished stage in Iraq way back in '04.
"Your recent awards to appeasers and failures are worthy of contempt"
Short guide to 'Kirinspeak' - 'appeasers & failures' = anyone to the left of Genghis Khan and/or anyone who has ever expressed any criticism of Israel. See Mandela, Tutu, etc, etc
Again, rather amusing that a fan of GWB complains about 'failures'.
And as for the question of who is worthy of contempt.....
Complain about this comment
President Obama won because his behavior pleases the Europeans on the panel. Not unlike why we Americans prefer Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, because he does what we like him to do.
Complain about this comment
#58
In the Iraq war Obama has a set time for complete turn over of the countries government and that shows the reduction of conflict and arms.
Obama, upon taking office could not have left the US soldiers to their own devices in Afghanistan. So he continued because it was necessary.
Personally I don't think there is any way to subdue Afghanistan completely. Our western approach to society is in direct conflict with people there. The complete cessation of military intervention by the US should be ended. The responsibility of the newly installed and elected government will have to suffice. Whether it was election fraud or not it will be recognized and supported by the US.
Our undoing once again comes from having supplied Israel with too much weaponry and that may bite us in the end!
read on and see that the inclusion of the text below describes his qualification.
or the best work for fraternity among nations
,
and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Complain about this comment
Giving the awrd to Shamir and Peres was a joke, though understandable. Unfortunately it cost Shamir his life at the hands of terrorist fanatic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opinions are your private property.But facts arent supposed to be private..so I allow myself to correct them because they are mine too.
Its shimon not shamir. actually it was syzmon. And shimon peres (which was actually perski) is the name of the same man, and not two different people.. And It was Rabin how lost his life..Shimon is still alive and presidenting israel..
Complain about this comment
This letter from President Obama explains his feelings on the subject matter.
"This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama"
Complain about this comment
Obama, upon taking office could not have left the US soldiers to their own devices in Afghanistan. So he continued because it was necessary.
Personally I don't think there is any way to subdue Afghanistan completely. Our western approach to society is in direct conflict with people there. The complete cessation of military intervention by the US should be ended. The responsibility of the newly installed and elected government will have to suffice. Whether it was election fraud or not it will be recognized and supported by the US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didnt go to afghanistan to subdue the afghanistanis, you went there to liberate them..Your western apporach to use force to accomplish your goals is in direct conflict with not people there, but to people any where in the world..And finally may I ask you if afghans are not important that you have to accept a fraud election? or those who won the elections by fraud are near and dear to you? Or you dont care about the system you seem to cherish so much? to make a mockery of your own system is not a very good sign of a nation..You are not even sincere to your own system.
Complain about this comment
I must say I thought I woke up on 1 April - this fits that type of foolish revelry. What no one on this blog has commented on is the fact that Mr. Obama had to have been nominated for the Peace Prize by 1 February 2009 - being only ten days AFTER he was inaugurated President!!! This is simply absurd and can only be laid to the desire of the Committee to "punish" GW Bush and reward Obama for his anti-American rhetoric.
I do agree with many of the writers that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has gone out of its way over the years to praise people like Gore & Carter who did nothing during their tenures in office to advance peace in the way Alfred Nobel envisioned (although Mr. Carter did a great deal of good with Habitat for Humanity) that is by ending militarism and standing armies. The same is true for Gorbachev who fought to maintain the oppression of the USSR and it's eastern empire (contrary to popular belief, Glasnost was about holding unto Soviet power not relinquishing it - Gorby wound up on the wrong side of a People's revolution). Just compare this to the work that Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II did to free the USSR and the Eastern Bloc.
This prize has become the international equivalent of the Turner Prize - given by the ill-informed to the unappealing for works that are non-existent (dirty bedrooms and turning lights on and off in a room). Mr. Obama is long on promise and very short on delivery but this does not stop his adorers from making a fuss over "The One."
Complain about this comment
The Nobel Committee want to deliver a message to George W. Bush that was not sutble. They and the rest of Europe and anyone else sane in the world was glad to see the back of him. So they gave the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama.
Then too the would is still feeling the wounds of the Crash and is still wondering what got US and Them into their unsteady situation we find ourselves into today. And Obama, the man, offers the Balm of Giliad that sooths the sinsick soul. He is Soul Man Number One at this time giving HOPE to the hopeless and voice to those who want peace and healing.
Then too the Nobel Peace Prize is like a Mofia Offer: And Offer Obama cannot refuse. Perhaps Don Corlioni was at the table givine Godfatherly orders. Who knows. But whatever, the Neocons and the Neoconservative in the US cannot sleep tonight or for nights to come because hate and envy is eating up what some would mistake for their hearts.
Those wondering Why Obama... He just got there. Well he has been in Office 9 months and save the world from financial desaster; put the first Hispanic judge on the Supreme Court bench; talk to all the so-called enemies of world peace; making slow but sure arragement to close GITMO; make Equal Pay for Equal Work with the Ledbetter Bill; taken religion of the public menue; made the world like the US again.
I hear the Right and the Blue Dogs say, Obama is not the king of the world, but they are the same voices that say the US is the Leader of the Free World. Is there a charge for being in the world now that Bush is gone?
Yes Obama deserves the Nobel Prize just for being in Black and in Politics because every Black man that has stood up has been cut down by an assins bullet. He deserves the prize for bravery alone. Inseatd of knocking him, PRAY FOR HIM.
Hope remains the world WMD and let's keep it alive.
Complain about this comment
President Obama won because his behavior pleases the Europeans on the panel. Not unlike why we Americans prefer Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, because he does what we like him to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree..Except that when americans felt that he was not delivering what they wanted..they got rid of him..I dont think europeans would do the same to obama.
Complain about this comment
What kind of a non sensical post is this..Jesus was overqualified for this award..You generously assume that vikings somehow were awarding peace awards? they were too busy doing the viking stuff, they didnt even know at that time there was a thing called peace.Maybe here lies the problem..the decendents of vikings in 21st century still havent understood the meaning of peace.they think talking about it is enough."
Yeah sorry can you remind me of a single conflict Jesus stopped? A single peace conference he announced? He was all talk wan't he? He did stop someone from getting their ear cut off - but a nobel prize?
Complain about this comment
I am European and glad that Obama was voted into office for various reasons, including those quoted by the Nobel committee. BUT I disagree with this decision in the strongest possible terms. The prize should be given for life time achievements that are clearly demonstrable, and achievements that really have contributed to world peace. We need such a prize. Unfortunately, the Nobel commitee seems to have other priorities. Shame on them. The decisions for Gore and Obama have devalued the prize to the point where it has become a farce. Can we get rid of these people and replace them with a few decent fellows that have a better sense of history and what peace means?
Complain about this comment
Ironic, given the global circustances, that he should get a Nobel Prize on tick.
Complain about this comment
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on no one here seriously thinks that obama would have said, that he was sleeping and the norwegians gave him the award and it is not as if he has taken it from them..Only a fool or a passionate person refuses things when things are just handed to him.And obama is neither a fool nor a passionate person.
Complain about this comment
Yes Obama deserves the Nobel Prize just for being in Black and in Politics because every Black man that has stood up has been cut down by an assins bullet. He deserves the prize for bravery alone. Inseatd of knocking him, PRAY FOR HIM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa is full of black presidents. If bravery was the criteria than his security people deserve the award..Pray for them instead.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree with what Ambassador Bolton is saying, because to my mind people like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Martin Luther King have actually deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Republicans like John Bolton need to take a good long look in the mirror, because if they do that they will find that their party has done Nothing to advance the cause of World Peace over the last 40 odd years. In fact, they have raised the tensions making the US Public Enemy Number One in the eyes of the World. Reagan's solution to a global Problem was to turn up the Rhetoric and order a few F-16's to go on a bombing mission. Let's also remember that he approved the Arms for Hostages deals with Iran that made the middle east a much more dangerous place and helped the spread of Radical Islam. He did nothing to settle the long standing dispute between the Isreali's and Palestinians.
Bush decided to invade Iraq, inspite of the fact that the job in Afganistan had not been finished. He made Iraq a haven for terrorists. How does that deserve the Nobel Prize for Peace?
Complain about this comment
But Mark, you don't understand. The people (both liberal and conservitive) who ask what exactly he's done to deserve it are looking for concrete evidence. "Intentions" (and at the time when the nomination process closed that was all the committee could base their nomination on) of working through the United Nations, speaking to, and not at, all countries friend and foe, rediscovering the virtue of patience when dealing with our international partners are all well and good, but there is a huge difference between asparation and reality, and as others have said on here, I would have prefered it if this year's award had gone to someone who's actually done something physical and/or achieved actual change for the better in their country rather than someone who merely talks about it. Now in five years time (assuming he gets reelected) if he has brought lasting peace to the Israelis and Palestinians or transformed Iran's Iatolas into objective, respectful people who actually have a good thing to say about the west, then by all means the Nobel committee should give him this distinct honor!! But this is far too premature.
"Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?"
As much as I loathe the Republican party in its current form, I do believe that John Bolton has some valid points. Reagan, despite his many many...many foreign policy mistakes, did do some good in the way of ending the cold war and wasn't recognized by the committee. George H. W. Bush the same. Even Eisenhower (in many liberal eyes the last great sensible, respectful, fair-minded Republican leader) who, in his farewell address to the nation, warned against the very thing that the party has since turned its back on and gone full steam ahead toward; that of the military industrialised complex, was not given any acolades! So based on these facts, I'd have to say that yes, I do think that the prize is used as a very affective weapon with which to make a political point, and I believe it unfair and that it shouldn't be misused in this manner. It in fact does cheapen it. The prize is supposed to reward those who dedicate their whole lives to peace and a better future, not those who pursue these aims through a certain medium. Its no secret that Europe is largely liberal. Its no secret that much of the disdain felt toward America is driven by a hatred of the Republican party (a feeling which, right now at least, is entirely justifyed!) But peace knows no political afiliation, and as such one's personal political views should not whatsoever come into the decision on whether to reward someone for their efforts toward that end.
Complain about this comment
*It singles out working through the United Nations, for putting the emphasis on negotiations, international diplomacy and co-operation, for creating a new climate in international politics.*
Mark, for the first time in its history the Nobel Committee is giving this award in advance. One would ask himself whether it is correct to proceed like this at this stage, “just after nine months into his presidency”. The answer seems to be clear: it is a political “advance payment” for a service the crushing majority of the civilized humanity is waiting for. Given the devastating results of the present deep recession, the rise of terrorism, the further uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear armaments and the evident success of other economies (I mean that of China and Japan) which seek (among other things) to reconsider the position the US$ still has as a reserve currency, one would deduct that America is on a crossroad: either it has to remain a leader either it has to withdraw from the world affairs and become an insignificant country.
It goes without saying that other powers (like Russia and China) will be just pleased to see Uncle Sam step down from stage. The problem is that they are not prepared to fill in the gap. Neither does the European Union or somebody else.
Sofia, oct. 10 2009
Complain about this comment
Yeah sorry can you remind me of a single conflict Jesus stopped? A single peace conference he announced? He was all talk wan't he? He did stop someone from getting their ear cut off - but a nobel prize
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you getting so irritated at jesus. The nobel thingie didnt exist during his time..you are talking like a typical american, creating scenarios and then discussing as if it happened..
Complain about this comment
76. At 01:18am on 10 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Giving the awrd to Shamir and Peres was a joke, though understandable. Unfortunately it cost Shamir his life at the hands of terrorist fanatic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opinions are your private property.But facts arent supposed to be private..so I allow myself to correct them because they are mine too.
Its shimon not shamir. actually it was syzmon. And shimon peres (which was actually perski) is the name of the same man, and not two different people.. And It was Rabin how lost his life..Shimon is still alive and presidenting israel.."
It was Rabin who was murdered but as to facts you would do well to learn something about the Nobel Prize for peace.
And you would also do well to consider another fact the Obama has not been inert for many years. To claim he has done nothing is simply spurious.
Complain about this comment
To achieve something by action and deed is noteworthy.
President Obama has been awarded for nothing more that a well meaning address or two.
As a politician that is his venue to remain in office.
Time will tell.
But for now, as we say here in the ranching business...."He seems to be all hat and no herd".
Complain about this comment
How is this one you wrote, does that sound sincere?
"the bangladeshi guy before him got for his work, and not for his vision. the iranian woman got it for her efforts towards democracy and human rights, not for some vision. Arafat and rabin for signing the peace agreement not"
-----------------------------------
I don't believe that subduing people that are defending their homeland is right and that is me. So rather than fight the people who resist our attempts to save them from themselves I would be for leaving Afghanistan. However I am not blind with rage and prejudice like you are. Could you Imagine writing about a Nobel prize winner and not knowing the recipients names? That is what you are, so don't disguise yourself behind opaque lines of alignment which say more about what you aren't than what you really are like.
The will of Alfred Nobel set the requirements (controversial) and Obama meets them. You probably would endorse Biden, right?
Complain about this comment
Marygrav, you seem to be trying your hard to rationalize obama's nobel victory..If he awarded to send message to george bush, then its even worse than the reasons the comittee gave..It means he wasnt considered because of his own contributions. And the credit goes to geroge bush because without him he would never have won..Obama should thank bush.
Complain about this comment
Since when have campaign promises been criteria for a Nobel Peace Prize? What are promises without substantial action? This is nuts. I agree that this award is politically motivated. It looks like Obama is getting this prize for not being Bush and for being the first black US president (and I say that as someone who likes Obama, is ecstatic race relations in the US have progressed enough to allow for a black president, is no fan of Bush and views the Bush presidency as a disaster).
What worries me about this move is that it might be an impediment to Obama's reputation at home and abroad. He doesn't seem to have done anything to merit winning it. He's only had nine months in office during which time he hasn't made much progress on any of his goals. Thankfully his policies seem to have had a positive impact on the economy but we're still waste deep in Iraq and Afghanistan and we don't have a good exit strategy for Gitmo. Added to that, his healthcare reform efforts are going nowhere.
The premature bestowal of this award may polarize politics in America further and make it even harder for Obama to make breakthroughs politically. It may also put him in an awkward position amonst other world leaders who've done more to promote the causes of peace without necessarily winning any Nobel Peace Prizes.
Personally I hope and believe Obama will live up this honor - I just wish he could've been given a chance to earn it.
Complain about this comment
I don't care what the American Republicans think. Nowadays, they are so far from the concept of peace and justice, they are practically Taleban. I think Obama does deserve the prize although I think it came early. It would have been better if he'd achieved some of his goals. Of course, the Republicans are hell bent on preventing him from achieving anything worthwhile and are determined to wreck the planet forever so that their corporations can 'profit'. I was touched by Obama's own humility and belief that he didn't deserve it. Put that next to the arrogance of the Republican party and it makes him a virtual saint! Congratulations Obama!
Complain about this comment
"43. At 11:27pm on 09 Oct 2009, Markasol wrote:
... Given that Ronald Reagan, John Paul II and Mahatma Ghandi never got a prize, yet Yasser Arafat did (an unrepentant terrorist personally responsible for many deaths and for rejecting the best peace offer his people are ever likely to get) means that this Prize has been pointlessly devalued for some time now..."
Ronald Reagan a worthy recipient? You must be joking.
Take a good look at how aggressive his presidency was, right up until the final day of his second term. From 1981 to 1985 he ramped up US military spending, increasing it 40% in real (ie, after inflation) terms. He escalated the Cold War.
He labelled the Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire", and stoked up the tension between the East and the West to levels that were only surpassed by the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He invaded Greneda, bombed Libya, and flagrantly violated the US's own laws when he covertly sold arms to Iran (an enemy of the US) to fund the Contra guerrillas/terrorists in Nicaragua.
That's your idea of a worthy recipient?
As for Pope John Paul II, that's another contentious candidate.
Yes, the Pope did much to promote peace, including reaching out to other organised religions, but his stance on some issues showed that the Holy See was still mired in the past. In particular, the Catholic church's stand on contraception has caused much harm, especially in Africa.
Perhaps, had he lived in a time when there weren't so many other worthy candidates, then he would have received the honour.
Mahatma Ghandi didn't receive the award for one simple reason. He was assassinated.
Days before the 1948 nominations closed he was gunned down and killed. That year, the prize committee made no award as "there was no suitable living candidate". Shackled by the constraints of the prize, which forbade posthumous awards, they chose not to award one to anybody else that year, and honoured Ghandi with their decision.
Ghandi is considered to be "the Missing Laureate". Go read http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html if you need further enlightenment.
Lastly, as for Yasser Arafat, here was a man who turned from the bullet to the ballot box to achieve justice and equality for his people. That was not an easy route to take, especially considering the circumstances.
He was ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with old enemies, and to face the wrath of many of his own people, to end decades of conflict and generations of suffering on both sides of the divide.
To me, that's a worthy candidate. But if you're going to dismiss the possibility that anybody who's ever had blood on their hands can win the prize then you also condemn the likes of Nelson Mandela, George Marshall, and Woodrow Wilson.
Complain about this comment
Obama, was nominated on the first day he took office as president, but he was not the only person nominated. Obama was in government before that but he has been selected since to receive the Nobel prize.
I am sure he did not go to Sweden or Norway the way he went to the IOC, so this was not his doing. Like many here would say no to it. His presence and advocacy for unifying the international communities was well received by most. Sure he walked out on a few speakers and personally that sets a bad example to the other leasers. Just like the leader of North Korea walked out on talks before. Hugo Chavez was impressed by Obama. Qaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also. Talking soft and carrying a big stick must be working. Just leave that health care thing behind.
Complain about this comment
It is revolting, and deeply immoral, to present the Peace Prize to a man who has made it clear since shortly after taking office that as far as China is concerned, human rights take a back seat to doing business, and have an even lower level of priority than they did under Bush.
Complain about this comment
30 hubert
"It is a society even whiter, more naive and self-flagellating than the Swedes that dish out the Peace Price - the Norwegian."
You are letting your own prejudices get the better of you. Although they had no colonies (and therefore are "whiter" as you say) Norway takes way more refugees per capita than USA or UK and uses its resources way better. Their oil revenues are stashed away for the future and their welfare state functions well.
They are entitled to their opinions on peace as they have not started wars.
Complain about this comment
35 gnome
"Enough said on the achievements issue, sometimes "its the thought that counts".
Well at least he has thought about things.... and is in a position to do something about it.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it clear by now that the US is being weakened from within by some right wing Republicans?
They will attack the president however they can over any issue...and its irrelevant what the president does ...he will be attacked by the right wing
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse."
"Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is
nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride --
unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."
Complain about this comment
I think the selectors were enamoured by Obama just like fans are bowled over by rock or Hollywood stars. It is ironical that a person getting Nobel for peace ignores Dalai Lama, one of the living champions of human rights. Mr Obama should practice what he preaches, look beyond commercial interests of US and China and avoid disregarding men of stature who have been struggling for human dignity and peace for decades. It is high time that Nobel in peace be disbanded.
Complain about this comment
Of course the president should accept the award and donate the 1.4 million dollars to an organization that supports peace.
Also when he accepts the award he should give a speech outlining how to progress towards stopping nuclear proliferation and naming some of the people who have helped to stop nuclear proliferation.
Giving him this boost was entirely appropriate.
We live in very dangerous times and some people only are interested in their own power and wealth. Nations like Iran have to be contained with sanctions and that means the international community must come together. Iran is just one of many nations that are moving towards developing nuclear weapons.
This is about preventing the use of nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
74. ayetee wrote:
"President Obama won because his behavior pleases the Europeans on the panel. Not unlike why we Americans prefer Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, because he does what we like him to do."
What planet are you on? How has Musharraf done what we wnat? By cleaning up the ISI or maybe contrlling the Afghan frontier provinces? Wake up?
Obama has won because the panel decided that his overall strategy and diplomacy is more likely to work towards peace than any other person in the current global situation. Get it?
Complain about this comment
77 stD
Thanks for posting that response by Obama - if the antis will read it they will understand that he both understands the honour and the responsibilty of the award .....
as he says ...
"That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better."
If you are against this then you are against peace. It is an award for all Americns who dream of peace.
To wish it to fail is the worst sort of unAmericanism.
Complain about this comment
80 marygrav
"The Nobel Committee want to deliver a message to George W. Bush that was not sutble."
I really doubt they give 2 hoots about sending the "bird" to an ex-president of the USA.
Perhaps they are thinking of a future that could be more peaceful and a man who has the international poitical capital to hep it happen.
Complain about this comment
92 marinesemperfi
"But for now, as we say here in the ranching business...."He seems to be all hat and no herd".
Funny, that seems so much more appropriate for George W - after all he is the Texan who grew up on the East Coast!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
89 ironfranco
"The answer seems to be clear: it is a political “advance payment” for a service the crushing majority of the civilized humanity is waiting for."
And maybe it is, but then again why is this a bad thing? If peace is the ultimate objective of a civilised world, what is the problem with a little "norwegian push" to help the key players along.
The prize is essentially meaningless. I understand that Obama will donate the money to charity (confirm please someone). How can it be bad for world peace that a man who openly wishes for peace to be awarded this prize?
Certainly its premature, but then if he turns into a Bush-style war-monger have him unceremoniously stripped of his award. This can only advance the cause of peace - the nay-sayers are simply too partisan to see the wood for the trees.
Complain about this comment
This is just a case of some Nordic lefties who have drank the Obama Kool-aid looking to stick it to America. He hasn't done anything remotely close to merit it. I wish he had. The peace prize is just another political gimmick.
Complain about this comment
63. I agree with you. By presenting George Bush as a defender of peace, the rest of the commentators will think they are having successive strokes and give it up. Great strategy!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
It is not every day that the rest of the world look our way and finds a person woth praising. So let's enjoy that they chose Obama because the last 8 years I was getting used to the possibility of reverse Evolution.
Complain about this comment
97. At 02:28am on 10 Oct 2009, WIAKywbfatw
Thats a very interesting post you have written.
Perhaps the president should acknowledge Gandhi in his acceptance speech and donate the 1.4 million dollars to a cause affiliated with Gandhi..
Oh wait this is America we are writing about ..sigh..never mind
(Many Americans would not understand honoring Gandhi)
Complain about this comment
It is saddens me that the Nobel peace prize has been cheapened by political motivations and that history will now hold Obama in the same esteem as those other recipients who truly dedicated, and on occassion, sacrificed their lives for peace. Since when does the gift for political speech and rhethoric equal the achievements of those fellow recipients such as Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu? Hopefully Obama can admit to himself that, as yet, he was not deserving of this award, and that this admission act as a spur to sincerely dedicate his future leadership to the advancement of world peace and tolerance. The suggestion that Bush deserves consideration for a Nobel Peace prize is absurd and does even merit debate!
Complain about this comment
Mark, it's too soon for Obama; I am sure there are others in the world that deserved it more. I do believe it's political how they choose them... though it seems hard to imagine that we could have elected Mickey Mouse as President and he too would get a Noble Peace Prize because he's not Bush.
Or maybe it's all a clever way to get the U.S. President to visit Norway... not much else happening there except for the fjords.
Complain about this comment
Rome Stu
President Obama will have a chance to speak to the world about nuclear proliferation when he accepts the award.. This is a chance to give an outline of how to stop the transfer of nuclear weapons around the world
Its a wonderful opportunity and the charity he chooses will also be a statement of what he hopes will work to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Instead of seeing how this can be used ...some people are concentrating on some sort of standard of who should receive the reward..and the reward should be received only after some level of achievement
We can't wait for that any more...Nations are moving towards building nuclear weapons..we need strategies for containment developed quickly...
Complain about this comment
Fascinating.
Andy's comment at 4. has been moderated, but a full copy of his comment posted at 22. remains in the string.
When you look at Andy's comment, what possible reason is there for that comment being moderated? Andy's first point is an eminently reasonable expression of opinion, and his second point is clearly fair comment in a field of core free speech.
Why then was Andy's comment at 4. removed?
Baffling.
Complain about this comment
This was voted for much earlier (11 days into his term I read?) before he failed to close Guantanamo (hey if he cannot convince his own party in Congress it's not anyone else's fault). Before he clearly realised the USA had no goals in Afghanistan.
I am hopeful for his presidency but I see no way he has extended peace - By realising the Afghan campaign is shorn of goals and meaningful strategy we should expect more. Who is most culpable the idiot who does not know better or the smart one who does but does nothing?
Indeed if he does accept the Biden plan in Afghanistan we have a war with no goals grasping for a saleable strategy to avoid cut and run headlines, very cynical. If he takes Gen Chrystal's PoV then the USA is in Afghanistan purely to liberate the populace a position that is unsustainable surely. Neither position is closer to peacemonger than warmonger so this award is perverse unless he gets out of Afghanistan and risks being a one term President.
I assume Obama 'humbled' was a misquote surely "patronised and humiliated"? Bigotry can come in 2 forms - straight and the patronising inverted sort. I cannot help feel that Mrs Clinton or Al Gore standing on the same platform do not win this award.
It was clearly a down year hence putting up someone who had saved no lives nor achieved anything beyond personal greasy pole climbing. They should have made a proper statement by not awarding a prize this year. That would have stood out and made a statement instead of humiliating the President and opening themselves to ridicule.
Kissinger's award nailed the irony coffin and this award nails the coffin on sarcasm.
Complain about this comment
ref #71
Simple Simon once again you bring in race to make accusations.
A caucasaian is criticizing other cacasians oh I'll take John Bolton over Demond Tutu ( who visits racist churchs in Boston) anytime
Complain about this comment
#5 Ofelas; you really summed it up! While the good intentions of the Nobel committee praised an individual with good intentions, I just wonder why they didn't acknowledge a current accomplishment. But then a thought came, they are adept at reading the tea leaves and foresee nothing but future quagmire and indecision on the part of this administration. So praise now, and then say "too bad" next year. And "Good thing we didn't wait..."
While the rest of US says "God, Help us!"
And #113 If achieving the goals of Freedom and Democracy by winning the cold war are not worthy of recognition to Ronald Reagan, by a Country such as Norway, whom still benefits from that achievement, then it should be renamed to the "Nobel Prize of Warm Fuzzy Significance”. Even if it is not renamed, it has been relegated to a monetary award for “Isn’t that nice?”
Complain about this comment
ref 111
Peace through stregnth not appeasment
The Nobel commitee would have appeased Hitler
Complain about this comment
ref #102 bethpa wrote:
Isn't it clear by now that the US is being weakened from within by some right wing Republicans?
They will attack the president however they can over any issue...and its irrelevant what the president does ...he will be attacked by the right wing
The U.S is in far more danger from the extreme left: ACORN who engaged in voter fraud, terrorist sympathisers from the ACLU and democrats like Nancy Pelosi.
Complain about this comment
President Obama might be able to use this award....
"Iran may also been on the Nobel committee’s mind this time as well. Europeans are extremely anxious for Mr. Obama’s diplomatic overture to Iran to succeed. The committee may have calculated that it will be harder domestically and internationally for Iran’s Supreme Leader and president to bite an outstretched hand if it that hand comes not just from an American president but the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize."
Thomas Carothers is the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Now the president must articulate clearly his foreign policy regarding nuclear proliferation...
Complain about this comment
"Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?"
Yes, it's a political point, more an expression of hope that Obama will do big things than congratulating a particular accomplishment. In particular, it's aimed to help Obama pass a healthcare plan; if he does, then the prize will be a success. It all comes down to whether he will live up to these high expectations - it's too early to tell.
Complain about this comment
"In other words, because he wasn't George W. Bush..." Splendid! Very clever to position that phrase adjacent to the Nobel committee's explanation so as to trivialize their explanation.
Jumper
Complain about this comment
#123 I agree the bottom line is Nucear Proliferation! That certainlys separates the "men from the boys!" But current policies of hindsight and why didya's from the AG, make this a mute point. We are armless in this battle...
Complain about this comment
#122 Magic Kirin
The big issues are nuclear proliferation and global warming. Either one of those can destroy the earth as we know it...everything else is small potatoes
This next refers to Mark Madell's question about the Olympics...from last Friday or so
#254 MagicKirin
I knew you would say the Olympics was about money.
The dream is not about money...but there is corruption ...yes..
Complain about this comment
This "prize" lost all credibility when a certain Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu won it in 1979. It demonstrated that research into recipients' true contribution to "peace" was less important than pampering to the masses' desire for celebrities.
Complain about this comment
This is a fascinating discussion on several levels. I am going to begin on the most superficial.
I am delighted that a small, private group of individuals have the power and nerve to make a decision like this on their own authority as they think best. Whatever is done these days is relentlessly picked apart by the whole world according to the whims and theories of every human having a mouth or a keyboard. And when advance notice is given of any action, thousands of 'interested' voices begin to quibble and rant, trying to influence it or to prejudge someone else's prerogative.
It's a wonder anything gets done in any modern democracy.
The committee made the decision in full knowledge that President Obama has been on the job less than a year and held national office less than four years. They also are aware that nearly all the world's political tragedies remain unsolved, that although President Obama has addressed himself to several of them he has not to date had a major victory dealing with any outside his direct control, and that his greatest achievements on the world stage have been rhetorical.
And yet they gave it to him this year.
The Obama administration's effect on the world to date has been in those areas which are under his direct control, changes made in American foreign policy through the office and activities of the president, and through the Department of State. He said he was ready to talk to any country's leadership, friend or foe, without preconditions. And he has done so, viz. Hugo Chavez and the ceaseless efforts of that energizer bunny, Mrs. C. He said American policy would no longer be unilateral attempts at domination, but to seek respectful dialogue, of listening not telling, of awareness of the mistakes and offenses we have committed in the past with apologies where appropriate, of seeking for common ground on which to build lasting relationships to promote common interests. He said that America would take its place as a leader in caring for the environment, in helping people help themselves, in removing nuclear weapons throughout the world. We are to be a leader among nations because we must if the world is to heal itself; we can no longer imagine ourselves to be the sole leader because it's simply not true.
This is now our policy, our goal, and our diplomatic activity around the world.
On this basis the Peace Committee decided that Barak Obama was the person most qualified to be recognized as an agent of peace for 2009. Why would speeches and administrative changes warrant such an honor? Why would a group of Europeans feel these actions were significant enough at this time to outweigh every other contribution?
I understand without pride that America's actions have recently terrified the world. We have demonstrated we are capable of influencing affairs, economies, war and peace, life and death, misery or hope, anywhere and everywhere. Where we do we bear responsibility for the bad as well as the good. Barak Obama has called us to that responsibility - and to act responsibly. If past administrations and corporate leaders have acted from the mentality of cowboys, Obama seeks to act with the more mature understanding of the world as an integrated unity of diverse nations. America can not survive and prosper alone - but the world can not survive and prosper when America acts alone.
Everything is politics, but this is not about superficial politics.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
#126 BraunSA
YES!!! Its about big issues like nuclear proliferation..not about small issues like health care in America.
Quotes from Joe Cirincione, President of Plougshares Fund
"This is about Iran being a few years away from a nuclear bomb. This is about Al Qaeda being a few kilometers away from Pakistan's nuclear bombs. This is about 23,000 hydrogen bombs in the world ready to use, thousands in US and Russian arsenals still ready to launch in 15 minutes."
"Understand this: These threats have grown over the past 10 years. Our policies are not working. They are making the problems worse. We have to change course."
"The Nobel Prize is recognition of the international support for a new direction, for a new strategy of how to prevent new states and terrorists from getting the bomb and how to prevent any of the existing bombs from being used."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/its-about-the-bomb-not-ob_b_315446.html
Complain about this comment
Every good thing done by human beings exists first in the imagination of someone, becomes the intention of someone, before it is realized in actions. Barack Obama has the imagination and the good intentions, and he has spoken his vision and intentions, and has initiated the actions, despite the spoilers and nay-sayers who are opposing him out of spite and/or limited imagination. He has inspired a lot of us, who were sunk in the swamp of an eight-year Bush-induced coma, to think that some kind of civility and decency might inhabit the Western World again. It is very cool to be cynical, but good grief, people, if you don't respect him, tell me who you do respect!! And for those who are saying that the Nobel Prize doesn't matter because it is just the opinion of a few liberal Scandinavians--just look at who Obama's colleagues are, the others who have won the Nobel Prize for Peace: Nelson Mandela, Lech Valesa, Anwar Sadat, Martin Luther King, Mikhail Gorbachev. These were the heroes of my youth and middle age. I'm grateful to have a hero for my old age too.
Complain about this comment
Americans don't realize the extent to which G.W. Bush's administration frightened the rest of the world, from preemptive military strikes, executive privilege, secret detentions abroad and selective adherence to habeas corpus at home, to the truly extraordinary concept of a war on terror. Obama and Biden could spend the next seven years sipping lemonade in the Rose Garden and they would still be infinitely preferable to Bush, Cheney, and Co., especially when viewed from abroad.
Complain about this comment
It is a farce isn't it? Did he get it because he bowed before
the ruler of Saudi Arabia?
Complain about this comment
Boy I know I'm late to this (I'm surprised I'll still be in the top 200 comments).
I think many people will consider this a case of reverse-racism, and I unfortunately can't say I disagree with this opinion. Yes, Morgan Tsvangirai could have also won - and that would have been fairly unremarkable. Yet it is not quite the same as Obama winning - I apologize that I can't quite articulate my views here. I don't want to say this, but it's like he won because he's an educated, sophisticated black man, as though Tsvangirai and the other black nominees were not - and that the prize committee thought it important to showcase their 'model black'. He's also very powerful, the leader of the dominant country in the world.
More to the point, I think Obama fully recognises that he does not deserve the prize. (I imagine some of the comments preceding mine overlook this point.) And I think he's a little embarrassed and ashamed that he's been chosen (as I would be if I were in his shoes). There is absolutely no way he should have won; at least at this moment.
Ironically, it is almost an insult to the President, by enormously overly exaggerating his supposed virtues which have not yet had time to bear fruit.
If the Nobel Peace Prize committee was trying to influence whether the United States pulls out of Afghanistan (I doubt that would bring more peace to that region), this is an underhanded, even horrific, means of expressing that desire. I feel sorry for President Obama.
He shouldn't have won.
Complain about this comment
Alfred Nobel Stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
I guess in President Obama's situation this must have been amended to read " to the person who shall have made the best use of the tele-prompter on one or two occasions for the several weeks prior to his nomination for this award."
Complain about this comment
If President Obama was the humble man he claims, he would have refused the prize and told the committee to come back in five years' time. It is always a shame when a respected prize devalues itself by awarding someone as yet undeserving and this will reduce the value of the prize for all future recipients.
As for Republican complaints that Reagan never got it - I remember Reagan saying the USA could win a nuclear war. If there was a Warmongering prize, maybe Republican presidents would win on a regular basis, but this one is a prize for Peace and any complaints of this sort by Republicans make themsleves look amazingly stupid.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm. A bit the of cart before the horse here?
Complain about this comment
Even Beauty queens wish for world peace...
Complain about this comment
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
* In April, Obama launched a plan to create a world free of nuclear weapons in a speech in the Czech capital Prague. He said the United States would reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its national security and urge others to follow.
* In June, Obama told the world's Muslims that violent extremists had exploited tensions between Muslims and the West, and that Islam was not part of the problem but part of promoting peace.
* Last month Obama made his first address to the U.N. General Assembly. Obama pressed world leaders on Wednesday to help confront challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea instead of expecting the United States to do it all alone.
* In September, Obama also chaired a historic meeting of the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously approved a U.S.-drafted resolution calling on nuclear weapons states to scrap their arsenals.
.................
"As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery. That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down."
Michael Moore
Complain about this comment
How someone who pursues war in Afghanistan can be given a prize for peace boggles the mind. But what is the Nobel Peace Prize but a political trophy? Too often it has been awarded to propopnents of war, or out-and-out terrorists. Israeli Prime Minister Menecham Begin, the infamous leader of the Stern Gang, was also awarded the prize, as was Yasser Arafat. If Obama had any shred of dignity he would have refused it.
Complain about this comment
#109 RomeStu
Have I ever said it is a bad thing?
In politics it is the final result that matters. America under Bush lost an important part of its prestige of a peace seeking power. Obama wants sincerely to rebuild its authority and to make us believe that the leader is ready to meet the challenges of the moment.
Complain about this comment
#139 Bethpa
Using your own dates for reference all of this was AFTER he was nominated for this award.
The committee was to judge all the entrants on their exploits,efforts and such prior to the date of nomination.
Well and good for all that you mentioned..but what exactly did he do for the several weeks of his office that is to be judged?
He had yet even to find the long promised doggie for the kids.
Fair is fair...he it seems was given the blue ribbon prior to even running the race.
Complain about this comment
Peronally, I think Barack Obama is a great guy and a good president but honoring him with the Noble Peace Prize is just going a bit too far...
Obama, to be honest, hasn't really accomplished anything "concrete". Sure, he has made a number of sincere attempts to change the course of the US and its policies towards the globe but does that effort really deserve such an honor? Probably not. And to think of it...most of his decisions and policy changes are aimed at strengthening the image of the US itself and not promoting "world peace" so ???
This event has really driven down the meaning of a Noble Peace Prize in my mind and I'd take this as an insult to people like Mother Theresa who unlike Obama have worked selflessly to help the needy.
I wouldn't have posted this if the selection committee head would have provided a reasonable explanation behind this selection instead of simply stating that "I was expecting such criticism and this only strengthens my decision" because that is just arrogant.
However, I'm posting this purely based on what I've read on the BBC and the NYT so >_>
Complain about this comment
The Americans who are posting here and write...what has Obama done...are unaware of the changes that the Obama administration has instituted. And unfortunately they believe the fallacy that if they don't know something, then it must not exist
The US news media is very poor especially on cable television. It is empty and shallow...here are some articles that explain the changes begun by President Obama
"It's impossible to exaggerate the symbolic importance of Barack Obama choosing an Arabic satellite television station for his first formal interview as President -- and of taking that opportunity to talk frankly about a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and emphasizing listening rather than dictating. His interview promises a genuinely fresh start in the way the United States interacts with the Arab world and a new dedication to public diplomacy."
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/27/obama_on_al_arabiya
"It's true that, ultimately, this will only be meaningful if followed up by action, but this video -- sent by Obama to Iran, and to Iranians, for Nowruz, a major national holiday, and released this morning -- is, after 30 years of nothing but threats and hateful rhetoric exchanged between the two countries, a palpably different message not only in tone but also in content. "
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/20/iran/
Complain about this comment
#131 susansanta cruz..
At least the heros of your youth..and middle age actually had years of effort and work prior to the award.
Let the book be written first prior to giving it the prize for literature.
A first draft does not merit much I think.
Complain about this comment
If you want to understand why many Americans and I reacted the way we did when we learned that our President had won the Nobel peace prize, then looking at this list of which American Presidents won the prize should clear a few things up.
1) Theodore Roosevelt (R)--1906
2) Woodrow Wilson (D)--1919
3) Jimmy Carter, Jr. (D)--2002
4) Barack Obama (D)--2009
Now you tell me what the pattern is here and who is missing.
I completely relate to what Gavrielle_LaPoste said in post #13 because that's exactly what I thought when I heard the news. I was taken aback, but I laughed, shrugged and said "Whatever." The prize couldn't be cheapened by this announcement because it is already meaningless to me.
Complain about this comment
Part of an email from President Obama:
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Complain about this comment
Daughter number two said who can take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously when it is awarded to Barack Obaman, but not Mahatma Gandhi. Nice to have thinking kids!
Complain about this comment
#142 marineSemperfi
I think you are nitpicking about the time limits. Whats important is that the US might regain some leadership in international politics and help prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and gain the support of some hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
President Obama is being attacked unreasonably by the right wing within America and this is weakening the nation. These attacks also make Americans look ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles: At least Begin and Arafat had just completed peace treaties at the time they got their awards (not that I'm particularly happy with those choices). Obama is in the middle of waging not one, but TWO wars. And he's escalating one of them.
bethpa: It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Obama deserves the award because of a few tiny steps he took towards nuclear disarmament. He's still keeping 1500 nukes. He's OK with Russia keeping thousands of nuclear weapons as well. Each country still has enough nukes to wipe out human life on Earth. This is nothing more than a symbolic step.
When Linus Pauling was awarded the Peace Prize, he had been working for 17 years to try and stop nuclear testing. On the day he was awarded the prize, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty went into force, a direct result of his tireless efforts. THAT is a real achievement worthy of a peace prize.
Complain about this comment
all my marbles
Take a look at post #97
He writes about how Gandhi never received a Noble Prize and links to the Nobel prize site to explain why..here:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html
"Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948, two days before the closing date for that year's Nobel Peace Prize nominations. The Committee received six letters of nomination naming Gandhi; among the nominators were the Quakers and Emily Greene Balch, former Laureates. For the third time Gandhi came on the Committee's short list – this time the list only included three names – and Committee adviser Seip wrote a report on Gandhi's activities during the last five months of his life. He concluded that Gandhi, through his course of life, had put his profound mark on an ethical and political attitude which would prevail as a norm for a large number of people both inside and outside India: "In this respect Gandhi can only be compared to the founders of religions."
"Nobody had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. But according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that time, the Nobel Prizes could, under certain circumstances, be awarded posthumously. Thus it was possible to give Gandhi the prize. However, Gandhi did not belong to an organisation, he left no property behind and no will; who should receive the Prize money?"
Complain about this comment
Bethpa, how did you get your hands on an email from the Pres. of the United States? You've obviously got some tight friends in high places, unless the email was leaked.
Complain about this comment
#150 Ptrsin
The Noble committee is taking a chance and trying to give him a boost in his negotiating. As a Peace Prize winner he will have a stronger hand. Look at what he is dealing with..criminals, egomaniacs and psychopaths with power. If he can not change the US I have little hope of anyone else trying after him. And it might help him in dealing with Iran also.
Politics is a messy business and people make deals that are immoral...but its what we have. China will be the next superpower and it doesn't look to me that they will be better than the US in instituting human rights and they will probably be worse
Complain about this comment
I also have a vision, a dollar and a dream. While my vision will not be rewarded by the Nobel committee for wishful thinking, I do have skin in the game and my odds of success are as likely as Obama's. True, I have not achieved my dream, but I still have high expectations based on luck and random bouncing, similar I suspect to those giving out awards for dreams based on achievements not yet realized.
Complain about this comment
#152 BienvenueEnLouisiana
I donated money to his campaign and I must be on a list.
It comes in as from, "President Barack Obama" and this one was called "A Call to Action" Probably thousands of people receive the same e mail.
My senators send me e mails too : ) An example:
"On September 9, 2009, President Obama addressed the United States Congress on the need to reform our health insurance system. The President's speech was inspirational with a substantive, pragmatic blueprint for comprehensive insurance healthcare reform without adding to the deficit or the national debt. Invoking the passion of Senator Kennedy, he correctly challenged the Congress on the morality of providing health care for the needy and the practicality of making health insurance affordable for the middle class. I am open to discussing the best method in which to cover all Americans and look forward to examining all of the options with my colleagues as the legislation progresses.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this issue to my attention. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
Complain about this comment
#149 Bethpa..
Nitpicking?..Of course I am. Just a bit of fun.
And what you mention is important for the entire world.
But what has weakened our nation is not the right.. middle or left.
It is a fundamental shift of values.
Who are the "hero's" of our youth today?
The heros of my youth were my own parents and grandparents.
I was raised and taught by example.
My mother and father loved each other very much and showed it daily with kindness,respect,affection and consideration.
And that flowed out and on to us as children.
and is with us to this day.
I was taught to try and learn something new each day.
Do the best I can with what I am given.
Help someone if I can.
To harm no one.
All of this and more we saw demonstrated daily among our family and neighbors.
Sadly , many of our youth of today do not have the daily examples in a strong and nourishing family.
The erosion of the family unit has diminished our Nation more than any political party.
Complain about this comment
#156 Marine Semperfi
Our children are at risk and I think we need programs to help them and we will not always be able to rely on the parents. You were fortunate that you came from a stable family in a good community with good values. Somehow it is possible for children to grow up in bad circumstances and still have good values. There is too much emphasis on money and things though...But I agree that how children are raised is extremely important and there is a break down of the family. How to repair that? I don't know...part of it is to have good schools ...
Well ...anyway ...good night : )
Complain about this comment
150, {trsin.
I put the Nobel Peace Prize in the same category as the Oscars. There is backdoor promoting for both, and in the former there are political considerations. Occasionally the awards go to those who deserve them. This was not a banner year.
Complain about this comment
Magickirin is so wrong about Jimmy Carter, he has accomplished so much for the betterment of humanity, a beautiful, humble man, who heard a call to duty to serve communities in need. The accomplishments of his foundation make a difference to many, many people.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize for Mr. Obama, of course he has not had time to accomplish much yet. It is for political reasons the award, and encouragement for him to keep doing what he is doing, the vast majority of people in the world know that he is on the right trajectory, getting America back on track after decades of laissez-faire stagnation, a sociopathic foreign policy, and plain greed and affluenza. Fingers crossed for a second term for President Obama, someone who understands what it means to serve. To make America truly great he will need to change healthcare from a business model to a social model, based on clinical need, not ability to pay, abolish capital punishment, and make the necessary investments and structural changes to lead the world to renewable energy. The EU and Japan have made headway with CERN but there is still a huge amount to do to make fusion power a reality.
Complain about this comment
I just sounded off to Obama on his Whitehouse.gov. I know it won't do any good, but I feel better.
Complain about this comment
Presumably Hume is entitled to a UK passport. Great Britain doesn't issue passports and GB isn't the same as the UK. If he is/was from Northern Ireland, he is Irish not British.
Complain about this comment
its so strange to know about someone winning the most coveted and prestigious award for just giving speeches. why are they forgetting Mr M.K. Gandhi who is actually a deserving candidate for the peace prize.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, this is embarrassment for Nobel Committee, to award the person who was submitted for the Nobel Price only 12 days after he started with his duty for the good performance of his duty. Even Obama himself indirectly emphasize that embarrassment with his surprise by prize, humiliating Committee even more. If it is just a poltroonism, it is too much.
It is not even worthy to mention that his administrative apparatus is waging two wars at the moment and is just about to began more. Or, Obama's (USA's) plan for the world peace-Pax Americana coincides with the vision of the world peace of Nobel's committee.
At last, Nobel invented dynamite, we shouldn't forget that:-))
Complain about this comment
ref #127 bethpa wrote:
#122 Magic Kirin
The big issues are nuclear proliferation and global warming. Either one of those can destroy the earth as we know it...everything else is small potatoes
Nuclear proliferation will not be helped by appeasing criminal nations like NK and Iran, but the Norway nitwits are too dense to realize that
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#161 ARCook
I sure that all Irish citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in all UK elections, including the General Election (unless legislation has changed of course). Hume is Irish because he chose to be. Does Trimble have the choice to be Irish if he wanted?
Complain about this comment
#124 WCoastConservative
I agree with you, it's an expression of hope, hope that he will start to put some of the well presented rhetoric into action - what else could it be for?
However, is it related to the healthcare plan? No, definitely not, it can't be domestically-orientated, if it was, then they'd probably want to hear a little bit more about bringing many Americans out of the type of poverty you see in third world countries, reducing the prison population (more than both China and Russia, the next biggest gaolers, put together), looking to phase out the death penalty, etc, etc, etc.
Nope, I'm afraid it relates to foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
#159 fraser
I absolutely agree, and as for John 'God help us, there's a Liberal Conspiracy' Bolten's, comments, well he would say that wouldn't he? Does he actually know what peace means?
Maybe someone should explain to him what a peace prize is. You know, they really messed-up at Nobel when they gave it to Kissinger - all the Republicans thought by destroying countries (Cambodia), you get to win a nice peace prize.
Oh well, Republicans have always been easy to confuse. Anyone heard about Palin lately?
Complain about this comment
141. ironfranco wrote:
"#109 RomeStu
Have I ever said it is a bad thing?"
Franco - I believe my post may have been ambiguous. I was using your comment to further a point, not to criticise our point.
I agree with you that it was a political move, and many other posters seem to think that is a bad thing as no real achievement has been reached.
However I believe that it is a good thing in the current climate to honour the man for his mission, albeit as yet unfulfilled. There are many steps on the road to peace, but the first step is the hardest. Obama is at least stretching out his leg....
Complain about this comment
148. allmymarbles wrote:
"Daughter number two said who can take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously when it is awarded to Barack Obaman, but not Mahatma Gandhi. Nice to have thinking kids!"
Marbles - the Gandhi issued is explained admirably here in post 97
"Mahatma Ghandi didn't receive the award for one simple reason. He was assassinated.
Days before the 1948 nominations closed he was gunned down and killed. That year, the prize committee made no award as "there was no suitable living candidate". Shackled by the constraints of the prize, which forbade posthumous awards, they chose not to award one to anybody else that year, and honoured Ghandi with their decision.
Ghandi is considered to be "the Missing Laureate". Go read http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html if you need further enlightenment."
I was actually not aware of this, so thanks to poster 97 for enlightening me.
Complain about this comment
Winning it is one thing BUT he was nominated a few weeks (2?) into his presidency - one has to ask who nominated him and why? The Whitehouse say that were not aware that he was nominated so who did it - does that mean I can nominate someone as an individual?
Complain about this comment
Let's get away from the politics of this and just look at this from a logical standpoint. As has been quoted and discussed above, Alfred Nobel created this prize to honor accomplishments in the general idea of peace. This of course does have some leeway of interpretation of "peace." Be that as it may, this is still, in some way, a competition of sorts, albeit one that the nominees cannot influence.
Thus it falls to the committee to choose among the shortlisted candidates. These are among those said to be considered for the prize but did not "win" it.
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition - an organisation that works to remove landmines
Ingrid Betancourt - abducted while campaigning for the presidency of her country and held hostage for six years.
Hu Jia - Chinese dissident and activist for democracy, environmental responsibility, and AIDS advocacy recently sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for his activities.
Wei Jingsheng - Chinese dissident proponent of reform interned for 17 years for his efforts.
Dr. Denis Mukwege - founder of the Panzi Hospital in DRCongo whose life and practice are committed to helping victims of gang rape.
Sima Samar - Afghan women's rights activist who kept schools for girls open even under the Taliban regime which had banned female education beyond a young age.
Even if potential and a hopeful outlook are sufficient for the prize, sometimes one ends up in a field of candidates whose accomplishments shine so strongly that even a bright light is ordinary or even dull by comparison. I wouldn't say Obama's the "least qualified" of these candidates, but I think it's clear he isn't the most qualified. Given some of the potential recipients, I can only question the committee's judgment. Obama may well deserve the prize in the future, and had it been a less spectacular field, he may have deserved it this year. But as it stands, he doesn't-- and I wish he hadn't accepted it with that idea of a "call to action." There were people who already answered that call- and they should've gotten it.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe that subduing people that are defending their homeland is right and that is me. So rather than fight the people who resist our attempts to save them from themselves I would be for leaving Afghanistan. However I am not blind with rage and prejudice like you are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They had been living there for centuries, their decline started when they came across your people, first, you wanted to save them from soviet union, then you want to save them for themselves.Just like you did with those whoose lande you stole and now call them native indians.Without rage and prejudice you would never have invaded afghanistan nor iraq, nor made the native americans strangers in their own land. Its the rage created by failures in afghanistan that leads you to attack pakistan.
Complain about this comment
Ref 164, Magic
"Nuclear proliferation will not be helped by appeasing criminal nations like NK and Iran, but the Norway nitwits are too dense to realize that"
The Nobel Peace Price committee was clearly not impressed by the cacophony of the childish claims advanced by right wing fundamentalists and the Taleban.
Complain about this comment
"It's impossible to exaggerate the symbolic importance of Barack Obama choosing an Arabic satellite television station for his first formal interview as President -- and of taking that opportunity to talk frankly about a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and emphasizing listening rather than dictating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace prizes are not awarded on symbolic gestures..He emphasized his middle name and his days in indonesia in egypt while he avoided these things during his campaign inside america..This is hypcracy not even a symbolic gestures and muslim world, unlike non muslim worlk mainly the western one, dont respond well to such hypocracy. And democratic party of which Obama belongs to, historically never works with the muslim world.Nothing gets done when democrats rule america..its stays on the symbolic level. Ask any muslim world leader and he will tell you that the relationsships between america and muslim world just freeze or turn for worse during democrats rule.Obama is actually doing what bush did, got the jews on his side for a while, waged war and allowed israel to do whatever it liked..Obama's party basically pro-jewish will keep on giving symbolic gestures while doing exactly what his party has always done, stab the muslims in the back.
Complain about this comment
Peace through stregnth not appeasment
The Nobel commitee would have appeased Hitler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to remind you Quisling! Norway supported george bush, it has its soldiers in afghanistan. Maybe because the UN representative for holding fraud elections is from norway, One responsible for fraud elections, other responsible for objective less war..A fine pair they make.
Complain about this comment
What planet are you on? How has Musharraf done what we wnat? By cleaning up the ISI or maybe contrlling the Afghan frontier provinces? Wake up?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell obama to clean up CIA, it needs a lot of cleaning, more than ISI. ISI works for Pakistan, not america, america has its CIA. For once, do your own cleaning up.
Complain about this comment
Please give the guy a break. George W. Bush spent eight years destroying, and yet Obama is less than a year in office and we are already hearing some comforting noises from North Korea, Iran and Burma. Though one must admit that the Middle East is proving to be a little bit more difficult than expected but that is not for lack of trying on the part of Obama. And the man has consistently told anyone who cared to listen that he could not do it alone, and that there was a need for an attitudinal change.Yet all we hear these days is that the man is naive for daring to think that things can be done differently. Pleaaase if you cannot, or do not want to contribute to, make the world a better place then move aside and allow those who want to carry on.
Complain about this comment
I don't think it would be too harsh to say that never has a Nobel Peace Prize ever been so undeserved and such an embarrassment to all involved.
If President Obama truly wanted to be a statesman, he would have refused to accept the award, citing the fact that he has accomplished not a single thing which would even put him within shouting distance of even warranting being nominated.
When President Carter was awarded the Peace Prize in 2002, the BBC reported that "the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Carter's decades of 'untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.' "
So President Carter had the Camp David Accord under his belt during his presidency, and yet it took over two decades more for the Nobel people to get around to thinking that maybe that was a good idea, citing "decades of untiring effort".
President Obama comes along with flowery rhetoric and zero results and the Nobel committee fawns all over him.
It is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Please give the guy a break. George W. Bush spent eight years destroying, and yet Obama is less than a year in office and we are already hearing some comforting noises from North Korea, Iran and Burma.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont tell me you never heard comforting noises from NK, Iran and Burma during the 8 yrs of george bush? Perhaps you didnt listen, the noises were there. Obama is trying to sell the image of america just as advertizment companies sell their products.
Complain about this comment
Why should i be surprised that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize -- when Mahatma Gandhi never received one.
Complain about this comment
What about the 'Beatles' wasn't it their mantra "give peace a chance" written some where before the anointed one was elected if going by future intentions
Complain about this comment
You have to be IN to WIN.
I can't be the only person wondering who submitted his name especially when he had only entered the White House days before the deadline for submissions, can I?
Perhaps this person or persons would like to step forward.
We all want President Obama to do great things, but surely a reward for actions would be so much sweeter than having at least half the world saying 'WTF'.
Complain about this comment
as many commentators, cannot help being surprised somehow by the fact that mr.obama got the peace nobel prize. the problem is not really that he just got the usa presidency. the problem is the fact that right now too many people, americans and not only - billions of citizens of the world - realize that to many of his promises of changing did not get yet accomplished. and if too many of these promises are too difficult to accomplish just in a few months it is exactly because of that that he should have warned and warned that changing is a long, very long process which can take decades. changing a system - specially a very complex one as the american is - is too hard a task to be achieved just in one or two mandates, with one or two presidents! the changing mouvement has too be top down but also bottom up... but i believe that is not just an american problem it is a problem all societies always and will always face. particularly we are in a point that that is more urgent: we all need to know where we really want to go...so that, we do not just change a little bit things so that everthing remains as usual(like lampeduse wrote in his gattopardo).good luck good afternoon ed murrows would tell us all
Complain about this comment
yes and no. yes: because mr.obama was able to create a new political atmosphere in american - more americans seem to be interested in there politics (at least according to our european eyes).
no:because he seems, which was expectable, but considering that he is sincere,that he won't be able to achieve too many of his changing promises.
conclusion (if it is possible to take one) - he created too many expectations like all politics do before being elected= he is then not so sincere? or should people be aware, once and for all, that changing the system means also to change oneselves?
the whole story is too complex and has too many variables to turn into a maniqueist debate. once thing seems clear: AMERICANS WERE FED UP WITH NEOCONS
Complain about this comment
I don't know why the Republicans are getting mad. They know perfectly well that Democrats like Obama will always be more on the side of humanitarianism and social justice than they are, and therefore more inclined to follow paths of peace. I don't think the Norwegians are making a political point: they are simply accepting reality.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
but one thing seems clear to me: as a former journalist, who worked in afghanistan , and pakistanfor several times, several weeks and even months, between 2001 and 2004 and who tried to get so deep as possible inside both countries, i do realize that the american and also european strategy is completely wrong. and what worries me too much is that mr.obama, his generals and civil staff -but also the european ones are too blind or too uninterested to move in a new direction... and there, we citizens of this socalled europe are also too indiferent to that. afghanistan, pakistan, iraq, iran and israleo-palestian conflicts - knowing that all seem too be quite different - keep on being unsettled not only because they are still a old colonial not resolved conflicts but also because we do have too many interests on manipulating there realities...by fuelling, for example, there corrupt nomenklaturas.... look at the double standards in what consists the result of iranian elections and afghan elections? it should make us thing a lot...
Complain about this comment
is it possible to thing that giving mr.obama the nobel peace prize is a reward just to keep the system running as usual? i wonder....
Complain about this comment
believe that the next step one has to be analysing, with lots of care and attention, is mr.obama's and his administrations' move in what concerns climate change/copenhagen. I doubt something new will happen... hope i will be wrong...not a fan nor of bush neither of obama.. it means I do not believe just in the capacity of a single man to change the world... a positivist/darwinian way of looking into politics is to simple to explain reality on my view...or haven't we always lived in a global world?
Complain about this comment
All y'all: even if you are not Rachel Maddow fans, she had a fine analysis on last night's show, explaining how the Nobel committe works and what the Peace Prize means when it is awarded. Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33249779. Skip past her jab at the radical right commentators to the moment she starts to speak about Bishop Desmond Tutu and follow her to the end. She has a point.
Not only has the Nobel Committee honored President Barack Obama, it has honored us, we the people of the United States of America. We also, should be both proud and humble to have seen another of our representatives selected to receive this award.
Complain about this comment
ref #174
Dominick:
The Norway nitwits did this award to bash bush. Obama was in office 11 days when the nominations were finalized.
I'm sorry John Bolton is far wiser than these clowns and Leach Walesa who has no axe to grind both criticized.
Ironicly Bill O'rielley has no problem with Obama accepting the award but does it not think it was merited.
Even liberals like Mark Lamont Hill and Juan Williams have blasted the Nobel commitee.
All more reputable than Desmond Tutu
Complain about this comment
beth:"The Nobel committee is taking a chance and trying to give him a boost in his negotiating. As a Peace Prize winner he will have a stronger hand."
If, as you are suggesting, the committee overlooked his waging of two wars in order to help him politically, then they are cheapening the entire concept of the prize.
Complain about this comment
Opinions are like exit holes everyone has one.
What the world needs less of them.
If you were not on the electing board and do not know all of the facts
involved in the decesion making process keep your trap shut.
In all fairness it's is their award and they can give to whom they choose. If you don't like the choice oh well. You then should run for a seat on the board that elected him. And you can have your say next year in the decesion making process.
Complain about this comment
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and Marge Simpson is on the cover of Playboy magazine. It has been quite a week.
Complain about this comment
191 carolinalady
"Not only has the Nobel Committee honored President Barack Obama, it has honored us, we the people of the United States of America. We also, should be both proud and humble to have seen another of our representatives selected to receive this award."
This is spot on.
It seems that a number of right-wing Americans do not feel comfortable with this step towards a more peaceful future. I know there are people who wish Obama to fail, but this is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
The merit of the award, or lack of merit, should not detract from the positive way that the rest of the world now sees America. Americans complained when the world didn't like them, and now it seems the world likes them too much.
Complain about this comment
193 Ptrsln wrote:
"If the committee overlooked his waging of two wars in order to help him politically, then they are cheapening the entire concept of the prize."
Waging of 2 wars ?
Wars of inheritance .... not wars he started.
Although in an ideal world I would like to see a withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, it is entirely likely in the real world that such a move may not bring instant peace to the region.
The Nobel Committee's affirmation of Obama's worldwde politics of dialogue over dogmatism shows America that now she has the support she has always wished for in her foreign policy adventures.
To say that a man who inherited 2 wars and has worked for peace since taking office does not deserve it is quite simply ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
As the widely detested in America Nobel Prize Committee decides for the entire world what is good and right and valuable and what isn't, if their purpose was to mobilize those who oppose President Obama's views and policies as reflecting a world view rather than an American view, they have succeeded brilliantly. They will surely have cost him votes in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections. They remind us that Barack Obama was elected largely on political hyperbole, smoke, and illusion rather than on demonstrated performance and achievement.
Complain about this comment
I too have Good vision about the world will i get Nobel peace prize.Please replace the "Nobel peace prize" with "Nobel war Prize".Its becoming more shame to living in these world.Nobel committee watching too much of BBC News may be.
Complain about this comment
193. , Ptrsln
"the committee overlooked his waging of two wars in order to help him politically"
Ptrsin quote
Yes...thats what happened
Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good
Think of it this way..you just inherited a big house and the previous owners trashed the place..its going to take a while to clean it up..and you need others to help you..meanwhile everyone is complaining about the mess.
Obama inherited a very big mess in the financial sector, in housing, in employment, and in two wars. This is going to be very difficult...Its possible the US is a failing nation. Obama has to keep people on board while making needed changes. You see what the right wing is like...They attack him whatever he does and they are extremely destructive to America's interests. What do we do with this very noisy and vocal minority that votes and refuses to listen to any new ideas...
America can be a very strong force for good in the world and it lost its moral compass with the Bush administration. Its going to be very difficult to turn it and it will take time. Obama will need all the support he can get to stop the fools from taking power again.
This quote from Kennedy can be applied to more than health care:
“What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
Edward Kennedy
Complain about this comment
From my perspective President Obama has achieved a great deal, not least in rescuing the USA from its rapid progess towards becoming almost a pariah state and restoring goodwill towards its people across the international community. I think that deserves a prize. I personally feel a lot safer and more positive about the world situation because of this President than I have done for decades.
However I do think the Committee may have "shot themselves in the foot" concerning the credibility of the prize. Peace depends on more than one man (or even a single nation) and it just occurs to me that people/states with a vested interest in weakening the US internationally could well be tempted to resist peace simply to provoke the sort of reaction we are (in part) seeing here.
If Pres. Obama's legacy is not the kind of world he envisages, and can lead us towards, it won't be his fault entirely, but it would be very sad for us all if this award turned "Yes, we can" into "No, you can't!" and such an outcome would bring shame on the Peace Prize and the name of Nobel, as well as re-awaken antipathy to the USA.
Complain about this comment
To non Americans who support Obama.
Please do not be put off by any Americans who are hostile to you... and be sure to read the last paragraph in this post.
For some reason I almost always agree with the editorials at the NY Times..so here are some quotes from today's NYT editorial that I agree with:
(And I think you can see how some of the people who post here fit into the categories that the Times alludes to)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/opinion/10sat1.html
The Peace Prize
The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy. Members of the dwindling band of George W. Bush loyalists also sneered — with absolutely no recognition of their own culpability — that Mr. Obama has not yet ended the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office.
Mr. Obama has bolstered this country’s global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; by rejoining the effort to combat climate change and to rid the world of nuclear weapons; by recommitting himself to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and by offering to engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions.
In Iraq, Mr. Obama is still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region. He must decide, soon, on a strategy for Afghanistan that will do what Mr. Bush failed to do — defeat Al Qaeda and contain the Taliban — without miring American and allied troops in an endless unwinnable conflict.
To make real progress toward Mr. Obama’s declared goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must both agree to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals. If, as we suspect, Iran refuses to give up its illicit nuclear activities, Mr. Obama will have to press the rest of the world’s big powers to impose tough sanctions. He must come up with a more effective strategy to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.
Americans elected Mr. Obama because they wanted him to restore American values and leadership — and because they believed he could. The Nobel Prize, and the broad endorsement that followed, shows how many people around the world want the same thing.
Complain about this comment
Re #195
I think that Marge Simpson has fully deserved.
[It's been long overdue]
Complain about this comment
bethpa:
"Think of it this way..you just inherited a big house and the previous owners trashed the place..its going to take a while to clean it up..and you need others to help you..meanwhile everyone is complaining about the mess."
Yes, it would be like that...if I was just given a prestigious award for pristine cleanliness, despite not having done anything to clean the place up. And also thousands of civilians had died and thousands more been injured because I haven't started cleaning.
"Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good"
How is waging two wars considered a 'good' criteria for a peace prize? The fact that he's fighting even one war should disqualify him from any prize having to do with peace.
All the sympathy you heap on him in the rest of your post is irrelevant, and insulting to Nobel prize winners who have went through much worse. Some Peace Prize winners and nominees have spent their adult lives in jail. By comparison Obama is living like a rich king. This isn't a pity prize, and if it were, he still wouldn't deserve to win.
Complain about this comment
Ref 192, Magic
"Even liberals like Mark Lamont Hill and Juan Williams have blasted the Nobel commitee.
All more reputable than Desmond Tutu"
Comparing Messrs Hill and Williams to Desmond Tutu is absurd.
Being a liberal or conservative does not mean a person is wise or has the ability to discern the rationale used by others to make decisions that only they can explain. It simply means they embrace a certain ideology or favor specific values and policies.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee did not give this prestigious award to President Obama because he stopped wars, they did because the vision and policies he articulated throughout the presidential campaign, and his decision to end torture and close Gitmo as soon as he was inaugurated, met the criteria for that award.
I would not be surprised if the need to accentuate their disgust with the reprehensible foreign policy of the previous administration played a part in the decision making process, and I would not be surprised if providing moral support to help President Obama achieve his vision of world relations and problem solving was also a consideration.
Admittedly, President Obama has not corrected all the problems he inherited yet, but he is trying and has already accomplished a lot more than I expected from him at this early stage of his presidency.
Four more years!
Complain about this comment
#204 Ptrsin
Imo you are idealistic. If you look carefully into the lives of people you will always find flaws. ..even people who have won peace prizes...and not all the peace prizes were given to people who were what we would call today "good people"
Its not about pity ..its about making changes..think pragmatically..not idealistically. How do we get from here to there? I think by supporting Obama and I have quotes from people who think similarly ...
President Obama is in a unique position to bring various groups together in a world that has become separated based upon race, religion and nationality.
QUOTES SUPPORTING OBAMA
"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."
"I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honor. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself."
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency -- awarded the prize in 2005
"The award of the prize to President Obama, leader of the most significant military power in the world, at the beginning of his mandate, is a reflection of the hopes he has raised globally with his vision of a world without nuclear weapons."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso
"We hope that he will be able to achieve peace in the Middle East and achieve Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and establish an independent Palestinian state on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital,"
chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat
"to contribute to establishing regional peace in the Middle East and a settlement between us and the Palestinians that will bring security, prosperity and growth to all the peoples of the region."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
"I think he deserves this prize. Obama succeeded to make a real change in the policy of the United States -- a change from a policy that was exporting evil to the world to a policy exporting peace and stability to the world."
Saleh al-Mutlaq, a senior Iraqi Sunni Muslim lawmaker
"I think it's a good thing. I think it's appropriate because he is the only American president who has reached out to us in peace. On the issues of race, religion, skin color, he has an open attitude."
Masdar Mas'udi, deputy head of Indonesia's largest Muslim organization Nahdatul Ulama
"a magnificent endorsement for the first African American president in history."
South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu
"In these hard times people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision, commitment and political will should be supported."
Mikhail Gorbachev
"another very encouraging event for Africa."
Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist
"I wish to congratulate President Obama. I think he is a deserving candidate,"
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangarai
Complain about this comment
The Nobel Peace Prize committee did not give this prestigious award to President Obama because he stopped wars, they did because the vision and policies he articulated throughout the presidential campaign, and his decision to end torture and close Gitmo as soon as he was inaugurated, met the criteria for that award.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does an election campaign has to do with the world peace? Unless the comittee viewed america to be the biggest threat to world before obama's campaign.Its not as if the other candiates were openly talking about wars..They were all busy with internal matters..Torture shouldnt have taken place, the norwegians knew all about the torture and gitmo, they never officialy once took this thing up to more appropriate forums..They also have their soldiers in afghanistan.This award is stupidity of the highest order..And everyone is pathetically trying to rationalise the choice of the candidate.The norwegians made a blunder, and have gien the world some entertainment. The leader of the nobel committe is also EU secretary general of counsel of europe. So, that explains something.
Complain about this comment
And in my opinion you are a zealot. You would have applauded Obama winning the Nobel Physics Prize if they had given it to him and gushed about how deserving he was of it.
"If you look carefully into the lives of people you will always find flaws. .."
I don't have to look carefully to see that Obama's waging wars that are killing thousands of men, women and children. It is you who are blind to their suffering. Instead you worry about Obama and how tough he has it, the poor baby. How important it is that he be given awards he doesn't deserve to encourage him, because being one of the most powerful men in the world isn't enough, apparently.
If you had even the least bit of human compassion you would understand the horrors of war, instead of dismissing criticism of their commanders by saying "hey, nobody's perfect". That is disgusting. I hope the families of dead Afghan civilians don't see your post.
If you applied the tiniest bit of logic to your argument you would understand that someone who is leading a war should never be given a peace prize.
"I think by supporting Obama and I have quotes from people who think similarly ..."
That says everything about you that needs to be known. To you, thinking and supporting Obama are the same thing. But you do not think, not like a rational human being thinks. You are devoutly, unthinkingly, loyal to one man. And whatever he does is worthy of praise, regardless of what it is.
Complain about this comment
# 174 saintDominick wrote: [referring to "MagicKirin"]
"The Nobel Peace Price committee was clearly not impressed by the cacophony of the childish claims advanced by right wing fundamentalists and the Taleban."
Indeed.
One might well say that the Nobel Peace Price committee was clearly not impressed by the cacophony of the childish claims advanced by right wing fundamentalists like MagicKirin. [The fact that he loudly proclaims himself a 'moderate' just adds to the amusement.]
Complain about this comment
Ref. 117, InterestedForeigner:
"Why then was Andy's comment at 4. removed?"
It's in following with the rules of the board. I was a little surprised they allowed it in the first place.
I thought the juxtaposition of the two comments would be humorous (one thoughtful, the other, gut-level), but the fact is that I don't respect the former ambassador. I think he's reactionary at best, and at times just plain insulting. He doesn't seem to understand the affect his comments have on others. Perhaps he just doesn't care. Either way he's a travesty of a diplomat. I believe most Americans agree with me. I have no statistics to support that, though.
This is an international board, and I wanted to make it clear that Bolton does not speak for all Americans. Norway is one of those European countries that has contributed greatly to America's population and, therefore, culture. Don't believe me? Go up to Minnesota some time. The award doesn't feel right to me, but I don't think Norway deserves the kind of derision that Bolton is expressing.
They're our friends, after all, and have been for a long time. They deserve better treatment.
Complain about this comment
I don't have to look carefully to see that Obama's waging wars that are killing thousands of men, women and children. It is you who are blind to their suffering. Instead you worry about Obama and how tough he has it, the poor baby. How important it is that he be given awards he doesn't deserve to encourage him, because being one of the most powerful men in the world isn't enough, apparently.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget the war he is waging for a moment, take a look at the people he has allied himself with in afghanistan, from criminals to war criminals of the highest order..They are the once who has got more boost, now they can be even more brutal and tell others that they are the allies of obama the nobel prize winner.
Complain about this comment
Deserved or not, I have a problem with prizes in general. Those most in need of encouragement are generally the least likely to receive an accolade - I speak from many years in teaching. And so I would suggest we do away with prizes all together; an absurd notion, I grant you, since as a species we thrive on competition.
Complain about this comment
They're our friends, after all, and have been for a long time. They deserve better treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And besides like Obama they have also vision, vision of peace, which never materialized though..The peace agreement between palestine and jews, which is dead now, their peace effort between tamils and government of srilanka for year and years, and in the end, we all what happened to tamils..Their effort to make a fraud election in afghanistan into genuine..The committe leader has already started find excuses anticipating Obama's failure to acheive the vision. according to him Obama takes the award and the responsiblity to make his dream come true is on the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Well Ronald Reagan did far more for the cause of peace
Attempting to destroy the world through nuclear brinksmanship (see Able Archer and the USSRs reaction to it), investing billions in projects to try and gain nuclear first strike capability, invading small countries because it was easier than negotiating with them, massively increasing international arms trading, ramping up world military spending by a huge margin, and funding politically convenient terrorists is hardly a great recommendation for a "peace prize".
Complain about this comment
Well Ronald Reagan did far more for the cause of peace
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He somehow managed to end the cold without the help of europeans, with just afghanistanis and pakistan..Those were different days, this is post 9/11 world, where the values of the west for which he let afghanis be killed , were different, people usually didnt think that talking usually solves the problems..
Complain about this comment
215 colonelartist wrote:
"Well Ronald Reagan did far more for the cause of peace
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He somehow managed to end the cold without the help of europeans"
What without the East Germans!!!!!
There seems to be a continuing myth that Reagan ended the cold war and brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's a comforting fantasy to keep Americans warm at night .... like the way they joined WW2 to save the poor jews!
Complain about this comment
208 Ptrsin
As it happens my husband is a physicist and I have traveled to Sweden with him and met someone over lunch who told me he was on the committee for the Nobel prize in physics. but I tell you these people are just ordinary people. I also know someone who won the Nobel prize in Physics. He and his girlfriend came to our house for dinner ..before he won the prize. He probably wouldn't come now : ) But well ..not wanting to be mean..but he was kind of boring (but then I am not a physicist) He received the award for some work he had done as a graduate student and was later pushed out of that field in physics. The award was based on one published paper
And there is a lot of controversy in the prizes given in the sciences also. Things are not as cut and dry as you might think.
One controversy was about Dr. Rosalind Franklin and her contribution to Watson and Crick in the development of the concept of DNA.
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/3/12829_space.html
When Bush was president I became a political activist and was engaged in marching and protests etc..setting up and funding peace conferences. I received a Christmas card from Bush and became worried..and bought a house in Canada, because I was on some sort of list. Americans think I over reacted..but people from other nations understand how intimidating it can be for a political activist to receive a card from a powerful politician that you vehemently oppose. If McCain had won and by some twist of fate Palin had become president, the US, as I love it, might well have been lost..
I am an artist and hope to do a life size sculpture in concrete that tells the story of a man who was picked up in Afghanistan by the American military and was stripped of his clothes and then handcuffed to the floor over night. The next morning he was found in the fetal position dead and no one had even registered his name.
One of the reasons for my political activism was that I was a member of a local Amnesty International Group and I was reading page after page of reports about how captured people were being mistreated by people in the American military. I early on realized that there was torture going on and that there was a group of probably people connected with the CIA who were traveling around and teaching torture techniques like water boarding. And I believe that at least 100 innocent people have been tortured to death. How to deal with that immorality is an issue that I am not sure of. The morally correct way would be to have trials and to expose what happened..but would those trials cause problems that would interfere with doing the right thing now? I think Cheney and Bush and the people who legalized torture should be on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity...but these people have people still within the US government who would attack and attempt to destabilize any government that would put them on trial imo. (Are you getting a picture now of why I received that Christmas card?)
You and I are not as dissimilar as you might think. Our difference is in how to handle these problems. I would like it if Obama could just pull US troops out of these war zones..but it worries me that doing that now will make the situation worse . How to do it is the issue in my mind. .
I think we agree on policy its the logistics of how to do it that we disagree about.
( : ) and you remind me of one of my sons..its not a bad thing to be idealistic)
Complain about this comment
Ref 215, colonelartist
"He somehow managed to end the cold without the help of europeans"
The only thing that President Reagan did to influence the collapse of the Soviet Union was to keep up the arms race embraced by his predecessors. The arms race deprived the Soviet Union of the resources needed to improve its infrastructure and modernize their industry, which in addition to its unsustainable system of government contributed to its collapse.
The idea that Gorbachev was intimidated, or somehow persuaded, by Reagan call to "tear down this wall" is a naive illusion advanced to immortalized a leader whose policies included dealing with our enemies, an embarrassing withdrawal from Lebanon after our marine barracks were destroyed and hundreds of Americans were slaughtered, an embarrassing invasion of a tiny island, and interferrence in the internal affairs of Nicaragua and El Salvador.
His domestic "accomplishments" include trickle down economics, deficit spending, demonization of government, and de-regulation; all of which played a major role in the economic woes we are experiencing today. Yes, we have named several airports, road and bridges after him, but aside from being a benign looking figure and an inspirational force his accomplishments are limited at best.
Complain about this comment
Ref 207, colonel
"What does an election campaign has to do with the world peace?"
He won the election by a comfortable margin, which suggests that not only his vision was going to be implemented, but that 52% of Americans embraced in what was clearly a departure from the policies of slash and burn of the previous years.
IMO, the prize was in part an acknowledgment of support for our willingness to change course and abandon the reprehensible foreign policy of the Bush years.
Hopefully it will serve as a reminder of the reason so many of us voted for him, and he changes course in Afghanistan. Invasions of Third World countries are not necessary to guarantee our national security, in fact, they contribute to the hatred that influenced 9/11.
Complain about this comment
217, bethpa -
Some people on this forum are quite likely to call you a nut, but I am not one of them. An attorney in my area who had been representing (and may still be) some of the men at Gitmo discovered quite by accident (the technology screwed up) that his office and home phones were tapped. This was a couple of years ago, and is legal under the Patriot Act. And it's my understanding that this provision is one that the Obama administration is requesting be renewed.
Complain about this comment
I think most people have a superficial idea about the Nobel Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel was no saint. After all, he's the inventor of dynamite. Understandably, he wanted to leave a legacy which could influence the world in a positive way, and that's what the price is about: saluting those who have made an exceptional contribution to peace. As the president of the United States, Obama is no saint. But I think it's hard to deny that he has changed the international political environment for the better and made great progress towards nuclear disarmament.
According to the head of the committee (in Norwegian interviews), Obama apparently is a good candidate for the prize in that he matches Nobel's ideals unusually well; in what he stands for and the work he has done so far. The nature of the award (its goal obviously to promote peace) dictates that they shouldn't be afraid to be bold in their choice, so long as it supports the overall goal. I think that's where they're coming from.
I also think the world at large is a much more cynical place now than it was when the prize was set up. (And, as a Norwegian, generally a more cynical place than what Norway and Sweden is!) I think that explains most people's reaction to the news that Obama won it. It's an increasingly cynical world and people are finding it increasingly difficult to believe in something like a peace prize. Especially one that tries to be bold.
Personally, I think it's a great choice, as long as it boosts international cooperation and Obama's presidency (they're interlinked).
Complain about this comment
After thinking this whole event over for the past day I have come to these thoughts.
1.No one that I know of nor myself seems to be actually hurt by this award being given the President.
2. The $1.4 million award is slated for charity. So at least a few people can actually benefit.
3. And this puts to rest the old adage "Talk is cheap!"
4. Evidently talk in this case is worth $1.4 Million. Not cheap by any means.
Complain about this comment
17. kurtfc
I think the Mark's got the right to pose the question since it is a highly political move to award Obama the prize – many have raised that question already as well. Anything else would have been poor journalism! It's got nothing to do with Murdoch in this case. I'd wholeheartedly agree with you on that point if it was with regards to the press in general – not in this case though.
Complain about this comment
The headline should have read; "Community Organizer Wins Nobel Peace Prize."
In the most important community organization projects of his life, those of organizing the world community in the name of world peace to put a stop to al Qaeda's terrorism, Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and support of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and North Korea's deveopment of nuclear weapons to terrorize and control its neighbors, so far President Obama has been a dismal failure. That of course would explain why the Nobel Prize committee chose him for the award. They always get it wrong. For example, they chose Watson and Crick for the award for discovering the structure of DNA when the real discoverer was Rosalind Franklin, a British radiologist they stole it from and two American economists who subsequently opened up a hedge fund for billionaires and lost every cent their wealthy clients invested with them. Awarding the peace prize to President Obama is a bad omen of a likely nuclear war he will initiate, probably stumbling into it inadvertently.
Complain about this comment
The Nobel prize is the will of Alfred Nobel and the peace part of it is just one of 5 selections. If Norway wants to continue awarding this prize according to Mr. Nobel’s wishes then who are we to protest, squirm, criticize or object. My opinion and yours, would, perhaps, never reach a popular consensus and neither does the Nobel prize. The major difference is that Norway has been awarding this prize since 1895. Whatever we think of its recipients, whether we feel they deserve it or someone else, doesn’t matter. It is theirs to award and no one else.
One other tidbit is that Mr. Nobel insured, that, anyone may, receive the award irregardless of color nationality or religion etc.
There is no way to degrade this award. It is fully understood that this award is at times politically controversial.
The merits of this prize have already been established since its inception.
Only the progressive selection process is cumbersome.
Mr. Ronald Reagan might have been nominated for his vision on scientific discovery in the SDI projects, but nominated and awarded are not the same thing.
43 previous administrations have left 44th, a presidency with few options, other than following the previous one. Mr Obama has broken stride and begun a more peaceful path, Rather than continue our arrogant. (we are all powerful) approach. Just to know that as many as 35 or more countries now have weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the ones that posses nuclear armaments. All it would take is one seriously disgruntled country to launch the nukes, and then we would all be choosing sides on which country to bomb. The fact that all Mr. Obama is asking of the international communities is that we look at the most important issues which concern the whole world, is proof that he is on the correct course.
My objection to part of his agenda is that of health care and a few other local issues. Issues which are not inherent to his term, which have caused unequal distribution and assignment of preferential (nepotism) positions.
Many times people act foolish and some laws ensure they get what they earned. Why would we, adults need a law to tell us not to use hateful speech? Because, if there is no such law, some, will be mean, heartless, and intentionally cruel. Some do it anyway, but get punished some of the time. Without such laws, some have no recourse. So the cycle is broken.
The time for lawlessness is at hand. Responsibility will now encompass all of the people and favor those who faithfully and wholly obey its dictions. Only renegades and bigots would dare resist the law of the greatest nation of the world and its allies. Acting or reacting alone and punishing others is a national affair.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been rightly
Complain about this comment
A thought.....I think due credit should be given by the President to his tele-prompter when he gives his acceptance speech.
After all ,the President could not have hardly accomplished so much without it.
Complain about this comment
I thought Andrew Sullivan's observation was interesting
"Reading through all the reactions....there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.
Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.
This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face."
Complain about this comment
ref #209
209. At 6:46pm on 10 Oct 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:
# 174 saintDominick wrote: [referring to "MagicKirin"]
"The Nobel Peace Price committee was clearly not impressed by the cacophony of the childish claims advanced by right wing fundamentalists and the Taleban."
Indeed.
One might well say that the Nobel Peace Price committee was clearly not impressed by the cacophony of the childish claims advanced by right wing fundamentalists like MagicKirin. [The fact that he loudly proclaims himself a 'moderate' just adds to the amusement.]
Jhonny boy it's fortunate that hate speech from the left in protected by BBC moderators.
Frist I've been called many things but never a fundamentalist.
Second unlike you Simon and Fluff brain, I don't believe in right wing or left wing dogma or doctrines. But since your minds are unable to handle nuance and complexity, I'll try in simpler terms.
I am a fiscal foriegn policy conservative and a moderate and social liberal.
Complain about this comment
The nature of the award (its goal obviously to promote peace) dictates that they shouldn't be afraid to be bold in their choice, so long as it supports the overall goal. I think that's where they're coming from.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
its the job of the president to ensure peace. Its stupidity to give presidents such awards..We all know what happens to presidents who dont promote peace. We havent forgotten saddam, have we? or we havent forgotten how iranian president is reminded on daily bases to let people live in peace..
Complain about this comment
ref #227john-In-Dublin wrote:
I thought Andrew Sullivan's observation was interesting
"Reading through all the reactions....there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.
Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.
This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face."
(Quoting a far more deseriving President"There you go again" Ronald Reagan who helped destroy the Berlen Wall. Any time Barack Obama is criticized you cry racissm. What happened to Dissent is the higher form of Patriosm? Barack Obama made several overture during his apologytour nothing was given back. Did Prince Abdullah show some humility and try to open peace negoiations with Israel? did the Russians and chinese put pressure on the Iranians?)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 230 MagicKirin wrote:
"(Quoting a far more deseriving [sic] President"There you go again" Ronald Reagan who helped destroy the Berlen [sic] Wall."
"Any time Barack Obama is criticized you cry racissm [sic]."
As usual, you lie.
[a] I quoted from a well known blogger. They are his opinions.
[b] HE wrote 'This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him' Any fool - I would have thought - can see that this is a far different point from claiming that all criticism of Obama is racist. Sullivan does not believe this. Neither do I.
[c] If I claimed racism every time someone criticised Obama here, I would have time to do little else. Your claim is visibly and demonstrably - and typically - mendacious. [Look it up. Look up 'how to use quotation marks' while you're at it.]
[d] The hypocrisy of someone saying this who hurls smears of anti-Semite, hater and indeed racist at anyone who disagrees with him is almost amusing.
"What happened to Dissent is the higher form of Patriosm [sic]? Barack Obama made several overture [sic] during his apologytour [sic] nothing was given back."
[e] I'm losing count of the times I've asked for proof - beyond 'they said it on Fox - of any 'apology tour'. As usual, don't let the facts interfere with your prejudices.
'KirinnyBoy'.
Complain about this comment
At 1032 am yesterday, a Mr Jerome Doolittle suggested right-wing responses to the Nobel prize. [Or, as he put it, 'Makes me, for the very first time, wish I could be inside George W. Bush’s head. For him then, and for all the boys and girls at Fox, a list of talking points:']
Is it just me, or do most of these seem strangely prophetic? [Ie, subsequently appeared on this blog.]
"1. What do you expect from a bunch of socialists?
2. Not that I’m a racist, but I know affirmative action when I see it.
3. Carter, Gore, Obama? Do we see a pattern here?
4. A clumsy attempt by Europe to save a failing presidency.
5. The Norwegians are just using Obama to slap George W. Bush in the face.
6. Besides, who cares what a bunch of geeks in Oslo think? The International Olympic Committee speaks for the whole world.
7. No thinking person has taken the Nobel Peace Prize seriously since Reagan didn’t win one for ending the Cold War.
8. We elect a president to keep America safe, not to win prizes.
9. True leadership is not an international popularity contest.
10. Peace is no big deal anyway. No, wait a minute. Strike that last one."
Link is here - http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2009/10/nobel_peace_pri.html
Complain about this comment
Ref 230, Magic
"...apologytour nothing was given back. Did Prince Abdullah show some humility and try to open peace negoiations with Israel? did the Russians and chinese put pressure on the Iranians?)"
You keep bringing up two of Rush Limbaugh's favorite criticisms of President Obama: a mythical apology tour and appeasement. Would you care to elaborate a bit more on these subjects?
Prince Abdullah, like other Arab and Muslim leaders have made the normalization of relations with Israel conditional to them returning to the 1967 borders. Israel refuses to do so and, instead, they continue to build and maintain settlements in Palestinian territories. Why should the Muslim world allow or reward aggression? Peace negotiations will lead nowhere as long as one of the two parties refuses to compromise on the main grievances that are at the center of this conflict.
President Obama understands that well and put pressure on both sides to reach a compromise and negotiate in good faith. If this is an example of what an "apology tour" means, would you care to give us an appropriate name for the failed peace negotiations undertaken by previous administrations?
Stopping the planned deployment of missile sites in Eatern Europe elicited support from Russia and has already given positive results. Iran agreed to do nuclear enrichment abroad and is currently negotiating the terms for IAEA inspections. Compare that to the intransigence, threats and illogical refusal to talk to our foes - real or perceived - that characterized the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao went to North Korea a few days ago to pressure their neighbor to restart negotiations over its nuclear programs following months of resistance and overt displays of bellicosity. Wen Jiabao met President Obama and other high level officials in Washington in July.
I realize that many Republicans consider giving a Democratic president credit for his achievements tantamount to sacrilege and inconsistent with the need to demonize and discredit opponents for political gain, but barring a collective case of amnesia even the most politically ambivalent American should be able to see the contrast between a foreign policy that emphasizes mutual respect and dialogue, and one that has as its motto "you are either with us, or you are against us" and what can be achieved by treating others the way we wish to be treated.
Complain about this comment
Doubled over in Dublin;
Why not make that next one....a double? Just think, if Lisbon passes, by this time next year after 400 years of fighting to finally break away from them, Ireland may be rejoined with Britain. Now isn't that a pleasant thing to contemplate? On second thought, better make that two doubles.
Complain about this comment
Well, Mr. Obama is continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims to be in favor of ending nuclear arms, but refuses to cancel any foreign aid to the only UN Member States that have NOT signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Pakistan, India and Israel- all of whom actually HAVE nukes.
Apparently Mr. Bolton is right and wrong at the same time in his comments. We don't get it. Alas, neither does the Nobel Committee.
For a few commentators on this, check out Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/09/obama/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/10/prize_reaction/index.html
A Nobel Prize winner who considers Obama's win "sad":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8299205.stm
And comments from a Libertarian (I disagree with the earlier poster's slander of Libertarians as being pro-war):
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/09/bizarro-peace-prize-awarded-to-obama/
Finally, if they really wanted to rebuke Bush, they could have picked someone who tried to stop him, like Hans Blix, Nikita Smidovich and Scott Ritter. Or, better still they could have picked someone who tried to bring him to justice, like Balthasar Garzon. All fought against war. All paid the price for it. All were totally passed over.
Complain about this comment
233. J-i-D
One of the funnier posts seen here in quite some time.
Strike that.
One of the funnier posts seen here in a long time that was intended to be funny.
LOL.
Complain about this comment
I was so impressed with HUBERT GROVE'S comment since it mirrored my own, I signed up. I'll expand: In 1973 I was chagrined and astounded that a man of war, Henry Kissinger, had received the prize and thought it could get no worse. Yet today we see that racism, i.e., paternalism and condescension is still a significant component of the white power structure and they are, for the most part, unaware of their promulgation of it, and believe that by honoring Barack Obama they have synthesized Kissinger and Martin Luther King Jr. The award to King in 1964 was given to show compassion for the struggles he epitomized. The ideals expressed in his acceptance speech can now be cast aside by his supposed inheritor. Obama in no way accepts King's call to "reject revenge, aggression and retaliation" and accepts "the cynical notion that nations must spiral down a militaristic stairway": Obama's stated intention in his "war of necessity" now going on in Afghanistan. Not too much at variance with Bush who said "it may take a year or two, but we will prevail."
Our addiction to military "victory" is hard to jettison. However, Sidney Bechet a famous clarinetist but an unlikely military strategist was asked in 1953 or there about his views concerning the Korean conflict. He made a somewhat trenchant analysis. "It may take the crackers a while to get the message but the time is past when one white man in his shorts with a toddy in his hand can come out on the balcony and shout out to the natives below to cut out all that damn racket."
Complain about this comment
Congratulations Obama!
I understand that our British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is to get the No Balls Piss Prize for his efforts to do nothing to resist the "EU"-Dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
#220 socialistlibertarian
Talk about nuts.
Did you see how the Republican opponent for Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida and about 50 of his friends met at a firing range and shot up her initials.. The initials DWS were written on a paper figure and Lowry, the Republican, shot it up.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHIEMUyBc6fnDzz_zXJzhO392gKQD9B7TJN80
Republican shoots target with Fla. Dem's initials
"That's our right," said Napolitano, president of the Southeast Broward Republican Club. "If we want to shoot at targets that look like that, we're going to go ahead and do that."
Complain about this comment
He got the Nobel Peace Prize but he supported the war in Afghanistan even long before he became a president.
"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007
Obama himself admitted when he spoke at the White House: "to be honest I do not feel that I deserved to be in the company of so many transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
BBC news: Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". Obama also said the prize is a "Call of Action."
So, I think this means he is yet to achieved his goals to end nuclear proliferation, his efforts to reach out to the muslim world and end American war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, he is escalating the war in Afghanistan which simply means human beings are killing each other and more innocent civilians will have to pay the heavy price in this war. We have witnessed 8 years (by next week) of war in Afghanistan and Afghan civilians are the most affected not only the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and NATO forces.
Now, if Obama agreed to send more troops as requested by Gen. McChrystal of ideally 40,000 troops according to the meeting at the White House yesterday morning, we can imagine more people will be killed in Afghanistan and it means no peace.
Complain about this comment
221. At 9:26pm on 10 Oct 2009, Federisco wrote:
"Personally, I think it's a great choice, as long as it boosts international cooperation and Obama's presidency (they're interlinked)."
Great post. Everyone should at least listen to the Norwegian.
If you don't see the link between Obama's presidency and improving international cooperation, something is blinding you.
KScurmudgeon
exasperated at the insects
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Zesspool;
"BBC news: Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". Obama also said the prize is a "Call of Action.""
That's what some may call it. I call it a bribe. That is reason enough why he should reject it.
Complain about this comment
First off, President Obama did not ask for his award, nor did he know he was nominated. So if anyone does not think he was the right choice, they should have no beef with Obama- it should be with the Norwegian Committee.
Secondly, President Obama was humble about the Nobel Peace Prize and said he would donate all the money to charity. I think that is very admirable of him. It is never a fault to help others who are worse off than you.
Third, I think it was too soon to give President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, as he has not proved himself to be worthy of this award yet to America, or to the world. Only time will tell whether he will be a great leader or not. I do think it had to do with the liberal Norwegians, but that is their right to choose who they want.
The Nobel Peace Prize is an honor and President Obama should be respectful.
Complain about this comment
1 - The committee makes this decision, no one on this blog is consulted. That was a good decision on Mr. Nobel's part.
2 - The committee knew that the president was new at his job, and they chose him anyway (See #1).
3 - The president has changed US foreign policy. He also made speeches that got more people's attention outside the US than they did inside.
4 - The committee gave the prize in recognition of these accomplishments.
5 - Evidently, the committee thought these actions were sufficient reason to recognize him. What America does must matter, in their eyes.
KScurmudgeon
bemused at being moderated
Complain about this comment
One more shot and I am going to bed on the first cold winter's night this season.
One striking theme that is sounded again and again here, is the claim that a leader cannot be a man of peace if he wages war.
I am reminded of my newest favorite movie, The Watchmen. At its conclusion - WARNING - the plot will be revealed if you read further - -
A dishonest compromise blackmails Richard Nixon, in his third term, and an unnamed Soviet Premier to conclude a lasting peace and general disarmament. Life becomes exceedingly boring and newspapers collapse for lack of readers. Nobody believes Ronald Reagan can get nominated for President because he is just a cowboy.
I generally respect idealism, but not when it trumps a pragmatic understanding of reality. Such idealists as write that no man with blood on his hands can be called a peacemaker, have in my opinion a great deal in common with those other idealists on the religious Right.
If Fundamentalism = blindness, then this descriptor also applies Left and Right.
KScurmudgeon
David's friend
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, you have not yet earned your wings. Get out of the DC bubble, visit a few states (seems like your predecessor only had time to go West in the last few weeks of his era), and breathe the air. Then come back and apologize for misrepresenting the feelings of millions of us who think President Obama deserved the Nobel Prize, with bells on!
Complain about this comment
228. At 10:08pm on 10 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
" I am a fiscal foriegn policy conservative and a moderate and social liberal. "
Please, I would like to understand you but can make no sense of these words at all, in the order you have used them.
kindly,
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Well I am proud that another American has been awarded the Nobel honor, even if the basis is partly aspirational. The naysayers who celebrate the Olympic decision but decry this one don't care if America is hurt by their visceral opposition to President Obama.
This prize in part recognizes the oft-missing phrase from the quote by the great American Stephen Decatur, the aspirational "America, may she always be in the right..." that preceded the typically repeated "...but she is my country, right or wrong!" The world is recognizing someone who is working hard to keep America in the right, and lead us to live up to the aspirations and expectations of a great democracy.
Three past U.S. presidents deserved the prize too: T.R. for his efforts on the global stage and the end of the Russo-Japanese war, despite his belief in a foreign policy based in part on the "White Man's Burden" idea of childlike colonial subjects not ready for self government; Wilson for his actions (even if reluctant) to end the war and more importantly to build a peace, despite his political style which led to self-destructive failure for his initiatives back in the USA; and Carter for leading the mideast peace between Egypt and Isreal that won Begin and Sadat the prize in 1978, before assasination repaid their brave efforts.
Carter has been criticized by some of the keyboard "hawks" here. In addition to Isreal-Egypt peace he funded development of and deployed the cruise missile, which made every increasingly vulnerable American bomber into a new multi-target 'standoff' weapon. I would argue this led to more Soviet military spending, on air defense upgrades, than "Star Wars" SDI ever did - so maybe some of that "Reagan forced the USSR to overspend on defense" mythos should transfer to Carter. Carter also pursued energy independence in his one term. He got the gist of his "malaise" speech right: although belittled now, in a sense he was warning of upcoming outcomes: the S&L scandal, the rise of consumerism (echoed by Solzhenitsyn), and of outsourcing and the fall of American branding and manufacturing. Carter was by no means perfect as president or since, but he gets treated with far more charicature than a nuclear navy officer and man of all his other accomplishments deserves.
Complain about this comment
#169 RomeStu
*However I believe that it is a good thing in the current climate to honour the man for his mission, albeit as yet unfulfilled*.
I agree.
Being European, I should avow that all our liberalism is to a large degree possible to the mere existence of America. No matter what Paris and Berlin should decide or declare on matters that concern, say the gas supply from Russia, the enlargement of the EU, the anti-terrorist actions within the EU, the common strategy on agriculture, on healthcare or on the education are a positive result (apart from the contribution of the west European democracies) of the previous status quo of the cold war separation of Europe.
If under Obama or after him, some American president decides to withdraw from NATO, that will be disastrous for us and for our liberalism. We shall just fall apart without the political support of America.
This said, I should say that each American administration after WW2 had its positive indirect contribution for the mere existence and development of the EU, no matter whether that pleased the American president or not.
I think president Obama is the first one who seems to reconsider (without mentioning a word) the present attitude America has for Europe. Consequently, the Nobel Committee flared the danger and reacted properly.
This is of course my own vision which does not bind any European authority. I am fond of European history and try to orient myself on the ground of our proper experience and mistakes.
Complain about this comment
245. At 05:39am on 11 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
First off, President Obama did not ask for his award, nor did he know he was nominated. So if anyone does not think he was the right choice, they should have no beef with Obama- it should be with the Norwegian Committee.
For God's sake, Nobel Prize is awarded by SWEDISH Academy, not by Norwegian!!
Complain about this comment
ref #249 KScurmudgeon wrote:
228. At 10:08pm on 10 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
" I am a fiscal foriegn policy conservative and a moderate and social liberal. "
Please, I would like to understand you but can make no sense of these words at all, in the order you have used them.
kindly,
KScurmudgeon
Fiscal refers to the economy: meaning low tax rates, less goverment bureacracy, foriegn policy conservative means strong defense, against the Obama apology tours, beleiving America is usually on the right side on a foriegn policy issue, social issues: relative sepration of Church and State (although it is a waste of time to deal with religous displays onpublic property, gays in the military etc.
Complain about this comment
#250 bluejay60
Carter has been criticized by some of the keyboard "hawks" here. In addition to Isreal-Egypt peace he funded development of and deployed the cruise missile, which made every increasingly vulnerable American bomber into a new multi-target 'standoff' weapon. I would argue this led to more Soviet military spending, on air defense upgrades, than "Star Wars" SDI ever did - so maybe some of that "Reagan forced the USSR to overspend on defense" mythos should transfer to Carter.
The development of the cruise missile (AGM-86) started in 1974, I believe Nixon was still President at the time. The first test flight occurred in 1976 while Ford was President. The first operational missile was not delivered until April 1981 and was not ready for combat until 1982; that would make Regan the one who first deployed the cruise missile. Carter certainly continued the funding for cruise missiles production and gets kudos for that. However, I think it's false to suggest he both "developed and deployed the cruise missile". In truth, he merely had the good sense not to cancel the program like he did the B1 Bomber.
Complain about this comment
252 lt-rinas
"For God's sake, Nobel Prize is awarded by SWEDISH Academy, not by Norwegian!! "
Before you sound off so authoratitively you should perhaps do some research. From the Nobel Prize website comes the following ...
"Who selects the Nobel Laureates? In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the prizes he wished to be established: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry, Karolinska Institute for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize in Literature, and a Committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Nobel Peace Prize."
Read the last bit again and then slow down next time before you shout your ignorance to the world.
Complain about this comment
ref 235 saintDominick wrote:
Ref 230, Magic
"...apologytour nothing was given back. Did Prince Abdullah show some humility and try to open peace negoiations with Israel? did the Russians and chinese put pressure on the Iranians?)"
You keep bringing up two of Rush Limbaugh's favorite criticisms of President Obama: a mythical apology tour and appeasement. Would you care to elaborate a bit more on these subjects?
Prince Abdullah, like other Arab and Muslim leaders have made the normalization of relations with Israel conditional to them returning to the 1967 borders. Israel refuses to do so and, instead, they continue to build and maintain settlements in Palestinian territories. Why should the Muslim world allow or reward aggression? Peace negotiations will lead nowhere as long as one of the two parties refuses to compromise on the main grievances that are at the center of this conflict.
President Obama understands that well and put pressure on both sides to reach a compromise and negotiate in good faith. If this is an example of what an "apology tour" means, would you care to give us an appropriate name for the failed peace negotiations undertaken by previous administrations?
__________________________________________________________________
Since I never listen to Rush or Michael Savage I did not get the apology tour from either of them
I think you are missing te point. several posters say the U.S should not impose preconditions on their negoitions with Iran or NK. Abdullah says he will only meet with Israel if moving back to the 67 borders is the starting point for negoiations. How is that reasonable, why don't all parties go to Geneva, NY without these preconditions. Gettingto the bare bones his solution is give in to the demands and trust that the Palestinians will live in peace. Since the Palestinians, Lebanese or suggorates have commited terrorism or refused to disarm Hezbollah why should Israel reward them?
I've asked this question and no one has given a decent answer, Mexico attacked the U.S and lost. They forfieted a sizeable part of the Southwest and CA, we did not give it back. why should Israel when the Palestinians and Lebanses of have a track record of untrustworthiness?
Answer that?
Complain about this comment
ref 255. At 10:19am on 11 Oct 2009, RomeStu
You're right, I should have checked before I embarrassed my self. I was absolutely positive that it was just Swedish matter. I apologize for my tone and, as you said, ignorance.
Complain about this comment
257
accepted
now tell us what you actually think of the whole situation. We're here (most of us anyway) for an exchange of views.
Complain about this comment
Ref 256. Magic
"I've asked this question and no one has given a decent answer"
The answer, in my opinion, is quite simple: we don't have exclusive rights on intransigence or arrogance. Israel and the USA have made recognition of Israel's right to exist a pre-condition to negotiations since this conflict began, Muslim countries are doing the same by making the return to 1967 borders a pre-condition to negotiations.
That intransigence was the essence of President Obama's speech in Cairo a few months ago. Is that what you call an apology tour or appeasement? Several posters would love to understand what those terms mean, besides being a tool to discredit the efforts being made by our President to solve the international problems that have caused so many deaths and destruction for decades, not to mention draining our shrinking financial capacity.
Complain about this comment
Grazie. Sarcastically saying, I believe that somebody from the Nobel Committee took, by mistake, the yearly plan for 2015, instead for 2009:-))
Seriously, this is quite confusing in sense that you cannot award the projection of hopes and expectations (as, I believe, is the case with Pres Obama), you can only award results. And, definitely, Obama didn't have enough time to show any results.
And what is the background of this decision goes deeply to speculations (for us, normal citizens).
Complain about this comment
ref #259
saintDominick wrote:
Ref 256. Magic
"I've asked this question and no one has given a decent answer"
The answer, in my opinion, is quite simple: we don't have exclusive rights on intransigence or arrogance. Israel and the USA have made recognition of Israel's right to exist a pre-condition to negotiations since this conflict began, Muslim countries are doing the same by making the return to 1967 borders a pre-condition to negotiations.
_________________________________________________
And you consider these equal? Israel does exist, that s a fact. But since Israel is being asked or in Abdullah's case demanded to make the only sacrfices when they were the attacked party; how is that reasonable?
Complain about this comment
So once again now the BBC moderated (censored) have omitted my post on the day I made it, without explaination. Obviously the Political Class must control what is said, written, and printed. Interesting does the BBC have people on the Nobel prize committee selection board? It used to be at least the BBC sent an email explaining why they omitted or removed something. Now, they just erase it like Sadaam, Stalin, or Hitler did to their opposition. Ministry of Truth!
Complain about this comment
I think Michael Moore should also be entered as a Nobel Peace Prize possibility! Along with Barbara Steisand,Lynn Redgrave, Charlie Brown, Darth Vader, Guy Fawkes (posthumously),Kim Jong II, Superman, Batman, (Spiderman is too young). Lets make these Nobel right up there with the Golden Globes, Oscars, and UN resolutions! When it comes to all political decisions made by our leaders, as it is too important for the people to decide what is right. So our more intelligent leaders make them for the peasants/people. Because the poeple just don't understand, the political class knows, how to spend our money, what wars to wage, and generally what is best for us. Congratulations Mr Obama, I can't wait to get the commemorative glass from my local McDonald's restaurant on this Nobel prize.
Complain about this comment
ref #255
People are not disputing that the people of the Nobel commitee aren't the people who are supposed to vote.
We are dsputing their decision as being wrong, political and showing a lack of reality about thew world.
We have the right to criticize them.
Complain about this comment
Mexico attacked the U.S and lost. They forfieted a sizeable part of the Southwest and CA, we did not give it back. why should Israel when the Palestinians and Lebanses of have a track record of untrustworthiness?
Answer that?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlers backing up the settlers. No wonder usa more than supports this occupation..If today it persuade the occupation to go back to 67 borders, Mexicans would demand back california.. I guess the americans have to support occupation..they have no other choice.
Complain about this comment
263. Griz:
Spiderman is actually older than President Obama.
Complain about this comment
264 MK
I know you type in a hurry, and we all make typos, but honest to Pete, Magic, you've got to proof read a little better. Slow down. Use spell-check once in a while.
Yours,
IF
Complain about this comment
And you consider these equal? Israel does exist, that s a fact. But since Israel is being asked or in Abdullah's case demanded to make the only sacrfices when they were the attacked party; how is that reasonable?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask the palestinians who have to make a 20 minutes journey in two days, and they will tell you that they see european creation in their middle, on daily bases..Its you who has to see that the israel that exists todays isnt the israel which UN quickly created.Peace and security for israel is a luxury demand, just as it was for americans when they attacked afghanistan, iraq and now pakistan. There is no existantial threat to israel from the stone throwing, besiged and occupied palestinians. Its palestinians whose existance is been threatened..The forgein minister of occupation force openly makes a statement telling that this conflict wouldnt be solved, and peopel will have to live with it, and Obama and his administeration plus the brits who gave the land to the jews, conviently pretend that they didnt hear. King Abdullah mentions that israel should withdraw to 67 borders and he gets the lynching.
Complain about this comment
First off, President Obama did not ask for his award, nor did he know he was nominated. So if anyone does not think he was the right choice, they should have no beef with Obama- it should be with the Norwegian Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
he knew that he was nominated and that he was among the finalists..They have certain process, according to which the organization or country or who ever nomiated the candidate is informed that his or their candidate is eliminated. Now, tell us, who actually nominated Obama and on what grounds? It would be interested to read his nomination apllication and who nominated him..Maybe the gay groups in usa.
Complain about this comment
Ref 264, Magic
"We have the right to criticize them."
And they have the right to ignore the childish protests of right wing fundamentalists and the Taleban and do what they believe is best. If the vision articulated by President Obama meets the criteria they have established for the Nobel Peace Prize, it is up to them to act accordingly.
I wonder what criteria was for naming airports, bridges, highways and buildings after President Reagan. Should we assume his cut and run in Lebanon, Iran-Contra, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, de-regulation, demonization of government and other priorities of his administration are the basis for such honor? The difference is that in this case we can not blame foreigners for the decision.
Complain about this comment
ref #268
colonelartist wrote:
And you consider these equal? Israel does exist, that s a fact. But since Israel is being asked or in Abdullah's case demanded to make the only sacrfices when they were the attacked party; how is that reasonable?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask the palestinians who have to make a 20 minutes journey in two days, and they will tell you that they see european creation in their middle, on daily bases..Its you who has to see that the israel that exists todays isnt the israel which UN quickly created.Peace and security for israel is a luxury demand, just as it was for americans when they attacked afghanistan, iraq and now pakistan. There is no existantial threat to israel from the stone throwing, besiged and occupied palestinians. Its palestinians whose existance is been threatened..The forgein minister of occupation force openly makes a statement telling that this conflict wouldnt be solved, and peopel will have to live with it, and Obama and his administeration plus the brits who gave the land to the jews, conviently pretend that they didnt hear. King Abdullah mentions that israel should withdraw to 67 borders and he gets the lynching.
_______________________________________-
Yes Abdullah is his comfy palace making demands about another country giving up land and risking their own safety. Still no one answers the question: Calderon has never demanded the U.S give back the southwest whats the difference? The Palestinians have not kept their word.
Hypotheticly if Israel gave into Abdullah's unreasonable demands. Then Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist continue to attack would he support Israel taking the land back? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Well, there was this Mr. Hu-Jia...:-(
Complain about this comment
Ref 261, Magic
"And you consider these equal? Israel does exist, that s a fact. But since Israel is being asked or in Abdullah's case demanded to make the only sacrfices when they were the attacked party; how is that reasonable?"
I have no interest in engaging in another interminable exchange about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if nothing else because there is no point in repeating the same charges and counter charges, but the short answer to your question is - yes - it is very reasonable.
By countering to Israel's demand to acknowledge their right to exist with a request to withdraw from the settlements they have built in Palestinian territories before peace negotiations start and diplomatic relations are re-established the Muslim world has, in effect, acknowledged Israel's right to exist.
The problem is that Israel, and us, have no interest in finding a solution to this conflict, much less withdraw from occupied lands.
Regarding the issue of Mexico attacking "gringo" settlers, don't forget Texas. New Mexico, Arizona and California were Spanish territories since the early part of the 16th century, and were later an integral part of Mexico when those innocent settlers decided to move there.
Costa Rica should be careful, about 60,000 Americans have settled in that country recently attracted by their beautiful climate, nature, and low cost of living. The same is happening in Baja California, and let's not forget all those fast food restaurants that are popping up everywhere in the world. They better make sure nobody attacks them or there will be a new dimension to burger wars, and I am not talking global obesity!
Complain about this comment
ref #273 Costa Rica should be careful, about 60,000 Americans have settled in that country recently attracted by their beautiful climate, nature, and low cost of living. The same is happening in Baja California, and let's not forget all those fast food restaurants that are popping up everywhere in the world. They better make sure nobody attacks them or there will be a new dimension to burger wars, and I am not talking global obesity!
When I was in Costa Rica about a year and a half ago, I talked to several Americans who had retired there. I can see why beautiful nation, excellent healthcare stable democratic goverment which allows freedom of speech.
Complain about this comment
colonelBULLartist;
While firing countless thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets, recently cited as a war crime by the UN BTW, will not threaten the continued existance of the state of Israel, they fire these only because they have been prevented from acquiring more potent weapons. However, this is what Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and those in Egypt who allow the smuggling of arms into Gaza are about, getting more effective weapons to the Palestinians to enable them to destroy Israel, or if not by the Palestinians, one day doing it themselves.
An Arab Palstinian state is an absurd abstraction, a fabrication of whole cloth, a lie which cannot be allowed to come into existance. The reason it is discontiguous is that there is no historical national commonality other than the fact that these people are mostly Arabs abandoned by Egypt in the case of Gaza and Jordon in the case of the West Bank. There was no talk ever of a Palestinian state joining those two before the 1967 war. If it were to come into existance it would surely be a terrorist state whose purpose would be to continue to try to destroy Israel. There hasn't been one substantive instance of compliance by the Palestinians on any agreement they ever signed with Isreal and international guarantees such as those signed when Isreal left Lebanon have proven worthless. Even American promises in matters of security have a spotty record. I don't think Isrealis will ever agree to such vulnerable borders as is being demanded of them nor should they. The settlements will allow them to consolidate their hold on land sufficient to establish defendable borders, a clearly necessary condition for any future real peace.
America stands with Israel nearly 100%, only a small percentage of Americans dissent from that position. Now that is a good thing and a good reason for a peace prize. Protection of what may be a well stockpiled world class nuclear armed power being attacked in another war to destroy it. The consequences of failure there would be earth shattering, Mr. President. You want to earn your peace prize? Then get off Israel's back.
Complain about this comment
274 magic
"I talked to several Americans who had retired there. I can see why beautiful nation, excellent healthcare stable democratic goverment which allows freedom of speech."
Wow, I like the sound of Costa Rica - sounds just the USA ..... with the additional benefit of excellent healthcare ;-)
Do you get a brown envellope from their tourist board?
Complain about this comment
While firing countless thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets, recently cited as a war crime by the UN BTW, will not threaten the continued existance of the state of Israel, they fire these only because they have been prevented from acquiring more potent weapons. However, this is what Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and those in Egypt who allow the smuggling of arms into Gaza are about, getting more effective weapons to the Palestinians to enable them to destroy Israel, or if not by the Palestinians, one day doing it themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When there is occupation, there is no war, its occupied trying to protect themselves from occupiars. First tell UN to pay attention to america's sending drones and killing innocent pakistani civilians who didnt even know what america was 10 yrs ago is a war crime..Prize given on the bases of visions, pharases like war crimes used when they should not be used, thats what you are left with, after 8 yrs of 9/11 thingie. How many of those smuggled weapons have really killed any occupiar in this this year? Obama gets peace prize for his vision and hope, and israel gets support for its i invisible threat to security. Its an abstract that is not going to go as long as america uses the same exucuse to invade, violate other countries..I guess these two countries have divided the destruction of islamic countries between themselves, israel is taking care of middle east, and usa along with europe, the remaining ones.
Complain about this comment
America stands with Israel nearly 100%, only a small percentage of Americans dissent from that position. Now that is a good thing and a good reason for a peace prize. Protection of what may be a well stockpiled world class nuclear armed power being attacked in another war to destroy it. The consequences of failure there would be earth shattering, Mr. President. You want to earn your peace prize? Then get off Israel's back.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that those christians who all of a sudden have become great friends and allies of jews are supporting israel just for fun? they are trying to make the vision in bible a reality. According to them, peace will only come after some earth shattering in that area.
Complain about this comment
Yes Abdullah is his comfy palace making demands about another country giving up land and risking their own safety. Still no one answers the question: Calderon has never demanded the U.S give back the southwest whats the difference? The Palestinians have not kept their word.
Hypotheticly if Israel gave into Abdullah's unreasonable demands. Then Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist continue to attack would he support Israel taking the land back? I don't think so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes abdullah in his comfy can make any demands on the occupiars..He is not the occupiar. And If west stops creating "if and then" scenarios acting as if they were the creality, THEN this world would be quite peaceful, or more peaceful than it is now. This "if and then" policty of west has killed , destroyed and created unnecessory hatered.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the Peace Prize has become such a political tool..abiet in the cause of peace.
The announcement of the 2002 award to Jimmy Carter came shortly after the U.S. House and Senate gave President Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq in order to enforce U.N. Security council resolutions requiring Baghdad give up weapons of mass destruction.
Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."
All in all..I do wonder if the Alfred Nobel indeed wanted to to use the award to make a political statement or indeed..as he requested..to award actual deeds.
Why not have the Nobel committee just use a more direct approach to expounding their views and erect billboards and signs along national highways and byways.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee giving the award to Obama. I am happy that Obama has given hope to many people throughout the world. But, why should I have hope when a politician like Obama spends trillions of dollars on revitalizing the US economy with results that are at best pitiful and shameful. My life is no better off with Obama in the White House and I suspect that some of my my freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitutionare in very much danger of being amended into irrelevance.
Complain about this comment
All in all..I do wonder if the Alfred Nobel indeed wanted to to use the award to make a political statement or indeed..as he requested..to award actual deeds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
He wanted it to be used as the way it is used. The inventor of dynamite, trying to encourage peace after his creation is what america does. Creates weapons uses, them then create some more calling the previous ones the WMD or what not. I think this is wrong, because america is still waging wars in three countries..thats not peace, thats war..I believe in here and now. and if america is at war now, then it is..Nobel prize wont make people this war into peace.
Complain about this comment
281 roberto
"My life is no better off with Obama in the White House and I suspect that some of my my freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitutionare in very much danger of being amended into irrelevance."
Would you have been better off if McCain had won? Try to look beyond your own personnal situation and see that in less than a year Obama has totally changed the way the world sees the USA. That is not weakness, it is strength and in the long run (it is lessthan a year and the economy is not great) this will be better for everyone.
As to your "freedoms" it was not Obama who passed the Patriot Act.
Or do you mean the freedom to deny basic human rights like decent healthcare to all citizens?
Complain about this comment
Ref 282, colonel
"I believe in here and now. and if america is at war now, then it is..Nobel prize wont make people this war into peace."
The dichotomy between the vision and thoughts expressed by President Obama throughout the presidential campaign, and after inauguration, and the reality of our activities in the Persian Gulf could not be more evident. Unfortunately, our government - and most governments - do not make drastic policy changes overnight. Changes are more often than not incremental and, hopefully, deliberate and irreversible.
Consider the constant criticism that Obama is subjected to with accusations ranging from appeasement to apology tours (whatever that means), when he actually embraced Bush's withdrawal schedule from Iraq and increased troop levels in Afghanistan.
Can you imagine what would have happened if he had pulled a Reagan and withdrawn from both countries?
Complain about this comment
#282 colonelartist
Unfortunately the only method to obtain "Peace" in a world such as we live is to have strength in military options.
I do not urge the use of those options in every case to resolve dispute.But in a world as we live..today..we need to retain military strength.
On a level that you can relate to..do you advise the disbanding of your local police force..and to not allow them to carry arms.
Do you think that the criminal element will then..in order to live "peacefully"..stop their criminal activity..and lay down their weapons also?
And then will you be safe.
I think not.
But I do notice in reading the life of Alfred Nobel...he never stopped receiving or refused payments for his invention of dynamite..up and till his death.
He did protest its use for war.
But not at the bank.
Complain about this comment
I think that probably the award was a surprise for President Obama and his staff.
The person I met (through my husband) who won the Nobel prize in physics, Russell Hulse, heard about it on his radio when he woke up that morning. That has got to be a strange experience to wake up hearing your radio announce you have just won a Nobel Award.
And Steven Chu who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1997 is today the Secretary of Energy in President Obama's cabinet.
Complain about this comment
Ref 271, Magic
"Calderon has never demanded the U.S give back the southwest whats the difference?"
You got to be kidding! Can you imagine a Mexican President demanding anything from the USA, let alone the return of the US Southwest? Instead of a Situation Room the occupants of the White House would need to be admitted at the nearest hospital for a case of out of control laughter.
Calderon can not even deal with his own problems, let alone anyone else's and, most importantly, the Mexican-Americans whose ancestors lived in that part of the USA are quite content with what they got...except when the "Migra" and vigilantes get carried away and abuse American born citizens as well as the undocumented...
Complain about this comment
But I do notice in reading the life of Alfred Nobel...he never stopped receiving or refused payments for his invention of dynamite..up and till his death.
He did protest its use for war.
But not at the bank.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then what is this drama he has created. Its the strongest that can decide when to have peace or when to go to war..To give Obama the peace prize and to demand others to follow him should not even be wished for, let alone expected..As a president of usa, which occupies two countries, is all ready to attack pakistan more than just drones, threatens Iran, supports occupation is israel, he cannot afford to fullfill his own vision.America cannot survive if the vision he has given, ever turns a reality, so he is ccursed to talk about peace while engaging in "unknown" wars, and you all will be left to discuss what you are now used to discuss, endless, useless abstacts.
Complain about this comment
Can you imagine what would have happened if he had pulled a Reagan and withdrawn from both countries?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine game, america plays with the world in the name of peace, freedom, democracy. One president supports and create wars in other countries, then the other comes and pulls out, sometimes citing this reason or that, then another goes in again, and the next pulls or is only interested in pulling out. And in between this pulling out and pulling in, they get a few nobel prizes. Nice game.
Complain about this comment
#288 Its the strongest that can decide when to have peace ..
...............................
Peace CAN have a chance if indeed the strongest is able to maintain and enforce peace.
In 1939 Germany invaded Poland and then on to France. I cannot help but think that if Poland and France had at that time a weapon or weapons so great in nature as to dwarf the military might of Germany... the German advance would have been stopped in its tracks.
And if that advance had been stopped millions upon millions of lives would have had been saved.
But sadly Poland and France were properly equipped to defend themselves.
Ones ability to even walk the streets today in relative safety depends upon someone else having the strength to enforce the laws of the land.
I do not want a world of peace backed by the might of an army..but that is a fact of life.
The Hitlers of this world are not defeated with flowers.
Complain about this comment
ref #276
RomeStu wrote:
274 magic
"I talked to several Americans who had retired there. I can see why beautiful nation, excellent healthcare stable democratic goverment which allows freedom of speech."
Wow, I like the sound of Costa Rica - sounds just the USA ..... with the additional benefit of excellent healthcare ;-)
Do you get a brown envellope from their tourist board?
_____________________________________-
No but I did like the exchange rate with the U.S dollar and unlike a lot of other travel destination they don't gouge the tourists.
Complain about this comment
Since the Nobel Prizes were first established, the population of the world has grown many times over. Impossible to deny that with the broad reach of IT, just about anyone close to a keyboard can rattle off dozens of personal favourites for any of the Nobel categories -- names of anonymous or shy heroes who shall never be so honoured.
I was in Paris over the weekend and read with bemusement someone's lament that Philip Roth has never been honoured with a Nobel Prize for Literature. Literature is my own particular discipline: far from being surprised that Philip Roth has not "yet" been honoured with a Nobel, I am still waiting for an explanation as to why Vladimir Nabokov was never recognized by the Nobel committee.
With all due respect to mr Roth, Nabokov is one of the true titans of the 20th century's sufficiently vast literary landscape. Yet he never won.
All kinds of excellent people never win, never receive a "great prize" -- many remaining unknown even for a long time after their death, as was the case with the immortal, now widely loved, Johannes Vermeer...
More than anything, the brouhaha over Obama's Nobel reminds me of the people who were upset he spoke to students, or others who were upset he made the case for Chicago before the IOC.
I think there are a lot of people out there who are just plain jealous of Barack Obama.
Personally, I am pleased he got the Peace Nobel, and congratulate him, along with his family & especially his wife, Michelle, who has, indeed, contributed greatly to his success, and also endured I am sure a fair amount of inconvenience for her support.
So much do I believe President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, that I was only slightly surprised to see him honoured in this important way.
The fact that there were so many self-serving voices upset that Mr Obama decided to cancel Bush's entirely absurd proposal for two expensive new military facilities in Poland & the Czech Republic -- facilities most of the people who live in these countries actually vehemently spoke out against -- should give everyone some insight into why that particular decision, in and of itself, provides sufficient grounds for this Nobel Prize.
In making that specific decision, quickly & firmly, President Obama chose not to edge closer to a confrontation with Russia, and indeed to back away from what was beginning to look increasingly like a deliberate, wildly misguided policy of provoking Russians ever more forcefully in the hope of... what exactly? An opening for American forces to march in and start doing some kind of pre-emptive "democracy spreading" against the wishes of one of the most militarily unflappable nuclear-armed populations ever to face down superior forces, again & again & again?
The reality of that demented strategy, as a figment of at least a small number of overheated imaginations, was vividly demonstrated in August 2008 in the foolhardy attack by Georgia which no one sane can continue to attempt to deny any more. It does not take a genius to see who was backing and spurring on Saakashvili, after having armed, trained & supplied the attacking forces to the tune of $5 billion (at least that was the official price tag cited in America's premier news sources). Just revisit your own news reports from Aug. 8, 9, 10 & 11 to read with your own eyes how many commentators were swooning in anticipation of a "massive surprise upset by ferocious little Georgia with Nato weapons over a declining Russian army full of alcoholics, derelicts & misfits". Words very close to that filled most English-language papers I peruse, and I go through about 20 different ones on a solid news day.
Some imagined the Chechens would immediately join in -- on the Georgian side.
Yeah, right. There was a near-hysteria for weeks about "Nato having won the information war" (as if Nato, or Western powers, were actually parties to this conflict... Hmmm?) -- when what was emerging in plain sight for all to behold was a colossal failure of Western intelligence resources, certainly those that take their lead from Americans, to grasp how the Caucasus actually works, not to mention how much Russians always rise to the occasion when their own land & people are being attacked.
Shocked by the lunacy of such an all-out assault, Russia naturally reciprocated with enough force & speed to leave no doubt in any minds that provocative aggression targeting Russians could easily trigger World War Three. Fortunately, at this point, the serious minds in the States, not to mention Brussels -- not to mention President Sarkozy -- were able to squelch any shadow of a thought in any Bush or Cheney that Saakashvili was worth the lives of Nato forces (beyond the limited numbers already covertly engaged as some kind of volunteers or Bush flunkeys).
Precisely within the context of that awful event in August 2008, President Obama's redesign of the missile defence strategy can be accurately interpreted as a sea change: a dramatic shift away from some kind of benighted Bush-Cheney era back-room rogue scenario of baiting the Russian "bear" with an eye to ultimately taking it down.
Given the proximity of all these regions to exquisitely compact Western & Central & Northern Europe, not to mention the Mediterranean itself, the significance of President Obama's decision to shut the door, perhaps even forever, to Cold War machinations, in the interests of a long-term, credible peace actually do deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that it arrives swiftly further reinforces the message, and sets a standard for the young President to continue to live up to in future decisions.
I welcome all of it, and I applaud the Nobel Committee. Well done indeed! I would give you a standing ovation of you were in the room.
The fact that people are still upset about so much of what President Obama does that is actually very well thought-through, intelligent, courageous -- or, in the case of addressing young students, inspiring -- merely reveals, one more time, the plain harsh fact that there are still many, many people in this world who are happy to grouse about how awful things are, yet equally, when presented with a choice, prefer to do everything humanly possible to prevent things from getting better.
Not only will the prefer to do nothing, or the wrong thing -- they will become upset if anyone they can reach with their insults and invective or bitter words of disapproval has the audacity to do something right, for a change!
Just as there are those who view wars as financial opportunities, political platforms, career builders, useful ways to resuscitate moribund ideologies or complete age-old vendettas -- especially when someone else actually gets to do the dying, and the killing, while they collect the revenue, or the glory.
These people would rather there were no Peace Prize at all, since they certainly won't be the recipients.
So they just got splashed with a little more mud. That's fine, too!
Complain about this comment
ref #287 saintDominick wrote:
Ref 271, Magic
"Calderon has never demanded the U.S give back the southwest whats the difference?"
You got to be kidding! Can you imagine a Mexican President demanding anything from the USA, let alone the return of the US Southwest? Instead of a Situation Room the occupants of the White House would need to be admitted at the nearest hospital for a case of out of control laughter.
Calderon can not even deal with his own problems, let alone anyone else's and, most importantly, the Mexican-Americans whose ancestors lived in that part of the USA are quite content with what they got...except when the "Migra" and vigilantes get carried away and abuse American born citizens as well as the undocumented...
__________________________________-
I thought you were done arguing on this. But it is the same things, The armies of Santa ana attacked the U.S and lost, the arab armies from 5 nations attacked Israel and lost. To the victor go the spoils.
Complain about this comment
I'm having trouble understanding why so many Americans on this blog are complaining about their Head of State being awarded the Nobel Peace prize (there are some notable exceptions of course and a hat-tip to them). The Head of State represents the entire nation so that prize is for every American (or at least to the millions who voted for him).
Get off Obama's back!
Complain about this comment
The Hitlers of this world are not defeated with flowers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Agree on who is the hitler..The way the west has turned the world after 9/11, is that hitlers are allowed to flourish.
Complain about this comment
Mark!
How about something on Canada?
Canada is an important country. It is in the Americas. It is not supporting the arrogant, anti-democratic, megalomaniac, wasteful, dangerous attempts at European integration and it is not trying to destroy the UK and Europe by letting Turkey into the "EU".
Complain about this comment
#293 Magic
It looks like you go are advocating a dog eat dog world where violence never ceases. So should the five Arab nations attack again and again until Israel surrenders or nukes them? It is becoming clear why US conservatives do not win Nobel Peace prizes.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 256, MagicKirin:
"Mexico attacked the U.S and lost."
When?
Texas declared itself independent from Mexico in 1836 as a result of the Texas Revolution. Mexico itself had only freed itself from Spain 15 years earlier. Texas became was annexed and became a U.S. state in 1845. In the intervening years, it was the Republic of Texas, not the U.S. In fact, the Republic had diplomatic relations with not only the U.S. but with France and Britain as well.
Mexico recognized the Nueces River as the border with Texas, which it still recognized as only a rebellious part of Mexico, not an independent country (which explains Santa Anna's savagery). The Texians and the U.S. considered the Rio Grande the border. While there were a handful of engagements in that area initialized by Mexico, Mexico can certainly claim it was merely policing its own territory and that the U.S. simply took advantage of a civil war.
Complain about this comment
290. marineSemperfi
"the German advance would have been stopped in its tracks."
"And if that advance had been stopped millions upon millions of lives would have had been saved."
marineSemperfi quotes
Yes I agree that Hitler should and could have been stopped early. The problem was that he had the support of very wealthy people in the US and other nations who wanted to make money in Germany. I don't think the early Nazi supporters realized that there would be a Holocaust but they were racists and considered the white race superior.
While you look for a weapon that will give an advantage, I will look for a uniting of nations to stop aggression. I prefer sanctions and we will see how well that works in containing Iran. The sanctions were successful in Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been defanged before the US invasion
NO WMD FOUND, SANCTIONS WORK
Complain about this comment
Israel, already once, a long tome ago, made the Gaza strip available and soon regretted doing so.
This only made attacks into Israel closer by the Hamas.
Syria, Palestine and all waring factions had interest in seeing Israel defeated, so giving back any land taken by a war effort is now off the table. The US was the only country that voted for the recognition of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation or state. There seems to be much confusion as to Who is a Jew or who is not.
Guaranteed that not 100% of the population of Israel is truly Jewish by christian definition. Just as there are gentiles who are by faith Jews.
America(USA)has taken from the Latino population several states and is never going to return them.
War is that way. Evict the original inhabitants and call them illegals. Read the excerpt below it is a small sample.
The truth is that when a negotiation between two countries begins biased, the intended result is always the same.Question? When the ten nations of this world become a confederacy, who will be the foreigners? 'One world order' is inevitable within our lifetime.
Universal health care, means world health order. Except for the countries that don't have pot to phea in. These will receive limited comprehensive care. Outlived usefulness and age related ailments will be glossed over and prescribed the wait pills.
Discover the new world, only in text. The Nobel prize is the invention of Dynamite, just to be used for life saving situations.
The man was awarded one, and it is theirs to award. The Nazis might have gotten one for not invading Sweden, although they banked their money there got their precious metals there...
The most extraordinary exploit of all, however, was that of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, who arrived in Florida in 1527--fifteen years before De Soto--as second-in-command to Pánfilo de Narváez, the bungling onetime governor of Cuba whom King Charles of Spain authorized to complete the colonization of Florida. After landing on the peninsula's western coast, Narváez led a three-hundred-man expedition inland near present-day Tallahassee, then foolishly lost touch with his ships and was killed. His men, unable to withstand the constant Indian attacks, headed west along the Gulf Coast on makeshift barges.
A man with heartfelt contrition; Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca.
"With heavy hearts we looked out over the lavishly watered, fertile, and beautiful land, now abandoned and burned and the people thin and weak, scattering or hiding in fright. Not having planted, they were reduced to eating roots and bark; and we shared their famine the whole way. Those who did receive us could provide hardly anything. They themselves looked as if they would willingly die. They brought us blankets they had concealed from the other Christians and told us how the latter had come through razing the towns and carrying off half the men and all the women and boys".
Such is life.
Complain about this comment
NO WMD FOUND, SANCTIONS WORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO WMD FOUND BECAUSE SADDAM COMPLIED WITH THE UN RESOLUTION. Sanctions were imposed to make Iraqi suffer. And they suffered like you cannot even imagine..The people who run your companies, and small businesses like gas stations, would have come out with guns into the streets after only one year. Iraqis had to live with them for 11 years.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For proof of the dumbing down of the world both in Europe and in America due to forcing political correctness on American children instead of factual history, just review the postings and look at how many people in just these threads alone got it dead wrong by stating that the Nobel Prize is awarded from Norway and not as it is in fact from Stockholm Sweeden. And few even pointed it out. When they did, they were ignored. What a bunch of dunces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
Complain about this comment
301. colonelartist
"Sanctions were imposed to make Iraqi suffer. And they suffered like you cannot even imagine"
colonelartist quote
You are right. And the Russians suffered also with Communism. But containment of a group that has evil intentions may be our best choice at this point in history.
I would like it if some time in the distant future, when a group tries to take away human rights ...that group will be removed from power by the application of international laws. I believe in an international standard for basic human rights...but we are not there yet
Complain about this comment
299. Beth
While I don't disagree with your position that uniting other nations to deter aggression, or to look for solutions that remove causes of tension, is a good idea, the unqualified position that "sanctions work" is a bit doubtful.
Sanctions have a very chequered history. They work in some ways but not in others.
Sanctions are a very, very blunt tool. They tend to punish the populace generally while providing the elite or the well connected with enhanced opportunities for wealth accumulation, e.g., through smuggling and the black market.
Prior to the start of the second gulf war, the papers had no shortage of reports of the damage done by sanctions in terms of infant mortality, malnutrition, and so on. There is was also the argument that thousands (some suggested tens of thousands) of Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussain were killed by Saddam's security apparatus in the period between the first and second gulf wars, who might not otherwise have died.
I don't know that you are necessarily wrong, but I do know that the issue of sanctions is not as clear cut as it might appear. I also think that the issue of sanctions is quite distinct from the issue of international diplomacy to obtain changes in policy through negotiation.
On this point, I would guess that President Obama has had quite a bit of success. Not merely has he succeeded in having America taken seriously again on the world stage, rather than being ignored or openly scorned as it had been in the last three years of the GW Bush administration, but in some fair measure he has succeeded in changing the terms of the debate. This is a fascinating achievement that presents all sorts of possibilities. It is far too soon to tell what may come of it.
Complain about this comment
You are right. And the Russians suffered also with Communism. But containment of a group that has evil intentions may be our best choice at this point in history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about your intentions? Do you think that afghans, or pakistanis or iraqis or for that matter russians, didnt and dont believe that your intentions are good? the example of iraqi sanctions and subsequent invasion of that country proves that sanctions were imposed to deastroy the country both militarily and its civil society so that when you attack, you meet very little resistance..
Complain about this comment
301. colonelartist
One theory about how Hitler came to power was that the reparations against Germany were so extreme after WWI that the German people then looked for an extreme leader.
Curiously one of the Nobel Peace Prizes won by an American was Dawes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Dawes
And he helped fashion those reparations against Germany with the Dawes Plan:
"The Dawes Plan provided short term economic benefits to the German economy. It softened the burdens of war reparations, stabilized the currency, and brought increased foreign investments and loans to the German market. However, it made the German economy dependent on foreign markets and economies, and therefore problems with the U.S. economy (e.g. the Great Depression) would later severely hurt Germany as it did the rest of the western world, which was subject to debt repayments for loans of American dollars.
After World War I, this cycle of money from U.S. loans to Germany, which then made reparations to other European nations, which then used the money to pay off their debts to America, locked the western world's economy on that of the U.S."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Plan#Results_of_the_Dawes_Plan
Complain about this comment
On this point, I would guess that President Obama has had quite a bit of success. Not merely has he succeeded in having America taken seriously again on the world stage, rather than being ignored or openly scorned as it had been in the last three years of the GW Bush administration, but in some fair measure he has succeeded in changing the terms of the debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think Obama has changed american image, then americans should give him some prize..Tell me when was the last time america was ignorned when bush was president? He was the one who united the world against afghanistan, opened that cuba detention centers where citizens of the world were kept for years without their government saying anything against it, then he united most of the world to support him in direct war with iraq, those who didnt support him, didnt say anything against it..And the term of debate has not been changed..Even in this blog, people who dont like other's opinions, get personal..The only way his vision can be realised is that people start living in his vision, fanatasy world...
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
*303 Marcus
It is you that is dumb. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norway not Sweden. As you are an expert on wikipedia look up the 'Nobel Peace Prize' and tell us what you find there's a good chap.
Complain about this comment
305. Interestedforeigner
Yes you are right.
It would be interesting to compare how Iraqis fared before Saddam Hussein, then under sanctions, then after the invasion and then in 10 years from now.
I think of these populations under dictators as being in a hostage situation. How do we remove these bad leaders while hurting as few innocent people as possible?
(I was reverting to my days in carrying protest signs... one of which was "sanctions work". It was very frustrating back then to try to take complicated ideas and distill them down into 2 or 3 words..and very few of the news medias were explaining those complicated ideas...)
Complain about this comment
I think of these populations under dictators as being in a hostage situation. How do we remove these bad leaders while hurting as few innocent people as possible?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You dont do it..You just dont do it..with both iraq and afghanistan, you got rid of the dictarors that didnt satisfy you, and replaced them with new ones...You have to stop pretending to do such things in the name of people..Just say, that you dont like a certain dictator because he has stopped working for you..
Complain about this comment
ref #297
dceilar wrote:
#293 Magic
It looks like you go are advocating a dog eat dog world where violence never ceases. So should the five Arab nations attack again and again until Israel surrenders or nukes them? It is becoming clear why US conservatives do not win Nobel Peace prizes.
--------------------------------------
looks like you are advocating rewarding the agressor who lost. What do the Arab states and Palestinians giving in compensation for land and terrorism to Israel? If the Saudi's offers 50% of their oil revenues maybe they can be taken seriosuly.
Complain about this comment
*305 IF
I agree. Full sanctions hit the poorest and weak the most while the rich benefit. And if the rich are happy then the political elite are more or less safe. However, sport sanctions against South Africa that prides itself on sport were relatively successful, so carefully chosen sanctions can and do have an effect.
Complain about this comment
306. colonelartist
"iraqi sanctions and subsequent invasion of that country proves that sanctions were imposed to deastroy the country both militarily and its civil society so that when you attack, you meet very little resistance.."
Personally I believe the Bush administration knew very well that Iraq was weak from the sanctions. I think they thought they would find some sort of dinky little WMD program to justify the invasion. But of course they found nothing.
IMO the reason for the Iraq war was to get the oil in Iraq for American companies. The hostility shown towards France by the Bush administration before the war imo was to stop the French from also going into Iraq ..The oil infrastructure in Iraq had been built by the French to french specifications and the American companies did not want to share the oil wealth. Anyway the whole thing blew up in their faces and has damaged America.
I think the North Korean people are also suffering a great deal with the sanctions there. Someday I hope North Korea will join South Korea...but in the meantime..what else can we do but use sanctions? War would cause the deaths of possibly millions of innocent people.
One way to prevent one nation from weakening another with sanctions in preparation for an invasion for economic gain..is to not have any unilaterally decided sanctions or invasions. Nations should join together to weaken dictators who are denying human rights and are a danger to the international community of nations.
Complain about this comment
Colonitis;
"NO WMD FOUND BECAUSE SADDAM COMPLIED WITH THE UN RESOLUTION."
No WMDs were found because Saddam Hussein successfully hid them in Iraq, moved them to other countries like Syria as Israeli intelligence inferred in January, or never had them but tried to create the illusion that he did in what was a bluff. If it was a bluff, saying that it backfired is the understatement of the century.
Complain about this comment
Israel, already once, a long tome ago, made the Gaza strip available and soon regretted doing so.
This only made attacks into Israel closer by the Hamas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont for a minute even think that israel does something without any hidden motive. It unilaterally without involving UN removed its presence on gaza and went on to build check posts around it knowing extremely well what it was doing..Their aim is occupation and what better way to give occupation another reason than to unilaterally withdraw from gaza..Israel through controlling the exit point of people of gaza, didnt allow gaza to function properly.
Complain about this comment
311. At 8:56pm on 11 Oct 2009, bethpa wrote:
"It would be interesting to compare how Iraqis fared before Saddam Hussein, then under sanctions, then after the invasion and then in 10 years from now."
_________
Yes, it would, indeed. I was in cautiously favour of deposing Saddam Hussein, in part because the cost of sanctions was high, and being borne almost entirely by the innocent. But when some buffoon stood on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and said "Mission Accomplished", all I could do was laugh. How ridiculous. We may not know for 20 years, possibly 50 years, whether that was the right thing to do or not. The level of hubris required to think that our efforts should not be subject to the law of unintended consequences is staggering.
______
"I think of these populations under dictators as being in a hostage situation. How do we remove these bad leaders while hurting as few innocent people as possible?"
_______
This is one of the reasons China has its policy of non-interference in the affairs of other nations. But there is a cold bloodedness to that policy. However, the flip side of staying out of foreign entanglements is the ability to turn a blind eye when your neighbour's house is on fire, or to watch complacently while his wife is raped and murdered.
When is foreign intervention justified?
Can we stand by and watch the slaughter of Bosnians? We did for four years, and if it were up to our European allies we would have put up with it forever.
Rwanda was as clear a case as there could possibly be for foreign intervention, but it took a long time, and some of us think that at least one major west European nation didn't want intervention even then.
It is worth pointing out, too, that lots of taxpayers think that no matter how wrong it was, we shouldn't have spent money on it.
How about Zimbabwe?
How about Burma?
Where do you draw the line?
Very, very tough question.
Complain about this comment
I definitely agree that John McCain would have spent the money more wisely. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the stimulus has failed in a spectacular way. Apparently they just threw the money at the problem and wished that it would succeed. I have no problem with the Patriot Act but I do have a problem with the Obama crowd asking Americans to turn in their fellow citizens if they receive e-mails (which might even be true) criticizing his policies to the White House. Conservatives take notice the talkmaster with the teleprompter will destroy freedom of speech, but only after he has destroyed economic liberty. He is all socialist and red throgh and through.
Complain about this comment
One way to prevent one nation from weakening another with sanctions in preparation for an invasion for economic gain..is to not have any unilaterally decided sanctions or invasions. Nations should join together to weaken dictators who are denying human rights and are a danger to the international community of nations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nations should not interfere with other nations. Nothing more and nothing less..I should not have to do with what obama or bush or king abdullah does to their people. Its none of my bussiness. And its none of your business what saddam or blair do to their own people..If america doesnt want to dig its own oil and wants to buy oil from other nations, then it should buy it fair. You dont occupy wal-mart if you decide that your neighbourhood and you need to buy cheap things, you buy the things from there at the prcices fixed by it. You have to get rid of master-slave mentality..
Complain about this comment
colonelartist and Interestedforeigner
As a woman I am very concerned about the lack of human rights for women in Afghanistan.
One of those rights I consider to be the right to an education.
How do we deal with that culture that is denying an education to girls and where girls who go to school can be at risk of physical injury? The Taliban seems intent on isolating the Afghani people and leaving them ignorant of all the choices available to them and they hide behind religion to justify their actions..
Rather than bombarding the Afghani population with weaponry..we should be bombarding them with information ...with movies and music and a culture that encourages people to be free. We should use every avenue possible to get new ideas into the general culture in Afghanistan,..cell phones, computers...tv movie theaters...cross cultural exchanges..newspapers....radio programs......all with a multitude of ideas
Let them hear the voices of Imams from a diversity of Muslim viewpoints
What we want to do is to change minds and that is done with ideas not with bulletts
Complain about this comment
No WMDs were found because Saddam Hussein successfully hid them in Iraq, moved them to other countries like Syria as Israeli intelligence inferred in January, or never had them but tried to create the illusion that he did in what was a bluff. If it was a bluff, saying that it backfired is the understatement of the century.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you are so stupid that you believed in saddam's bluff?
Complain about this comment
As a woman I am very concerned about the lack of human rights for women in Afghanistan.
One of those rights I consider to be the right to an education.
How do we deal with that culture that is denying an education to girls and where girls who go to school can be at risk of physical injury? The Taliban seems intent on isolating the Afghani people and leaving them ignorant of all the choices available to them and they hide behind religion to justify their actions..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not deal with any culture..All you have to think about is when women in your cultures were given rights and were heard. it took america century or two to recognize the women's right. And you want afghanistani women to get rights before the invasion has not even ended? Educate the men, if you want to educate the women..It was your men who decided to listen to you and you got your freedom..and they were not ready to listen to you before 1960s or was it when the blacks were heard?
Complain about this comment
#295 First agree on who is the Hitler.
..........................
I see no parallel of genocide..you know the killing of people due to their ethnic group.
I see no parallel of an attempt of an extermination of a whole people simply because they were not of Germanic blood.
A meaningful discussion of issues and events can be positive but trying to paint the West ( After 9/11) as Hitler like with one wave of the hand lacks academic merit.
Complain about this comment
320. colonelartist
"Its none of my bussiness. And its none of your business what saddam or blair do to their own people."
colonelartist quote
(I boycott Walmart and believe in human rights for everyone.)
For whom the Bell Tolls
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Complain about this comment
As a woman I am very concerned about the lack of human rights for women in Afghanistan.
One of those rights I consider to be the right to an education.
How do we deal with that culture that is denying an education to girls and where girls who go to school can be at risk of physical injury? The Taliban seems intent on isolating the Afghani people and leaving them ignorant of all the choices available to them and they hide behind religion to justify their actions..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like you to read a book, written by an afghani woman so that you get some information about what is really going on right now in afghanistan.. Raising My Voice: The Extraordinary Story of the Afghan Woman Who Dares to Speak Out. by malalai joya. I dont know if its come out in english translation or not. Unlike hilrary or any other western leader wishing afghan women to educate themselves, she has tried, both under taliban and under occupation. When the west uses afghan women's right, they use it as a weapon against taliban and to continue occupation and continue to ally with criminals.
Complain about this comment
Isn't life wonderful when a military preparedness plan is circumvented, to be replaced by a more viable alternative which includes a promise to defend the countries, by the now president,of the US, which could thereafter, be rendered null and void by the succeeding one. I am talking about not building a nuclear defense system in Poland and the nearby Czech republic, however when it comes to south America we fortify some bases in Columbia? Like we really need them Venezuelans in check. They are dangerous because they associate with Russia and we don't like them commies, right? So what does that say about Russia itself? Sounds a lot like we don't trust our partners, and we sure as heck don't like Hugo Chavez, Heck, even pronouncing his name correctly ought to be a crime! Anyone who can accurately pronounce a Spanish name should be nominated for the linguistic Nobel prize. I can say Superkalifragilisticespialodocius, but I can't say Chavezzzzzz. Here is a reason why the US finally stepped into the war with nazi Germany, first it was the Jews and then it was everyone else and when the Russians were making a big impact, the US had a choice to make, either help the Russians and by consequence, the Jews or face the Nazis alone. That is why there is a saying that goes, first they came for the Jews And I did nothing because it did not affect me then they came for (others) then they came for me and by then, there was no one left to stop them. That is what happens when people allow injustice to happen and do nothing because it does not affect them, 'for the moment'.
During three years of my life I lived in a town in Louisiana, a town where if you lived more than two city blocks away you were a country bumkin, or an outsider. People for the most part are good, however there are many who just, will never change for the better. Going just a bit off topic here, but doesn't it seem like the president is running a popularity contest as opposed to running a country? Well whatever it takes to get people to not see it coming. Like usual I will post my objection to the health care plans. How ridiculous, for the next four years no one except the government will see any benefits and for the next 3 years someone would be writing the clauses for the care schedules, and then by 2013 which just happens to coincide with the 2012 election people can start seeing the benefits. The only problem is that we only have his word on it and by then if we agree to it and it does not go our way, we won't have a choice. It will all be too late because if he gets reelected in 2012 by 2016 a new president will be in office enticing us and promising equally preposterous
things. Nobel prize or not I would like to read the clauses before 2012 and if our congress people sell us out, then 2010 is just around the corner and just in time to press the eject button.
Complain about this comment
I see no parallel of genocide..you know the killing of people due to their ethnic group.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pathans or the pashtun in afghanistan and pakistan. for eight years they have been killed by NATO, by northern alliance and by pakistan. Wake up now and see it, I say it because your ancestors didnt see jews being killed up until the last years of the ww2. Genocide shouldnt be a criteria, persecution should be the real criteria. Genocide usually ends the persecution..as we saw in europe..Holocuat ended all sorts of main stream persecution of jews in europe that had been accepted for years and years.
Complain about this comment
318 interested foreigner
"Where do you draw the line?
Very, very tough question."
(interested foreigner quotes)
..................................
I think we have to constantly be learning and evaluating what we do. Its not good to follow ideas just because we have some nationalistic belief..Everything has to be evaluated and discussed. There has to be intellectual honesty
The Bush administration made numerous mistakes, yet the Bush supporters continue to refuse to acknowledge those mistakes and want the same mistakes done again in Afghanistan and possibly Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11rich.html
Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco
FRANK RICH
selected quotes
"Let’s be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq — bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess — even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones."
"Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention. Even if the countries were interchangeable, the wars are not. No one-size surge fits all. President Bush sent the additional troops to Iraq only after Sunni leaders in Anbar Province soured on Al Qaeda and reached out for American support. There is no equivalent “Anbar Awakening” in Afghanistan. Most Afghans “don’t feel threatened by the Taliban in their daily lives” and “aren’t asking for American protection,” reported Richard Engel of NBC News last week. After eight years of war, many see Americans as occupiers."
Complain about this comment
Let’s be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq — bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess — even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And its voices like these, coming from american military, politicians and media that worries me..They now belive alqaida is in pakistan..Third time in past 8 yrs, first against afghanistan, then iraq and now pakistan.
Complain about this comment
The Bush administration made numerous mistakes, yet the Bush supporters continue to refuse to acknowledge those mistakes and want the same mistakes done again in Afghanistan and possibly Iran.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you are taking things out of context. Name one mistake of bush concerining afghanistan and Iraq which wasnt supported by the democrats..Everything is first passed in your congress and senate..it wasnt if bush had not taken democrats into confidence..They chose to support him..they are not all innocent or blameless. Your own sec of state gave her vote to go to war against iraq.
Complain about this comment
# 327 ranter22 wrote: [inter alia.....]
"Here is a reason why the US finally stepped into the war with nazi Germany, first it was the Jews and then it was everyone else and when the Russians were making a big impact, the US had a choice to make, either help the Russians and by consequence, the Jews or face the Nazis alone. That is why there is a saying that goes, first they came for the Jews And I did nothing because it did not affect me then they came for (others) then they came for me and by then, there was no one left to stop them. That is what happens when people allow injustice to happen and do nothing because it does not affect them, 'for the moment'."
AFAIK the reason why "the US finally stepped into the war with nazi Germany" - ie declared war on Nazi Germany - was very simple. Nazi Germany had just declared war on the US.
Maybe it would have happened anyway. Who can say?
But I am amused at the number of Americans here who appear to believe that the USA entry to WW2 was purely because the US decided to climb on its white horse and charge off to defend freedom - or indeed to protect the Jews.
Complain about this comment
303 marcus
"look at how many people in just these threads alone got it dead wrong by stating that the Nobel Prize is awarded from Norway and not as it is in fact from Stockholm Sweeden. And few even pointed it out. When they did, they were ignored. What a bunch of dunces."
Marcus, you are the dunce I'm afraid.
The nobel peace prize is presented in Oslo, Norway, and its ricipient is selected by a panel chosen by the Norwegian Storting (parliament).
All the other Nobel Prizes are presented in Stockholm.
It all takes place on the same day - dec 10th - anniversary of Nobel's death.
The following is cut and pasted from your own link in 303
"The Nobel Peace Prize and its recipients' lectures are presented at the annual Prize Award Ceremony in Oslo, Norway, also on the 10th of December. The reason Norway distributes a part of the prize is that at the time of Alfred Nobel's death, Norway and Sweden were joined together in a personal union known as the Swedish-Norwegian Union."
And you worry about the education of others. Put your own house in order, man!
Complain about this comment
Let them hear the voices of Imams from a diversity of Muslim viewpoints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should they hear imams from diversity of muslim viewpoints? An imam living in turkey has no idea whats happening in afghanistan. he can sit and give wonderful sermons of peace knowing well that his country isnt under occupation.
Complain about this comment
332 john
"But I am amused at the number of Americans here who appear to believe that the USA entry to WW2 was purely because the US decided to climb on its white horse and charge off to defend freedom - or indeed to protect the Jews."
It's historical revisionism and it seems that once enough people believe something it sort of becomes true ....
.... look at post 303 - education has got so bad in the USA that even Marcus is worried about it!
Complain about this comment
Israel, no sooner had offered a return of the Gaza strip, than suddenly there were bombings being directed at them from right on that strip. No one forced them to do it. The attitude that the Israelis didn't belong there and the disagreement on whether Israel was recognized by the US did not seem to matter to the rest of the bordering countries, the object was to defeat the Israelis and run them off the land. The one thing in which I agree on is that the US has once again given to yet another ally(for the moment) too much and too many armaments and latitude. The silly part of it is that Israel will fly in the face of everyone including the US. Saddam bluffed and blinked because he felt that the allied terrorists would occupy Iraq in the sense of fighting together with him against the US. But he did say that that land would run red with American blood, and he was right at least about that. Yes the Talibans have been disbanded in Afghanistan, and there is a new leader there, and it is time to get out of dodge city. The only other solution is to send in the international forces Obama wants to unite.(as many also hope he does) Since the US is not to act unilaterally, then only Peace keeping forces should be there, lest his Nobel prize be withdrawn.
Bethpa: Bombarding a country with propaganda is what got Fidel Castro in trouble with the USA back in the 60's, And as a woman you should understand from that perspective that it is a womans choice whether to embrace a cause or reject it. It seems that in that part of the world women do not espouse the western values and some even condemn it. We as a portion of the people of the world are headed toward a unification of countries which upon reaching that objective, will, impart total social tolerance. Yet until that time we are powerless to influence some.
Complain about this comment
326. colonelartist
I looked up Malalai Joya in wikipedia and she has been reaching out to the west to get help ...Without our help it would be more difficult for her.
Thank you for telling us about her
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malalai_Joya
On October 7, 2008, six women Nobel Peace Prize laureates in the history of the Nobel Prize (Shirin Ebadi, Jody Williams, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchu, Betty Williams and Mairead Maguire) in a joint statement supported Malalai Joya: "We commend this courage, and call for Joya’s reinstatement to Afghanistan’s national parliament… Like our sister Aung San Suu Kyi, Joya is a model for women everywhere seeking to make the world more just." [33]
Joya sparked more controversy by accusing Afghan officials of "trying to use the country's Islamic law as a tool with which to limit women's rights."
The US and Canadian version of the book is due to be published in October 2009 by Scribner under the title of "A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice" [40] in 224 pages. The Australian and British versions have already been published by Pan Macmillan [41] and Rider [42] under the title of Raising my Voice: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice.
331. , colonelartist
"it wasnt if bush had not taken democrats into confidence..They chose to support him".
(colonelartist quote)
Yes but its now recognized by many that that was an error and yet many Republicans still support Bush. We have a few of them who still support Bush here posting on this site.
Frank Rich was one of the writers who was always critical of the Bush administration
You are not American? and you did not see the run up to the Iraq war in America? There was a shut down on criticisms of the war..and yet still thousands protested before the war started. Many of those people who opposed the war got their information from the internet. (yeah!)
Complain about this comment
336. ranter22
Castro bombarded with propaganda ..not free speech...
sort of like Fix news : )
There should be open disagreement and discussions about conflicting ideas. Ideas given from every point of view. even if the Afghanis can not express those ideas themselves..let them know the ideas and that others have different values than the Taliban and are religious (or not)
Complain about this comment
How long does it take to see that if there is only 100 insurgents left in Afghanistan, then how in the heck are they killing so so many American soldiers?
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that that there are thousands and thousands of them?
Because, seriously, why would we have to ask for an additional 40 or 60 thousand troops just for a few insurgents armed with knives and clubs.
That sounds like, of the 120 thousand or so troops there from many parts of the world, trying to maintain order, they are failing.
Failing miserably, Lets do the math, 120,000/100=1200 to 1
1200 to one and we are losing the war?
Okay say we add another 50,000 okay that’s better 170,000 /100= 1700 to 1
That will be 1700 soldiers for every one insurgent, that ought to get the job done in about on hour. What do we do for the next year?
For good measure:
Alfred Nobel, Swedish chemist, Engineer of of Armaments Inventor of Dynamite and peace lover! Developed a conscience.
Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard
All members of the Manhattan Project and each had a part in the making and experimenting of the Atom Bomb. Developed a conscience!
One may think them deserving of the science Nobel prize as well.
Here this Hungarian born Jewish scientist was the brain behind the killing machine which took almost half a million lives in a short period of time.(Leo Szilard)
Nobel Prize anyone?
Complain about this comment
Actually, this is a comment on your story about bear problems in greece. The bears in question are european brown bears, related to asian brown bears, which have the same DNA as N. american grizzlies.
However your story stated that now europeans are having the same problems as canada has with Grizzlies. Not true. grizzlies stay as far away from humans as possible, (I don't blame them),
the problems in canada and USA are the Black Bears. They seek out garbage and fruit. the vast majority of bear attacks in N.A. involve Black Bears. Or at least, the only attacks that leave any evidence.
Complain about this comment
Colonitus;
"And you are so stupid that you believed in saddam's bluff?"
MI5 evidently believed it. Putin and the FSB believed it. But then they are not nearly so smart or well informed as you are.
Complain about this comment
Bethpa:
You are probably right about that.
But can you imagine if they think we are infidels because we don't embrace allh the way they do, and if the women there begin getting western ideas, heck they would be stoning so many women they would have to go over to Iran to get new ones.(lol) I know it is not a laughing matter. Maybe If Allah would just ease up and just forgive our human frailties like the God I worship does, the people there would not feel they serve a savage God. I find that we may get what we are asking for and a little we didn't ask for.
What bothered me some was that Obama kept the almost 50 year old embargo to Cuba and walked out of the UN talks when certain leaders were speaking. That sets the tone for all to follow his lead. So he also has his faults. Walking out on the dew countries is equivalent to condemning more than 50 percent of the people in those countries, who happen to be women.People he could be helping by setting the tone of all inclusive and not must the most militarily powerful. During my days of service and in the 70's there was a an acronym (SAEDA)
The goal of the SAEDA program is to secure the assistance of every Department of the Army (DA) member in the deterrence and detection of intelligence and terrorist threats to the Army.
This movement included anyone trying to influence any person to think opposite to the views of the constitution of the US. Likewise if someone is caught trying to advice someone in another country contrary to their belief system, then they could be classified as a spy or subversive.
To me personally i think it is silly to punish a woman and not the man involved in any incident which breaches protocol that involves both. It is ridiculous to subject another human being to something where everyone is not following the same criteria. Hey if she gets to wear a burka then everyone should wear one or none at all.
Complain about this comment
the problems in canada and USA are the Black Bears. They seek out garbage and fruit. the vast majority of bear attacks in N.A. involve Black Bears. Or at least, the only attacks that leave any evidence.
You bear, witness!
Complain about this comment
336. At 10:51pm on 11 Oct 2009, ranter22 wrote:
"Bethpa: Bombarding a country with propaganda is what got Fidel Castro in trouble with the USA back in the 60's, ..."
It seems to me that while there were a number of issues, the critical reason why relations will not be normalized with Cuba until Fidel dies is because he was willing to base nuclear weapons in Cuba.
The world can within a whisker of disaster over that issue. Although President Obama may yet surprise us, it seems unlikely that the Cuban missile crisis will not be forgotten or forgiven as long as Fidel lives.
Complain about this comment
340 Kerelian, 343 Ranter
There is a problem with Black bears because their population is at an all time high and we have very sharply restricted hunting of them. So they hang out at the dump, campsites, fast food restaurants, and so on. Not their fault: They are hungry, these places are easy pickings. They too want to live the good life.
There is also a problem with large white bears in the north, and, again, it typically comes to light at the garbage dump.
Complain about this comment
#345 InterestedForeigner
Sorry to interfere. If we trust the UN statistics, the white bears are likely to be 9 per cent of the whole bearkind with a strong tendency to diminish even more.
If things go that way, they will soon disappear or become at the best rare species requiring special protection. /Any resemblance to existing species/characters/individuals is of sheer coincidence/.
Complain about this comment
346 Iron
That may well be. The white bear population is under threat from climate change.
The point is that whether the population is in decline, as up north, or reaching an all-time high as with the black bears, bears of any fur colour and garbage dumps (etc.,) are an unhappy combination.
Complain about this comment
I was chiding Magic for typos earlier, and I now see two in 344.
"can" should be "came", and "will not be forgotten" should be "will be forgotten".
Complain about this comment
344. At 01:43am on 12 Oct 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
336. At 10:51pm on 11 Oct 2009, ranter22 wrote:
"Bethpa: Bombarding a country with propaganda is what got Fidel Castro in trouble with the USA back in the 6
That could very well be the point.
Since restricting even the basic medical supplies which, are, supplied under the provision of humanitarian aid isn't happening.
This would also be punishing the people that had very little to do with the original act. But that has been the case even to Venezuela. That while Venezuela's government still decides to send oil to the US for the underprivileged. Cuba like some other Latin countries (Cuba is an Island/country)are pushed to the point of embracing communist countries like Russia. If it were me I believe I would do the very same thing. Not unlike Israel who was taken under the wing of the US. However just to clear the status of Cuba, they have shown for about fifty years that they will not use the first nuclear strike. Much of the resentment in the US comes from Cuba being so close to the mainland US, and that is where Puerto Rico comes in, Puerto Rico Once had a warhead, hidden in the bowels of somewhere, just in case Cuba got any ideas. Still in Vieques during 1995 an incident over a detonation there upset the balance of the sea. But the subject is embargoes. Either way Fidel is no longer at the helm Raul his brother is. During the 60's he set up a radio transmitter and would broadcast all the way to the US loud and clear, filling the airwaves with his communism propaganda. There is a similarity in which Fidel overtook the Island and ejected all foreign bodies like the mafia people and some bigwigs from the US. He did this with pretty much 100 men, sort of like the presumed Taliban or Insurgents have now in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Does giving the award on a political basis cheapen the prize? Perhaps, but not as much as giving it for trying. It would be like giving an olympic gold medal to someone just for showing up at the meet and getting to the line, but not even running. At this point, I will openly state that I have lost all remaining respect I had for this prize. I think President Carter earned it. While his presidency was a failure by numerous account, domestically and internationally, he did spend a good bit of his post presidency time working hard for peace. Obama has accomplished almost nothing and has yet to even wean himself off a teleprompter, yet he wins over people of actual accomplishments, people who have worked hard and in many cases made sacrifices in their work for peace!?! Perhaps it is time for a new award that can bear some real prestige and not be a political tool.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, How about a non-political thread? There is a lot going on in America that is not political.
Complain about this comment
What I found difficult to stomach was, having Mr. Obama on the cover of Men's health magazine, and fully clothed. Sheesh, talk about scanting. You think wearing a tank top would diminish his image! Nobuild prize for him.
Complain about this comment
The reason why the US has not normalized relations with Cuba is because the US system is particularly vulnerable to special interest groups or groups with an intense interest and point of view about one topic.
Florida has a immigrants from Cuba who intensely hate Castro and they keep the US from normalizing relations with Cuba.
Complain about this comment
342. ranter22
There is diversity in the Islamic religion. From what I can gather...some of the people in Afghanistan do not know the religion well and are relying on local Imams to interpret the Koran...and it is being misinterpreted.
But there are liberal Muslims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
a short quote from the wiki article
"Liberal Muslims do not necessarily subscribe to the more culturally-based interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith. They generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture.[5] The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6]"
Complain about this comment
There is something else to think about concerning the declining populations of Polar bears in the arctic. Genetically, Grizzly bears and Polar bears are not that different and their ranges currently overlap. Is it then possible for the Polar bears to genetically save themselves by breeding with Grizzlies? I say that it is possible for this to happen. There have been well documented cases of hybrid bears in recent years. It may be that environmental pressures and coincidental range overlapping is providing the impetus for evolutionary change. It may also be that the two species diverged recently enough that these hybrids will breed and then diverge again when environmental conditions are more favorable. This kind of evolution is not unheard of as there is evidence that this happened to us several times in our own evolutionary tree. And one last important point on this, Polar bears may go extinct, but we won't. Who's to say that we won't be able to genetically resurrect the Polar bear from the Grizzly hybrids?
Complain about this comment
#347 InterestedForeigner
The white bears are likely to disappear not only because of the climate change. They gradually are coupling with the black and the other fur color species (the yellow ones being of a crushing majority) which, as you correctly have noted, are growing in numbers more quickly.
However, I do not think that all this is a bad combination, for the process of coupling is a matter of personnel choice.
(Out of the context, I am not quite sure whether our Lord Jesus Christ was as white as He appears on our orthodox icons. In the Bible there is not a single reference for it.)
Sofia, oct. 12 2009
Complain about this comment
ref #353 bethpa wrote:
The reason why the US has not normalized relations with Cuba is because the US system is particularly vulnerable to special interest groups or groups with an intense interest and point of view about one topic.
Florida has a immigrants from Cuba who intensely hate Castro and they keep the US from normalizing relations with Cuba.
______________________________________________________
Why single out the U.S for not recognizing a dictator and a theif? Viva Batista. Does Chinna recognize Taiwan, do many Arabs states recognize Israel? Macedonia is in the EU because the Greeks are so petty about the nation's chosen name.
Complain about this comment
Magic – Not sure the relevance of Taiwan and/or Israel in the discussion regarding a discussion over Cuba and the USA. Both Cuba and the US recognise each other, that has little to do with the relations issue between the two countries. Part of the issue with the two countries is that Castro overthrew the US’s favoured dictator Batista, corrupt, anti-democratic, mafia supporting politician though he was. Part of the issue is that Castro was also a Communist, which considering the red paranoia that the US seems inflicted with, was never going to endear him. The fact that he then sided with the Russians, mostly because the USA gave him little choice added to this. Added to the mix are the Cuban immigrants who for various reasons hate Castro. These are the reasons why the US have a blinkered view of Cuba and one that will only pass once the Castro brothers are out of the equation.
Actually considering all the money that is sitting in the Federal Reserve I am guessing that some American officials are hoping that Castro lives a few more years, gitmo could end up being expensive in more ways than one.
Complain about this comment
ref #358
Well Bepth seems to think that the U.S should have normalized relations with a country ruled by a dcictator. But I've noticed the posters dosen't think the Arab states should with Israel why hold the U.S to a different standard?
Complain about this comment
Magic – Well I believe in treating each country differently and equating a dictatorship such as Cuba with Israel does not seem to work. The US administration are not refusing to deal with Castro because he is a dictator, the US have dealt with dictators before, Batista for example. The reason the US administration have historically not dealt with him is because Castro is a Communist dictator, the reason why the US continue to have difficulties is partly due to history and partly due to influence of sections of its own population.
I don’t a glowing fuzzy view of Israel, I find a number of its attitudes to members of it own population reprehensible. I understand the history behind these attitudes, but to me they don’t excuse the ultra aggressive stance Israel takes. If this stance was simply used towards the Arab states that would be one thing, but it seems they feel that they have the right to be bolshie with anyone who disagrees with them. One of the reasons they feel they can get away with this is that historically the US have backed them no matter what they do, hopefully this support will become more moderate. That being said more of the Arab states should be willing to have a dialogue with Israel, but both sides need to recognise that dialogue is a two-way process, that may mean that Israel needs to return the lands it currently occupies illegally.
Complain about this comment
"I realize that many Republicans consider giving a Democratic president credit for his achievements tantamount to sacrilege and inconsistent with the need to demonize and discredit opponents for political gain, but barring a collective case of amnesia even the most politically ambivalent American should be able to see the contrast between a foreign policy that emphasizes mutual respect and dialogue, and one that has as its motto "you are either with us, or you are against us" and what can be achieved by treating others the way we wish to be treated." saintDominick
Are you a yellow dog Democrat? Wasn't Congress and the Senate mostly Democrat during some of these frothing at the mouth blame game events?
Which I might add is played by both parties and the hacks who rabidly support them. Yeah an now given time Obama will declare victory and leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Probably putting quote "Good or moderate Taliban back in control." these are the new buzz words for it now. Afghanistan is now estimated at needing at least a trillion dollars in US aid, maybe we can roll it into the healthcare bill. Along with the 18 member boards whom will also be paid, 9 appointed by Obama, along with his 45 ($) or so czars, that don't have any oversight, budget restraints, or Congressional, or Senatorial approval. Obama's transparency is why the Justice Department is trying to do the same it did to Bush to release who has visited the White House? The political class of Democrats and Republicans, fueled by the fervent party stooges, and sycophant supporters of this broken political machine that is party politics (Democrat and Republican). All so typical and sad.
Complain about this comment
Ref 358, Magic
"Well Bepth seems to think that the U.S should have normalized relations with a country ruled by a dcictator. But I've noticed the posters dosen't think the Arab states should with Israel why hold the U.S to a different standard?"
One of the reasons so many countries don't trust our advocacy for freedom and democracy is because of our tendency to maintain cordial relations with right wing dictatorships worldwide, among them Egypt and the despotic and duplicitous monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Ref, 361, Americangrizzly
You are absolutely right in pointing out that both parties engage in political sniping and distortions of reality. The differences are that (1) the GOP is better at it and (2) the Democrats have a tendency to roll over when a popular Republican President is in office while the Republicans become more determined than ever to unseat Democratic presidents, particularly when they are popular. Don't forget the Reagan Democrats or the way Democrats in Congress endorsed Bush's policies during the first six years of his administration.
Complain about this comment
Ref 361, AG
I am not sure what your point is regarding out of control expenditures. Are you suggesting President Obama is responsible for spending 1 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past 7 years? Are you saying he is responsible for the debt our country has accumulated since Truman was in office? Are you making him responsible for Bush's TARP and for Bush's FY09 budget, which ended a few days ago?
Yes President Obama has appropriated a huge amount of money to stimulate the economy and avert the calamity that President Bush described as: the US economy is on the verge of collapse last year. Had he done nothing, he would have been guilty of neglect and made responsible for economic chaos, because he has done something to help save our defunct market forces he is blamed for spending money we don't have.
I neither blame him for the fiscal and economic crises we are enduring nor give him credit for saving it, although I respect his efforts to stimulate our economy regardless of how unsustainable the placebos that have been put in place may be. If our economy recovers it will be mostly because of the monetary policies put in place by the Fed and an emerging return to personal saving instead of out of control spending on our part.
Complain about this comment
DavidRMurrell wrote:
.
I don’t a glowing fuzzy view of Israel, I find a number of its attitudes to members of it own population reprehensible. I understand the history behind these attitudes, but to me they don’t excuse the ultra aggressive stance Israel takes. If this stance was simply used towards the Arab states that would be one thing, but it seems they feel that they have the right to be bolshie with anyone who disagrees with them. One of the reasons they feel they can get away with this is that historically the US have backed them no matter what they do, hopefully this support will become more moderate. That being said more of the Arab states should be willing to have a dialogue with Israel, but both sides need to recognise that dialogue is a two-way process, that may mean that Israel needs to return the lands it currently occupies illegally.
________________________________________________________________________
Well I would dispute the illegality. They won the lands in a war they were attacked. But the Saudis want the starting point to be 67 borders, so it will be hardly a two way street. Why not come with an open mind and listen to the Israeli concerns? So far Israel has made the only sacrifices. Has Lebanon turned over the War criminal Nazrallah?
Complain about this comment
This would be a definite fantasy , but since the Nobel Peace Prize commitee is the one in need of a lecture and instruction.
Send Bush to accept the award. Let the European left listen on their short comings for 2 hours.
Complain about this comment
The UN has deemed the occupation as illegal, even the US does not dispute that the lands are occupied, meaning that they are not part of Israel (you cannot occupy territories you already own). I don’t dispute that Israel has legitimate concerns, but so do those who live in Israel irrespective of their religion. It gets largely ignored that not all Palestinians are Muslim, there is sufficient evidence to show that Christians living within Israel, Palestinian and not, do not get the same treatment. Please note I am not a Christian, but if Israel wishes to continue with the stance that it is not a religious state, run by the Jews for the Jews, then it has to treat everyone, no matter their faith, equally. I have little regard for religious states, no matter which religion claims sovereignty, claiming you own a land because some deity I do not subscribe to, gave you a mandate to hold some parcel of land holds no water with me I am afraid. Obviously I understand that from your religious viewpoint you will probably not agree with mine. Throughout history the ‘Holy Land’ and the conflicts as to who controls it has been a blight on our progression.
Complain about this comment
Magic – Yes let Norway and Sweden listen to their shortcomings, I am sure that will amuse them for a few hours. The only blights on either of these countries don’t come from the left, rather sections of society that follow the unsavoury aspects from further west, murderous biker gangs didn’t start in Europe.
Complain about this comment
ref #366
DavidRMurrell wrote:
The UN has deemed the occupation as illegal, even the US does not dispute that the lands are occupied, meaning that they are not part of Israel (you cannot occupy territories you already own). I don’t dispute that Israel has legitimate concerns, but so do those who live in Israel irrespective of their religion.
_________________________________________-
And we have seen how an honest broker the U.N has been in the MidEast conflict. But do you agree that a two way steet mean the Arab states have to make overtures as well?
Complain about this comment
ref #367
DavidRMurrell wrote:
Magic – Yes let Norway and Sweden listen to their shortcomings, I am sure that will amuse them for a few hours. The only blights on either of these countries don’t come from the left, rather sections of society that follow the unsavoury aspects from further west, murderous biker gangs didn’t start in Europe
____________________________________________________________-
I would hope it would anger or maybe enlighten them. BTW I am not criticzing the country of Norway only the Nobel commitee and the European lleft who shares their views.
And as much as you and they may not want to hear this. W has a far better understaning of the world than Obama and they. Oh yes Bush speaks two languages and Obama only 1
Complain about this comment
@362 (StD): "The differences are that (1) the GOP is better at it and (2) the Democrats have a tendency to roll over when a popular Republican President is in office while the Republicans become more determined than ever to unseat Democratic presidents, particularly when they are popular."
StD, I have to take some exception to this. Do you not recall the D party gleefully calling Reagan's budgets "dead on arrival" year after year? That certainly wasn't "rolling over".
I'd suggest that the GOP is "better" at the sniping and distortions only for the moment. Give the D party a bit more time, and they'll take it to yet another level (downward).
As far as I can tell, the Ds led this dance from about 1964 (remember the Goldwater commercial?) to 1992 or so, with the willing assistance of their friends in Hollywood. In the early 1990s the Rs finally gave up on any semblance of civility and started transitioning to not only get even in the insult / denigration business, but to pull way, way ahead. They've certainly "succeeded", but this is only temporary.
@All: Regardless of who's "ahead", the majority of both camps seem to think the correct way to treat "the other folks" is with a swift kick in the groin and an elbow in the chops, preferably with a smile; if the "other side" complains, say, "But it's just politics", and then if the complaint seems to take hold with the society, then issue an "apology" that means nothing.
All this may "just be politics", and it may sell newsprint and airtime, but it doesn't contribute anything to government or society, and it erodes our ability to solve the problems before us, by eroding our willingness to trust folks that don't agree with us. Our society is built on that trust; if we don't have it, all our laws, traditions, economic prowess, and military might can't keep us together as a nation. I don't subscribe to the presumption that regardless of how we mistreat each other today that if a crisis happens tomorrow we'll somehow "pull together". There's no guarantee of that. The only way I know to ensure that we'll be able to pull together tomorrow is to really listen to each other and work together today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@362 (StD): "If our economy recovers it will be mostly because of the monetary policies put in place by the Fed and an emerging return to personal saving instead of out of control spending on our part."
I sure agree with this. Another thing that would certainly help would be if mutual-fund managers weren't such large shareholders in companies, but I don't know how to bring that about.
Regards to you, and to all, this cloudy Monday near the Capitol Dome.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
Magic – I think most people left and right have been left scratching their heads over the Nobel Committee’s decision. Obama is only left wing as far as America is concerned, in Europe he might get to the middle of the road but as far as we are concerned he ain’t left wing. That’s why most people outside of the USA have this slightly bemused/amused expression when Obama is described as being socialist.
I know he goes on about universal healthcare, but Japan has had that for decades and I don’t believe anyone with a straight face could call them lefties (except possibly Marcus).
Plain and simple Obama does not deserve this award, the right don’t think so, the left don’t think so, even Obama doesn’t think so. Oh and on these two languages Bush spoke I take it English was meant to be one of them, because there were times I wasn’t sure!
Complain about this comment
david R
366
" but if Israel wishes to continue with the stance that it is not a religious state, run by the Jews for the Jews,"
Netinyahoo was having a go at Hamas for not recognising Isreal as a Jewish state.
.
The Israeli constitution claims a state for the Jewish people.
The Decleration of Israel claims it is a Jewish state.
the only time Isreal claims not to be a jewish state is when they want to pretend to have international legitimacy.
MAny have tried to argue that it is not a Jewish state but if an Arab was to say those words or God forbid Ahmadinnasbad, then they would be accused of being Anti semetic.
Go to the IFM and see the declaration of the state of Israel.
Happylaze got banned for trying to point this out.
Complain about this comment
353. At 05:16am on 12 Oct 2009, bethpa wrote:
"The reason why the US has not normalized relations with Cuba is because the US system is particularly vulnerable to special interest groups or groups with an intense interest and point of view about one topic."
"Florida has a immigrants from Cuba who intensely hate Castro and they keep the US from normalizing relations with Cuba."
________
I do not disagree with what you say, but it seems to me that the influence of the rabid anti-Castro emigres in Florida has diminished very significantly since the death of a fellow about ten or fifteen years ago. I have forgotten his name. He was the king pin of the Anti-Castro resistance - a real hard case. His death occurred during the Clinton administration. For the most part, the children of the original exiles don't care about it very much.
As for Communism, no, I don't think that it the critical stumbling block. America got over the red scare a long time ago. Other than the Bush-the-younger deviation, US policy toward Cuba has been softening for a long time. The hysteric rhetoric of the 1960's was toned down a long time ago.
The confiscation of property issue generates some heat, but not much. It will no doubt be the subject of eventual negotiation or litigation. But there isn't enough here to block a deal.
The US and Cuba have co-operated on, or have tacit unspoken understandings on, an ever broadening range of day-to-day issues. That trend will no doubt continue.
The US has listed conditions for normalization - free elections, recognition and protection of human rights, but, again, everybody knows both within Cuba and without, that nothing is going to happen until Fidel dies. And that's the point. Everybody is waiting for the death of Fidel.
And why? It ain't the Bay of Pigs, or the Mafia hit men and exploding cigars. Those are already the subject of ridicule in the US.
It's the missiles.
The majority of our population do not have sufficient memory of that crisis to remember how close the world came to disaster. The Kremlin played nuclear chicken with a bright, young, untried US President. Forces on world-wide alert, bombers in the air, US Navy at sea with orders to shoot. If the airlift, the wall, and the missile crisis were the holy trinity of the Cold-war, the missile crisis was the worst of the three: white-knuckled, eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. The perception was that we were within hours, if not minutes, of WWIII. This was High Noon. The world held its breath.
And then the ships turned back.
And everyone knew how close we'd come.
The other issues - emigres, mafia, confiscation, are piffling by comparison.
Institutionally, that crisis has not been forgotten.
And so everyone waits for the funeral, while the body yet breathes.
Complain about this comment
365 jerghy gherky
"Send Bush to accept the award. Let the European left listen on their short comings for 2 hours."
GW speak for two hours. that would be fun . On European history , that would be more fun.
He can hardly string together more words than a talking chimp.
Complain about this comment
235 MarCass Witless 2
You have spent so much time talking about the peopel of Ireland turning down the lisbon treaty and now you are upset because they didn't listen to you?
Dud you gotta get real with yourself.
you got it wrong. The Irish So is gherky.
do want , by a large number, to be Europeans in all ways.
. Diplomacy worked no one needed to be killed. so why not give up. You were wrong,, admit it move on.
Oh wait you can't you are stuck in a mental loop of your own reality.
Complain about this comment
ref #371 and 374
Bush speaks fluents spanish and can give a speech without a telprompter.
Huis speech at the U.N last time far surpassed Obama's.
And Fluffy Bush has 2 Ivy league degrees with higher GPAs than John J Kerry. His work in fighting islamic terrorism and aids in Africa have saved more lives than the Obama, Mandela, Tutu, Gore and Carter combined.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, the Cuban embargo and opposition to normalization of relations with Cuba was, indeed, influenced by Cuban emigres, the Cuban-American community, and businessmen who longed for a return to the opportunities they enjoyed during the Batista era.
I believe, however, that the anti-Castro sentiment is subsiding, in part because Fidel and Raul are nearing the end of their lives and also because as IF pointed out, the older generation that suffered losses, material and physical, after Casto came to power are passing away and the new generation of Cuban Americans are more interested in American politics and opportunities in the USA than whatever is taking place in their parents homeland.
On Saturday I received an e-mail from a Cuban couple that live in Miami and share my enthusiasm for genealogy, urging me to watch a program that was going to air on Sunday at 9am on FOX in which President Obama's socialist background was going to be exposed. Their obsession with communism and socialism is not uncommon among older Cubans and it is motivated by loss of property and relatives several decades ago, and their forced exile. While I do not share what I consider utter paranoia, I respect them, befriend them, and try - very gently - to point out that nothing can be done to reverse what took place long ago, that many people who decided to remain in Cuba suffered similar losses under the Batista regime, and that the Cuban embargo helped Castro remain in power by unifying the population against what they considered foreign meddling in their internal affairs and a potential return to a right wing dictatorship.
In the end, it is up to the Cuban people to decide what is best for them.
I wish them well.
Complain about this comment
If Obama was given award for being 1st black president then that is insulting,everyone wants equal treatment not special treatment,it seems demeaning to me.If it's to get back at Bush than it is also demeaning to use a person President or not by giving an award based on your predecessor's performance.I think it was a bad call,but doesn't reflect President Obama in a bad light but the people who handed out the award.
Complain about this comment
364 MagicKirin:
"Well I would dispute the illegality. They won the lands in a war they were attacked."
I will take a leaf out of MAII's manual and refer you to the Wikipedia entry on the 1967 war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War). Have a good read and find out who actually took the first military action in that war.
I hope you can clearly see that in 1967 Israel was not attacked but carried out a brilliant pre-emptive military strike on the Egyptian air force and thus ensured air superiority. After that, the outcome of the land battle was a foregone conclusion.
That is the reason why a return to the 1967 borders does have some validity - Israel was not attacked but instead took land from their Arab neighbours courtesy of a pre-emptive strike.
By the way, is MAII in Oslo now, verifying where the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded? Or maybe he doesn't get out much ...
Complain about this comment
Magic – well that might mean that Obama is a blip when it comes to future presidents, by not speaking Spanish. While certain US posters like to point out that unlike Europe the US population is still growing, what they forget to point out is that demographically this growth isn’t even. The white segment of the population is following the European and Japanese model, aging with fewer children being born. It is the Hispanic/latino sections of American society where the population is still growing. This will affect American culture over the next few decades. The major effect will be if the dominant white ruling minority does not change to reflect the growing Hispanic population, potentially causing difficulties.
One good thing, for Marcus that is, is that the US will become less interested in Europe, though it will begin to further ties to the south as the dominant culture will reflect Mexico and South America.
Complain about this comment
@373 (IF): "The majority of our population do not have sufficient memory of that crisis to remember how close the world came to disaster. The Kremlin played nuclear chicken with a bright, young, untried US President. Forces on world-wide alert, bombers in the air, US Navy at sea with orders to shoot. If the airlift, the wall, and the missile crisis were the holy trinity of the Cold-war, the missile crisis was the worst of the three: white-knuckled, eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. The perception was that we were within hours, if not minutes, of WWIII. This was High Noon. The world held its breath.
And then the ships turned back.
And everyone knew how close we'd come."
That was a very, very nice summary.
For more details, I highly recommend Robert Kennedy's book ("Thirteen Days") on the topic. One reason is that we get to see folks with widely-differing views wrestling very, very hard with how to move forward. There was no hint of questioning the patriotism, integrity, or good-heartedness of any of the participants by any other of the participants; quite a change from today's "enlightened" atmosphere.
I imagine that if any of today's partisans, of any stripe, had been a party to those events and they had tried to inject the same kind of arrogant nonsense that passes for enlightened political thought today, they would have been deservedly ejected from the room, and the events, with the suddenness of a cannon shot.
Regards,
Arclight
Complain about this comment
357. MagicKirin
Part of any solution imo is going to be talking. When Bill Clinton went into North Korea to bring back those young American women I thought that is now a chance to actually see how KIm Chong il is doing physically.
"Jaw Jaw not war war"
Winston Churchill
Anyway Castro will be gone soon and we should be prepared for that ....Let's take a look at the people who are possible successors first hand.
When negotiating with some nations I think in terms of hostage situations....with innocent people being held by corrupt and sometimes evil leaders. Keep the people who are the criminals talking...Its good to get as much information as possible and keep looking for weaknesses...
We live in a mad house...where the use of war as a tool should be limited by nuclear proliferation. We must form alliances, gather information and inform people about human rights.
I can support small limited wars as a way of controlling aggression...but we need a military that can act as a peace keeper force also...particularly if we want to do nation building...
The realpolitik is that war will NOT be an option in the future ...and the people who are advocating war and acting like that is the only realistic choice are endangering us all.
This is no longer 1933. or 1945 or 1964 etc...
Imo eventually nuclear weapons will be used and then there will be the containment of them...because something in human nature only responds to actual calamity and humans sadly are not good at avoiding calamity. It seems unthinkable...so they do not prepare for or stop it from happening...
The key now to designing a nuclear weapon seems to be to make it small enough to fit into a war head..and there is some issue about having explosions timed so that the small nuclear weapon is detonated. There was a scientist in Iran who seems to have solved that problem. He went to Saudi Arabia on a religious pilgrimage and disappeared. The Iranians claim he was picked up by the Americans.
It might be a good idea if in graduate schools in the sciences if there is a requirement for courses in ethics....because scientists should think about whether what they are creating is for the greater good of mankind and think about their roles in developing technology. Unless of course scientists are seen just as another tool for the development of bigger and better weapons for us to kill one another with...
Complain about this comment
376 MagicKirin
"Bush has 2 Ivy league degrees with higher GPAs than John J Kerry."
Very impressed you have access to both their academic records. Thought they were private and could not be viewed easily.
How about their respective military records?
Complain about this comment
ref #377
Than Dominick I will point out very gently that the Palestinians claims of land can not effect the reality of the situation
Complain about this comment
371 Obama is not left wing,most in America thinks he's a Moderate that's why his approval rating are high.If you are too left or too right you lose numbers.Americans living in Great Lakes regions are usually Moderates even within the GOP or Dems.Obama is no exception.GOP from Michigan are usually have to follow environmental policies and push for them in Congress.While Dems in Michigan also have to push policies for job creation and efficient tax spending.They have to pick up issues not usually associated with the National parties because there are some things people from a state are always going to want no matter the party.I have said it before and I'll say it again Bush would not have won 2nd term if Dems elected a different candidate than Kerry.He was from Mass.,he was related to Bush went to same college and was member of same college clubs,he was from old rich family,which doesn't always play well for Dems who are supposed to be for working class Americans and he was very awful at speeches and when Europeans started calling voters in US to vote for Kerry it caused problems for him especially since he travels to France and has a foreign born wife.There are factions of each party constantly trying to control the parties internally.GOP has Religious and then business.some issues like environment depend on the region.Dems have liberals and workers.Right now the southern crazies have taken over GOP but it won't last forever.Like liberals when they took over the Dems during the late 70's and 80's.Workers are more in control of Dem party right now.when ever that happens it gets more elections.Like when GOP cuts taxes for middle class and build small businesses and employ people which they didn't do under Bush.Reagan economic policies were only meant to work short term they were never meant to be long term policies.GOP needs to save money for government they haven't done that.Bush was only a religious GOP.When Gov.Engler(GOP) cut welfare spending by making department efficient and stopping fraud (people getting multiple payments)people wanted that however he made a mistake and started taking Canadian garbage in 2nd term and the next GOP candidate lost.Gov.Granholm expanded Welfare by giving people education to get of Welfare and funds to purchase or fix auto to get jobs,people wanted that too,because eventually they would be able to support themselves and negotiating to get rid of Canadian garbage.Both parties can be effective but only if the people elected have clear plans and are wiling to negotiate to get them accomplished.For all things their is a season.And Moderates have it right now,it's always good when both liberals and Conservatives are frustrated with a President.
Complain about this comment
ref #379 SingaporeExpat wrote:
364 MagicKirin:
"Well I would dispute the illegality. They won the lands in a war they were attacked."
I will take a leaf out of MAII's manual and refer you to the Wikipedia entry on the 1967 war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War). Have a good read and find out who actually took the first military action in that war.
I hope you can clearly see that in 1967 Israel was not attacked but carried out a brilliant pre-emptive military strike on the Egyptian air force and thus ensured air superiority. After that, the outcome of the land battle was a foregone conclusion.
That is the reason why a return to the 1967 borders does have some validity - Israel was not attacked but instead took land from their Arab neighbours courtesy of a pre-emptive strike.
___________________________________________-
I don't place much creadance in Wikipedia they won't allow you to call terrorists terrorists on it.
But what happened is Nassar blocked the Suez, Egypt, syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Lebanon massed armies on Israel border in a planned attack . Outnumber and outgunner Israel historicly won.
There is no way that you can go back to 67 borders without one side suffering. and the greater evil is to punish Israel. the Palestinians and Lebanese have not lived up to the agreements and the risk is too great to give them another chance
Complain about this comment
ref #378
faeyth wrote:
If Obama was given award for being 1st black president then that is insulting,everyone wants equal treatment not special treatment,it seems demeaning to me.If it's to get back at Bush than it is also demeaning to use a person President or not by giving an award based on your predecessor's performance.I think it was a bad call,but doesn't reflect President Obama in a bad light but the people who handed out the award.
________________________________________-
Of course it doesn't reflect on Obama. From a political point of view this helps him as much as when the european newspapers endorsed John Kerry. If he wants to score points at home, he should call out the Nobel commitee and challenge Europe.
Complain about this comment
To hear President Obama speak Spanish click here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZhu8SaodPw&feature=PlayList&p=28B8D3B3E170A6B8&index=24
(Some people are just modest about their abilities)
Complain about this comment
AndyPost (#298) "Mexico recognized the Nueces River as the border with Texas, which it still recognized as only a rebellious part of Mexico, not an independent country ...."
Why should the independence of Texas from Mexico be considered less legitimate than the independence of Mexico from Spain? Certainly Mexico and the US disgreed about the status of Texas. Lots of international disputes are based on disagreements over borders and sovereignty.
Independent Texas chose to join the United States. Mexico did not recognize the independence of Texas, and considered its joining the Union to be an act of war by the US. Mexico declared war on the US and attacked US forces in Texas in 1846. The US then declared war on Mexico, and Mexico lost. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo settled the border in 1848.
http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/chrono1845-6.htm
For once, MagicKirin is correct. This has nothing whatever to do with the Israeli-Palestinian problem, however.
Complain about this comment
Magic – What is Obama going to call the Nobel Committee out on? I mean how dare they make a decision on their own!?! Some people could even brazenly state that who they give their awards to is the Committees own business, the blooming cheek! And as for challenge Europe, again on what exactly, what crime against America have we committed this time? You do realise that Europe as a whole has nothing to with these awards, don’t you?
Complain about this comment
help ...Without our help it would be more difficult for her.
Thank you for telling us about her
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malalai_Joya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget wikipedia..She is not asking for western leaders for help. They have done nothing..They have replaced taliban with warlords.Those were worse than taliban I dont know how west can be proud of their northern alliance, but agsin the west has this amazing ability to rationalize things.They have surely rationalize their alliance with northern alliance as well. But you have to know that when you bring those people back again on whose departure, afghans gave flowers and embraced to taliban, the afghans dont believe in anything else, but that you are as bad, brutal as northern alliance.This women perhaps really believed when americans came to afghanistan to invade with the slogans of freedom and liberty.This woman lived in afghanistan during taliban, didnt leave it.like the karzais and many others. She and a few others are trying to make you the citizens of america aware, how your tax payers are being wasted..How you have been lied to, or not told the truth..You listen to her or not, thats your choice..But dont come back in a few years and blame afghans for not being able to develop or democratize despite usa help and invasion. Here. RAWA.org. try this website..If the address is incorrect, do the google on RAWA and you will find its homepage.It will help you join some dots about the situation in afghanistan during and after 9/11. War isnt a child's play, when a third party is planning a war on a country, it should really investigate and then decide whether war is worth fighting..Because in such a war, you are putting the lives of total strangers in danger.Learn from the afghans, they never do such things.they always fight in defence.
Complain about this comment
Colonitus;
"And you are so stupid that you believed in saddam's bluff?"
MI5 evidently believed it. Putin and the FSB believed it. But then they are not nearly so smart or well informed as you are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they are not smart enough as me or any other tom ,dick and harry. Incompetent, over paid and underworked people.
Complain about this comment
There is diversity in the Islamic religion. From what I can gather...some of the people in Afghanistan do not know the religion well and are relying on local Imams to interpret the Koran...and it is being misinterpreted.
But there are liberal Muslims:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They know enough. There is no caliphate anymore, where scholars from one country could just migrate to anyother place. From China to centeral Asia to Baghdad. Every culture and every sect has its own interpreatations thats why we muslims like to say its always evolving, not static.. And no one has the right to question anyone's interpretation, especially the so called modern muslims, who in their interpratation copy things from christianity and how it became the religon it is today. Out of touch with reality and the life.
Complain about this comment
The Israeli constitution claims a state for the Jewish people.
The Decleration of Israel claims it is a Jewish state.
the only time Isreal claims not to be a jewish state is when they want to pretend to have international legitimacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel doesnt have constitution. They couldnt define what the state should be..so which gives them enough room to call it jewish state when they want to and democracy, when they want to and secular state when they want to..They have something called basic rules or something like that..And its funny but I think the first violation of UN is infact not having a consititution, it was demanded by the "jewish state" to write a consitution by the general assembly. Two things which a democtatic country must have..A constitution and boundries.. israel has neither constitution nor defined boundries..its an un democratic octupus aka occupying force.
Complain about this comment
Spot on, Mark! ...as you Brits might say.
I've heard so much vitriol about this that reading your lovely post this morning was quite refreshing.
Personally - My only concern about the intention of this award is that there is now such a high benchmark set for our dear Commander In Chief.
I appreciate that he's made great efforts.
I appreciate his call to future action.
I appreciate the need for peace.
But... um... what will our honored man of Peace now do with the reality of our unfortunate Military situation? Isn't it his responsibility to decide, on some level, who will live or die in this time of War?
yuck. I'm rather glad I'm not in his shoes.
-- Yet, I remain hopeful...
Complain about this comment
381. Arc
Thanks. I will put it on the list of possible Christmas ideas. Perhaps I can find a used copy of "Thirteen Days" on the net.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist
"every sect has its own interpreatations thats why we muslims like to say its always evolving, not static"
Are you a Muslim? and which sect are you?
RAWA wants people in the west to help them and part of that help is to send them movies for education in human rights...which is what I advocate too.
http://www.rawa.org/help.htm
donate films with progressive and anti-fundamentalist themes (preferably with sub-titles in English) for our resource centre for anti-fundamentalist, human rights education
donate camcorders, digital photo cameras (preferably in small size for hidden use), or any other special equipment for RAWA's documentation center. We need many such eqiupment to film and photograph the atrocities against women in Afghanistan.
write to authorities voicing your protest and support for RAWA in events of government or non-government violence against our organisation (assassination of our founding leader Meena in Pakistan; kidnapping and maltreatment of RAWA collaborator by Pakistani government secret service agents in Islamabad, April 28, 1997; attack by Taliban hooligans on RAWA peaceful demonstrations, April 28, 1998 and December 10, 2000; threatening of RAWA and its friends, attack on its staff etc.)
...............
What we need are good films giving good values about human rights in the languages and customs of the local people.
Complain about this comment
ref #390
How about the disrespect they have shown his predeessor. Say what you want about Bush; but he was more helpful than clinton on the transition.
He should say (but won't) that Bush deserved it far more than Annan, El Baredi or Carter.
Complain about this comment
Ah - and for all those who cry that Vision is an inappropriate qualifier:
Before there can be peace, there must be dialogue. Obama's entire political career has been based upon a philosophy of effecting change through community dialogue, collaboration, and a resolve to benefit the welfare of others.
The fact that such dialogue has been brought from the city block,
to the neighborhood,
to the city,
to the state,
to the nation,
and now to the world,
is... well... rather inspiring.
May the dialogue continue.
May collaboration ensue.
And, may resolutions succeed where revolutions have failed.
Peace.
Complain about this comment
389. At 4:47pm on 12 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"Why should the independence of Texas from Mexico be considered less legitimate than the independence of Mexico from Spain? Certainly Mexico and the US disgreed about the status of Texas. Lots of international disputes are based on disagreements over borders and sovereignty."
Yes, and while you guys are settling that, we would also like our land back, too. Let's see:
Everything draining into the St. Lawrence; (Please clean up the waterfront at Cleveland, Toledo, Gary and Detroit first, though)
Everything draining into the Ohio;
Everything on the left, or northern bank, of the Missouri from the mountains down to St. Louis; and
Everything north of the Columbia river.
The Aroostook.
You can keep those bits of Alaska. Apparently you can see Russia from there.
Complain about this comment
Coming back to obama, his name was given to nobel comittee within his first 10s of presidency, he ordered his first drone attack in pakistan, just three days into presidency. In september when the committee was in its final round to select the candidate, his forces were in pakistani soil.america is building embassy in islambad with one billion dollars, modelled after baghdad..the details of which, you can ask your congressmen and senators..or google it.Obama since coming to power has sent his drones more than 30 times, has already out done Bush's record of four yrs of droning.
Complain about this comment
What a strange world is evolving..This is the RAWA wish list on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1FQ7ZTOVB3XI3
and the DVD they would like is "Jakob the Liar"
In case you don't know about RAWA
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
and they are very angry with the US and with Obama
http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets-rise-against-the-war-crimes-of-us-and-its-fundamentalist-lackeys.html
That site has the photos of people who are injured by war ...so its rough to look at
The American news media does not show us these kinds of photos...and yet curiously the American cinemas are filled with films showing physical mutilation in horror films...and on tv we can now see what looks like dead bodies being investigated in murder mysteries...and of course the video games are gruesome..and yet the real effects of war are hidden from us in our media
Complain about this comment
379 MK, 364 Singapore
The 1967 border make no sense. They are indefensible.
Israel needs to return to something like the 1967 borders, with no net gain in territory. People who insist that Israel return to the 1967 border exactly to the inch are not unlike Hitler demanding the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia was indefensible without those territories, and without the major defensive fortifications they held. Demanding that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders is tantamount to demanding that Israel agree to its own destruction. Everybody knows that. It is neither fair nor reasonable.
Israel's 1948 UN-defined borders were indefensible from day one. Some people believe that they were deliberately drawn to be indefensible in the hope that Israel would be overrun immediately, and the "problem" of Jews in Palestine would be removed forever. The 1949 - 1967 borders were better, but not that much.
It is a fiction to suggest that this olive grove, or that rocky outcrop, or, indeed, that suburb, can't be traded for another, such that a rational and defensible border can be defined with neither a gain nor a loss in overall territory.
But what am I thinking: Why would either side suddenly be possessed of a desire to behave in a fair and reasonable manner. The endless postings on this blog should have told me that was never going to happen.
Never mind ...
Complain about this comment
What we need are good films giving good values about human rights in the languages and customs of the local people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this all you could find on rawa? donations? Kindly read about the presence state of women, and how invasion has made them even more oppressed.
Complain about this comment
colonel
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
"ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL"
so let's not rehash the argument.
Complain about this comment
I Know this maybe right off topic and also be of interest to very few, but Gunther Rall (German fighter ace ww2), died on Oct 4th.
His obituary can be found in monday's edition of the Daily Telegraph.
There really were Giants in those days..
Complain about this comment
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
"ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL"
so let's not rehash the argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me the constitution which they were supposed to write by october not later than first of october 1948, and today is 12.10 2009. Show me the defined boundries which every state is supposed to have before it can be called aa state..Its just an boundry less, constitution less entity. Just settlers living inside gated community, not unlike the south africa of the whites.
Complain about this comment
Were intentions the only criteria for eligibility, it stands to reason that Lord Neville Chamberlain should be awarded the prize posthumously. With possibly the most sincere intent, he tried to appease the rise of the militant fascists and avert another war in Europe. Sadly history judges him for what happened after.
In Mr. Obama's case, he still has three years at a minimum left in his tenure, during which time he may well expand the conflict in Afghanistan, and not withdraw troops entirely from Iraq. But even if he fails and continues in this militarily aggressive path of his predecessor, he will always have his peace prize.
Perhaps the Nobel committee could reserve the right to rescind the prize if Mr. Obama does not live up to his, and their intentions. Highly unlikely, of course.
Complain about this comment
# 398 MagicKirin wrote:
"How about the disrespect they have shown his predeessor [sic]. Say what you want about Bush; but he was more helpful than clinton [sic] on the transition./He should say (but won't) that Bush deserved it far more than Annan, El Baredi or Carter."
There he goes again.
Obama won by largely campaigning against the record of Bush, who was one of the most unpopular presidents in history, with his unpopularity at home only exceeded by his unpopularity in the rest of the world. Much of this unpopularity was inspired by his recklessness and blatant contempt for other countries and international diplomacy.
He also campaigned strongly against Bush's Iraq war. [As I recall he said something like 'I'm not against wars - just dumb wars.' Actually - just looked it up - 'That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.']
And Magic thinks he should accept his Nobel Peace Prize and say "Bush deserved it far more than Annan, El Baredi or Carter." When asked why, no doubt he should reply 'because I share all MagicKirin's extreme right-wing prejudices, and treat them as fact - just like he does.'
I'm only amazed that Kirin has left out Mandela and Tutu - for once.
I wonder what the weather's like on MagicKirin's planet. And what language they speak. [Clearly not English.]
Complain about this comment
ref #409
If you read the earlier post, I said it would be a fantasy for Obama to do it. but Bush has done far more for the world than those 3 and Tutu and Mandela.
Mandela did nothing of value outside of South African except support terrorism.
Bush liberated the Kurds and lead the fight against islamic terroism and did more for Aids prevention in Africa than Tutu and Mandela.
Complain about this comment
#411
Oh and little Johnny: it's a nice fall day here and the leaves are changing color.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8301784.stm
On this website I read that H.R. Clinton has said the US will not meddle in Northern Ireland.
Whooppeeee!!!!
Will the USA please stop meddling in the UK and the "EU" by trying to support "EU" integration and trying to get Turkey into the "EU".
The people of the UK should not have a lousy dictatorship forced on them just so that the USA only has one telephone number to ring.
Complain about this comment
#394 Colonel
Israel doesnt have constitution.
Don't be daft. Of course she has a constitution - she has democratic elections, the Knesset, a Prime Minister and President &c. She also has the Law of Return and Jerusalem Law as well as the proposal to be a Jewish State.
And its funny but I think the first violation of UN is infact not having a constitution, it was demanded by the "jewish state" to write a constitution by the general assembly.
Wikipedia says that the UN gave a deadline for Israel to have a formal codified constitution by 1st October 1948. That doesn't mean she didn't and doesn't have a constitution; just not a codified one.
Complain about this comment
#394, #413
The State of Israel does not have a written constitution.
Neither does the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
#414 Scotch Git
Yes, codified constitution can be the same as written constitution. However, both the UK and Israel have some parts of their constitution written (for example the Representation of the Peoples Act in the UK, and the Basic Laws of Israel for the latter) so it is more accurate to describe them as having un-codified constitutions.
Complain about this comment
#403 IF
I fully share your ideal that a defensible border (for both states) is indeed possible. Unfortunately I also share much of your skepticism whether it will be made to happen.
Then again, in early 1989, I doubt anybody thought things could change so fast in Europe. So, you never know ...
Complain about this comment
Don't be daft. Of course she has a constitution - she has democratic elections, the Knesset, a Prime Minister and President &c. She also has the Law of Return and Jerusalem Law as well as the proposal to be a Jewish State.
And its funny but I think the first violation of UN is infact not having a constitution, it was demanded by the "jewish state" to write a constitution by the general assembly.
Wikipedia says that the UN gave a deadline for Israel to have a formal codified constitution by 1st October 1948. That doesn't mean she didn't and doesn't have a constitution; just not a codified one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel doesnt have a constitution. Any tome dick and harry knows about it, the citizens living inside it know this, the leaders leading the countries know this..Its a something with no consititution and no fixed boundries. You want to call it a country and on top of all democractic, thats your choice..Go get some facts about the place you support.Its always wise to atleast know something about someone or some country which you support. What israel have is basic laws they like to say when they couldnt write a consitioution because they couldnt define what sort of country it is..
Complain about this comment
Wikipedia says that the UN gave a deadline for Israel to have a formal codified constitution by 1st October 1948. That doesn't mean she didn't and doesn't have a constitution; just not a codified one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when did wikipedia become the source of history? How do you know its not some die-hard supporter of israel who wrote that..Read the old books, written in olden times, they are always closer to the events..Go to archeive in UN and ask to read about the general aseembly resoulution demanding israel to come up with a consitution..Or go to israel, visit some old liberary, you will find the reasons for israel still using the basic law hokus pokus and why the educated and civilized people couldnt sit down and write a consitiution.
Complain about this comment
406. UKW
Thanks for that.
Complain about this comment
It took only minutes after the announcement for folks in the States to criticize the choice of Obama. The main theme we've heard in Tampa Bay, Florida, is that it's too soon and that a 'political choice' cheapens the award. Take a look at some comments people made on TampaBay.com's blog post:
http://tinyurl.com/yg3tu4l
Complain about this comment
ref #418
SingaporeExpat wrote:
#403 IF
I fully share your ideal that a defensible border (for both states) is indeed possible. Unfortunately I also share much of your skepticism whether it will be made to happen.
A defensible border is difficult with the current technology. That is one of the reason's Israel built the wall, to defend from at least some of the Palestinian terrorists.
Complain about this comment
#417 and 418 Colonel
I've been called many things, but never a Zionist. I used the notion of democratic elections because you need a constitution to have them. How democratic they are is a different matter of course, and I didn't say I agree with the Law of Return and the Jerusalem Law, amongst others, either. Without a constitution you do not have a Government.
You are correct though about Israel not having fixed boundaries and this fact is exploited by those revisionist Zionists with European Colonialist intent to expand these her borders to create a Gross-Israel. I think Bauman once wrote that the road of colonialism leads to the gates of Auschwitz (or something like that). If they want to talk nonsense about some God telling them it's theirs well they can be reminded that God is an Englishman and he promised the whole world to England!
IF and Singapore
The Green Line is a good starting point. If both sides broadly agree with the pre-1967 borders then the rest shouldn't be difficult. Pleasant surprises can
and do happen. These chances are rare so must be grasped with both hands.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist,
The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority.
It was not the Jews who rejected the U.N. partition plan, but the Arabs. That is why there are cease-fire lines as opposed to recognised borders.
If the lack of a written constitution in Israel is such a problem for you why are you not complaining about the lack of a written constitution in the United Kingdom?
Complain about this comment
#420 Karen
I read some of the comments. My word. It seems as though inter-breeding is still rife down there.
Complain about this comment
#422
Interesting link. Alas, without a written constitution colonelartist will declare it to be illegitimate, alongside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
Ref 395, Philly-Mom
"But... um... what will our honored man of Peace now do with the reality of our unfortunate Military situation? Isn't it his responsibility to decide, on some level, who will live or die in this time of War?"
You hit the nail on the head. I am glad President Obama got this award in recognition for the vision he articulated and for his efforts to reverse the reprehensible foreign policy of his predecessor, but this honor could very well turn out to be a two-edged sword that may constrain his resolve and influence decisions that he would otherwise not be inclined to make.
During his trip through the Middle East he stated he would not apologize for the actions taken by the USA, but refusing to apologize, calling for peaceful coexistance, and mutual respect become rhetoric when we consider that he has embraced Bush's withdrawal schedule from Iraq and has escalated the war in Afghanistan by increasing troop levels. Hardly the record anyone would expect from a man who advocates peaceful coexistance and diplomacy as the preferred means to solve international problems.
Complain about this comment
Magic
I noticed you voiced contempt several times about Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, would you care to explain why? Dr. ElBaradei is a higly respected scholar and diplomat whose personal efforts have been consistently focused in finding solutions to some of the most pressing crises of the last decade.
Is you antagonism motivated by the fact that he embarrassed the Bush Administration when he informed them that all WMDs had been destroyed and that there was no evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq while we were preparing to invade that hapless country, or was it because he decided to talk to Iranian diplomats to find ways to defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis?
Complain about this comment
423. At 10:12pm on 12 Oct 2009, Scotch-git wrote:
colonelartist,
The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority."
In which religious authorities decide who is jewish and therefore has special rights.
Secularism and deomcracy ae both seriously undermined by this committment to ethnic superiority.
"It was not the Jews who rejected the U.N. partition plan, but the Arabs. That is why there are cease-fire lines as opposed to recognised borders."
By "Arabs" one is not referring to a horde of ill washed barbarians but various internationally recognised states, whose views were completely ignored as were those of the Palestinians. They opposed a European colony being established in Palestine and were entirely correct to do so.
The Zionist colonists only accepted the cease fire as a prelude to greater imperialist adventures.
Ben Gurion made very clear the Zionist project had no room for "natives".
Israel and the RSA started at about the same time - no coincidence.
"If the lack of a written constitution in Israel is such a problem for you why are you not complaining about the lack of a written constitution in the United Kingdom?"
Because in Israel it is used to advance the cause of ethnic superirority. In the UK this is not so.
The UK also does not use turkish law as an excuse to dispossess people.
Complain about this comment
422. At 10:08pm on 12 Oct 2009, dceilar wrote:
#
The Green Line is a good starting point. If both sides broadly agree with the pre-1967 borders then the rest shouldn't be difficult. Pleasant surprises can
and do happen. These chances are rare so must be grasped with both hands"
No we do not want ethnic/religious states in the 21st century -end of story. Protestant Northern Ireland, Afrikaner RSA, Pakistan, Myanamar all disasters. Not to mention the little fracas in 1939-45.
There will be one state between the Jordan and the sea which does not specify the religion, nose length, skin colour, toe size, eye shape of its citizens.
As judaism is dying out (now at the same rate as christianity) Israel will become more repressive, more wedded to aparthied, less democractic.
Already its politics are in an appalling state with Avigdor Lieberman in govt, Olmert et al before the courts and even one of gthe high and mighty Generals of the IDF being found to have fiddled about on the stock exchange.
Orwell was very clear that imperialism corrupts the oppressor as much as the oppressed - and Israel is a textbook case.
As an ethnically pure state Jewish Israel has no future, and like the RSA, deserves none.
Complain about this comment
ref #422
The Green Line is a good starting point. If both sides broadly agree with the pre-1967 borders then the rest shouldn't be difficult. Pleasant surprises can
and do happen. These chances are rare so must be grasped with both hands.
___________________________________________-
Why is the pre 67 boundries so reasonable. why not negoiate from the current boundries. Just like Abdullah you seem to want Israel to make concession before negeotians.
Complain about this comment
ref #427
saintDominick wrote:
Magic
I noticed you voiced contempt several times about Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, would you care to explain why? Dr. ElBaradei is a higly respected scholar and diplomat whose personal efforts have been consistently focused in finding solutions to some of the most pressing crises of the last decade.
Is you antagonism motivated by the fact that he embarrassed the Bush Administration when he informed them that all WMDs had been destroyed and that there was no evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq while we were preparing to invade that hapless country, or was it because he decided to talk to Iranian diplomats to find ways to defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis?
El Baradei gave the Iraqisd too much time to ship material out. He has been too much of appeaser to the Iranians. He also like Malloch Brown never showed the right amount of respect a world leader like Bush as opposed to a U.N bueracrat merited ,
Complain about this comment
#424
Comments have been pulled by the moderators for less. In my humble opinion, President Obama has been badly advised. He should have declined this award, and, in so doing, restored his crumbling credibility.
Complain about this comment
# 427 saintDominick wrote:
"Magic/I noticed you voiced contempt several times about Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, would you care to explain why? Dr. ElBaradei is a higly respected scholar and diplomat whose personal efforts have been consistently focused in finding solutions to some of the most pressing crises of the last decade./Is you antagonism motivated by the fact that he embarrassed the Bush Administration when he informed them that all WMDs had been destroyed and that there was no evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq while we were preparing to invade that hapless country, or was it because he decided to talk to Iranian diplomats to find ways to defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis?"
Saint, there are so many obvious reasons
[a] He stole George W Bush's and Dick Cheney's Nobel Peace Prize
[b] [Not to mention Joe Liebermann's and Sarah Palin's]
[c] He has repeatedly refused to publicly state that Israel is always right, and the Palestinians [who do not, in fact, exist] are always wrong, and that if the Palestinians did exist, they should be paying reparations to Israel for its many kindnesses. This proves he is an anti-Semitic terrorist appeaser.
I could go on. [And he will.]
Complain about this comment
#429
So, you deny the Jewish nation the right of self-determination. There is a word for that. Can you guess what it is?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bethpa: There is some validity to women leading in prayer but mostly when women are the listeners or are relatives. Most times these views emanate from Muslim women raised elsewhere and not in Afghanistan or Pakistan . There is still much left to do for the male dominated Muslim countries. Also if they feel so strongly about keeping their ways intact, then there is nothing but problems, if women persist in changing those views.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZhu8SaodPw&feature=PlayList&p=28B8D3B3E170A6B8&index=24
You nailed this one the guy did speak Spanish, not bad.
Cuba poses no threat that Russia itself doesn’t. so if we are acting so brash with Cuba, What Are Russians to think? The thousands of people who have come from Cuba, are at best hypocritically welcomed by the US. Perhaps waiting for the day when they may need volunteers to re invade Cuba.. It is about time to forge new alliances without preconditions, ‘just what Obama said’. The basic medical supplies are not getting there and many Cuban people are in need of them. However, as of recently, there has been a wave of outspoken American critics, In the US, to the point of bigotry and beyond in some cases. Bashing, mainly the Latin people, or more to the point Hispanics, whether legal or not, they lump them together and call them illegal, sometimes because they choose to speak their native language amongst themselves. Remember, that, if one persons primary language (and it need not be Spanish) is used to articulate things, then their capacity to properly interact is not diminished. But if they need to have a conversation in English (and their English is not up to par) it would end up to the favor of the native speaker. Therefore many Spanish speaking people rather, either, say they don’t speak it, or say they need a translator.It Makes perfect sense. I am, in favor of everyone who is going to be living in the US, learn, at least the basic conversational English.
There are illegal immigrants in the US who speak English and are overlooked. When was the last time any Mexican, or Latin American blew up any towers,buildings, people or anything? I am not Mexican, But it seems rather like they get bothered and killed just for speaking and looking Spanish.
Ref 358, Magic
One of the reasons so many countries don't trust our advocacy for freedom and democracy is because of our tendency to maintain cordial relations with right wing dictatorships worldwide, among them Egypt and the despotic and duplicitous monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
So true.
David: the issue of land, (and I know you don’t subscribe to religious entitlements) is one by my own interpretation, (as I do believe in divine conquest and support) to be resolved by the unification of the confederate nations, in the near future.
#380 Also very interesting, except the relationship between white/black/Hispanic will make a warring combination within one person and their identity. Then, Again, we would all be within the umbrella of total tolerance.
colonelartist wrote:
Political Compact and Covenant
Israel's declaration of independence is precisely that kind of political compact. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, as it is officially known, represents the consensual basis upon which the state rests. In essence, it is Israel's founding covenant. As indicated by the range of signatures appended to it, it was proclaimed as the expression of a wall-to-wall consensus which extended beyond the Zionist movement to include the Communists and the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists of Agudat Israel. Precisely drafted to assure the support of all parties to Israel's founding, it combines Jewish national aspirations and universal human rights, religious and secular sensibilities, Zionist needs and the political ends of modern democracy. As such, it was and is a consensus-building document.1
Political Compact and Covenant
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/const-intro-93.htm
!993 must read:
Complain about this comment
433. At 11:22pm on 12 Oct 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:
"This proves he is an anti-Semitic terrorist appeaser."
Unfortunately nearly everyone fits this category according to Magic including Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, who is apparently a terrorist and a rascist. Aparthied being a very reasonable and kindly political system in which everyone knew their place.
By some weird coincidence many of Magic's' ASTAs happen to be black, asian or semetic. White people rarely feature.
Complain about this comment
430. At 11:03pm on 12 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #422
"Why is the pre 67 boundries so reasonable. why not negoiate from the current boundries. Just like Abdullah you seem to want Israel to make concession before negeotians."
Like asking the Palestinians to declare themselves a subpeople? Bit of a pre negotiation trick surely?
"Before talks open please concede you have no rights to land, water or an economic system". SOunds like the sort of negotiations Uncle Joe used to like.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Yes, President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Ref 431, Magic
"El Baradei gave the Iraqisd too much time to ship material out. He has been too much of appeaser to the Iranians. He also like Malloch Brown never showed the right amount of respect a world leader like Bush as opposed to a U.N bueracrat merited"
Most of the WMDs that the Reagan Administration gave Iraq in the 1980s were used during the Iraq-Iran war. Those that were not used against our stated enemy were destroyed under the supervision of UN IAEA inspectors. Dr. el Baradei was correct in his statement, unfortunately his report had no bearing on an administration controlled by neo-cons determined to invade Iraq for geo-political and economic reasons, and to transform a pathetic President into a war hero to guarantee his re-election at a time when we were thirsty for revenge and desperate for leadership.
Complain about this comment
Ref 433, JID
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
433 JID
That really was quite funny.
Complain about this comment
I voted for President Obama, but he has not earned a Nobel Peace Prize within his own country, due to his not addressing the real problem in our health care system, which is health care being too expensive. Now Obama wants to put a fine on those who don't have health care, when as a candidate he told us he wouldn't. Also, I extremely dislike his dialogue with the Muslim countries, and his sudden claim to repeal DOMA, when he told us that he did not support same-sex marriage, as a candidate. Obama also claims to be a Christian of the Bible, yet if he repeals DOMA, he can no longer call himself a Christian of the Bible, as the Bible states that two men or women together is wrong. If Obama repeals DOMA, there will be a new Civil War in this country between the people against same-sex marriage and the people for it.
Mark, if you want to know what the deepest cut is in USA right now, it is our health care system. That's right, our health care system. I would like to read an article about how the British and other health care systems compare to the USA and how the British keep the costs of health care down enough where they can afford it. Is it because of their taxes? How much do the British pay on taxes for universal health care? How is it that people get by, if they pay these large taxes?
It just blows my mind that our health care is in such shambles right now. Sure, we have some of the best Doctors and nurses in the world. Yet we cannot afford their care.
Congress's health care bill is addressing health insurance, but not the high costs and why they are so high, whether it be hidden fees or otherwise. The high cost of health care is the real problem.
Health insurance companies are SCARED to insure sick people, because it costs so much. Yeah, it really does. Thousands and millions for sick people, especially with cancer and life-threatening illnesses. So how do we bring this health care costs down? Then, you have the illegal immigrants flocking here for our health care, when our own citizens cannot afford it and we end up paying for the immigrants, who don't pay a dime in taxes to our govt., don't learn our language and don't get driver's licenses legally. Our Congress is ignoring USA's deep cut of health care and they are trying to cover it with a band-aid, which will only help for a little bit.
Then, the costs will go up, the health insurance companies will charge more money, and we will be required to pay higher and higher costs. If we do not pay, we will be thrown into jail and families will break up.
President Obama and Congress are willing to throw innocent people in jail, if they cannot afford health insurance. How sad is that? How is that worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize?
President Obama and Congress are not addressing our real culprit of health care, which is the high cost. If they do not address our deep cut, then we will continue bleeding until there is no blood left. Our health care system is draining us more than the war or anything else. And President Obama and Congress's health care plan will only make it worse. Neither the Dems nor the Repubs have figured out the solution, which is to make the high costs affordable for healthy and sick people. It is not to make it mandatory, then tax and fine those that don't have it. This is not addressing why health care is so high in the first place.
President Obama did not ask for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was given it. Maybe the Norwegians like him and other parts of the world, too. I want to like him again, after all, I voted for him. But with his bogus health care plan, dialogue with Muslims and statement about how he wanted to repeal DOMA, I cannot like him. I regret voting for him.
Complain about this comment
There will never be a nuclear-free world. If we do not have nuclear weapons, we will not be able to keep the peace with other countries.
China and Russia get along, because if they threatened nuclear war on each other, both countries would take each other out. They know this and that is why they get along, because neither wants nuclear war.
So Russia gets to keep its land and China gets to keep its land.
Same with USA. We don't fire our nuclear weapons at either of them, because we don't want nuclear war and neither do they. SO we get along.
Ironically, nuclear weapons have actually kept the peace between Russia, China, India, USA and other countries all these years. We have all kept our borders and lands, because of this. Otherwise, there would be many many more wars right now. There was a Time article about this recently and I agree with it.
Nuclear weapons should be given the Nobel Peace Prize!
Complain about this comment
#393 ColonelArtist
*And no one has the right to question anyone's interpretation, especially the so called modern Muslims, who in their interpretation copy things from Christianity and how it became the religion it is today.*
First of all if I were you /though I will never be able to be, given your lack of tolerance/ I would take care to improve my orthography.
Second, your suggestion that no one has the right to question anyone interpretation of religion dogmas /no matter whether they come from the Koran or the Bible/ is one of the main reasons why today’s extreme fanatic groups do exist, no matter their colour. No religion is preaching violence, but many extremist leaders are interpreting the religion dogmas in a way that they become a justification of many crimes all over the world, to start from 9/11 and to finish with he last bloody attacks against the army HQ in Pakistan.
Third, your rude, unjust and ill-bred manner of treating one of our fellow blogger MarcusAurelius along with all of us /I mean your post 392: *No, they are not smart enough as me or any other tom, dick and harry. Incompetent, over paid and underworked people.*/ is just another proof of your total lack of tolerance and enough knowledge in history and politics. I wonder how the BBC moderators have missed to assess this evident breach of the rules.
Complain about this comment
Two points I seem to see above the general fog -
First - all the discussion about the sanctity of borders and the immorality of gaining territory through war. If humans didn't take land from other humans by force, there would still be four kingdoms in Ireland, and seven in England. Resisting change - refusing to recognize the existence of a Jewish state, or the existence of a Palestinian nation for that matter, or the rights of Muslims to live in the eighth century if they want to, OR the competition that must inevitably resolve these issues - isn't that anti-darwinian? Will any of you openly admit that you have the authority to decide in advance who will win and who must loose, on the evolutionary scale? Marx tried to do that about 150 years ago....
But, you say, we would have learned to unite through negotiation and shared self-interest. That still sounds like oppressor and oppressed, to me. Can we actually hope that pax Obama will be any different? Whether the EU is just another oppressive empire depends on which minority you are talking to at the moment. The issues here are more fundamental than global warming.
Second - it appears once again that we are defining ourselves by our enemies. How long will the adrenalin of anger motivate all human interaction, even on a blog?
KScurmudgeon
sleepless in Obama's America
Complain about this comment
443. At 05:30am on 13 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
I voted for President Obama, but he has not earned a Nobel Peace Prize within his own country, due to his not addressing the real problem in our health care system, which is health care being too expensive."
Your rant rings and echoes with me, but it has little to do with Mr. Nobel's prize. I am also a conservative who voted for Obama. Fiscal conservatives need to find a coherent, rational and practiceable voice and message, or like the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage movements they will loose the ability to be heard. We may have already have lost our ability to be heard, by having lost the ear of the media. People like Uncle Rush and darling Sarah Palin are mere clowns and panders - there is too little substance there to build a future on - less even than there was with Jesse Ventura or is with Schwartzenegger, and everyone knows it. It has to be based on hope for the future, a hope that can be claimed by the common man (that's 51% or more of the whole nation, and better be more), rather than the various fears and ignorant bigotry that has been used in the past.
Health care is an excellent workshop for this project. Yes, everyone knows it is broken, and that it is breaking the nation. Yes, everyone knows the biggest problem with it is the high cost that limits more and more folks' access to the unsurpassed technology that we have developed. It should be obvious to everyone who joins the debate that the whole system is structured to force costs higher and higher, even as that is clearly forcing consumers out of the marketplace. If you are a conservative who believes in allocating services through a competitive market, tell me where the problem lies? And if costs are too high, where must the money come from when they are lowered? Spending less per consumer means much less money somewhere in the health care system. Who will it be? The leader on the left or right who will make this happen will save the nation from disaster.
If we don't address the basic needs and the interests of at least 51% of the voters, we don't deserve their votes - and we may not be addressing your interests or mine either. If we don't open the promises of our way of life to every single taxpayer, so that they see their own way to prosper under a Republican, or conservative, or American system, why should we rule? Watch your answer, because the whole world has seen (once again) what capitalism can do to the world when it pursues only selfish and narrow interests. We should be the rising tide, not the tsunami.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
ref #437
Last time I looked Jimmy Carter was white
Complain about this comment
I don’t disagree with Israel’s existence, though I view it a well meant mistake. The creation of Israel de-stabled an already unstable region, bringing in outsiders (mostly Europeans) and displacing the existing population. Before WWII Britain had already realised the difficulties in bringing Jewish immigrants into what was then Palestine, it led to anger and violence committed by both Muslims and Jews.
Due to the horror and collective guilt the world made a rash decision, though probably for the right reasons and for the moral good. I don’t believe any area of the world would have easily dealt with large numbers of immigrants taking up lands and rights, especially when those immigrants had significantly different beliefs to the indigenous population. Looking at the historical evidence, North America, Australia, Caribbean, New Zealand, South America etc, each time this has led to conflict and disruption, with the marginalised locals feeling repressed and making their anger felt.
That being said I still have no issue with Israel being in existence, it has already happened other than jumping in a time machine or a large pointless war its existence isn’t going to end any time soon. The Arab nations need to accept this, equally Israel needs to accept those people who are the descendants of people who have lived in the region for centuries have a justifiable grievance. This conflict has been made about religion and race, when it is really simply about the ownership of land. Ethnic Jews and ethnic Palestinians (and Arabs) are two halves of one race, making scathing comments about Palestinians is just as anti-Semitic as it about Jews. Both sides have lied, both have made unreasonable demands of the other, both sides need to grow up and realise that they have to sit down like civilised adults and discuss the matter reasonably. Compromises will need to be made, despite what is written in books hundreds or thousands of years old.
If Obama can make this civilised debate happen, then he will deserve the award he has been given, though it would result in him being hated by those on both sides who feel that they have their deity and history on their side.
Complain about this comment
Ref 448, Magic
"Last time I looked Jimmy Carter was white"
He is, indeed, very white. He also happens to be a champion for the disenfranchised and the abused, which make him a lightning rod for the ire of the far right.
Complain about this comment
Ref 443, Illinoisian
"I voted for President Obama, but he has not earned a Nobel Peace Prize within his own country, due to his not addressing the real problem in our health care system, which is health care being too expensive."
The exhorbitant cost of the current system, as well as its focus on profits and subsequent unfairness, have been the centerpiece of Obama's call for reform. The part that has not been explained well enough, in my opinion, is how are we going to pay for the reforms.
I am not convinced that there is enough waste in MEDICARE to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the proposed reforms. Having said that, I also believe that the real reason for the opposition to healthcare reform is not because the proposed system may be too expensive or ineffective, but because it may be so successful that it will kill private healthcare, which is unacceptable to the insurance industry and its supporters for obvious reasons.
Complain about this comment
ref #450 He is, indeed, very white. He also happens to be a champion for the disenfranchised and the abused, which make him a lightning rod for the ire of the far right.
He was also a failure as President and I would argue by supporting dictators like Hugo and Fidel he has not supported the abused.
Complain about this comment
ref #447
I'd like to hear a rational debate on healthcare as well.
It is broken.
Now if you are supoorter of a single payer system, how can the goverment which does not have a great record in managing commerce related matters do it?
As far as your question about republicans. A man who I disagree on many social issues is Mitt Romney.
A far more accomplished indvidual than our current President and would have been a far better VP choice than Palin.
I know McCain couldn't stand him, but Mccain could have got a away with saying I chose him for his economic knowledge not for his friendship.
Complain about this comment
On the issue of health reform. I know I'm an outsider looking in but, how can the majority allow themselves to be rolled over by a small and vocal minority orchestrated by the health insurance lobby. The majority voted for Obama and health reform by a clear majority. The majority need to tell their Representatives and Senators that if they don't support Obama's reforms they will not re-elect them (especially those blue dog democrats). IMO if you want health reforms you need to get off your backsides and get active. No wonder that US politics is a right-wing show if you all keep rolling over at the first sign of resistance.
Complain about this comment
Ref 452, Magic
"He was also a failure as President and I would argue by supporting dictators like Hugo and Fidel he has not supported the abused."
Your definition of success and failure is subject to debate. President Carter inherited out of control inflation and was unfairly blamed for the high interest rates imposed by the Fed to bring inflation under control. As opposed to George W. Bush, who shifted the blame for 9/11 on his predecessors, Carter was blamed for the hostage crisis and for the failed rescue attempt, which contrasted with Reagan's decision to cut and run in Lebanon after hundreds of American marines were slaughtered in that country.
Don't confuse promoting respect for the wishes of other people with supporting dictatorships. I do not like some of Hugo Chavez' policies, particularly the way he spends his national treasure paying off the debt of other countries to transform himself into a modern-day Simon Bolivar, but he is not a dictator. He is, clearly, a megalomaniac and his rhetoric is as infantile as W's, but that does not make him a despot or a person that is abusing his people. He was elected and re-elected in free and democratic elections and does, in fact, enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of his people.
As far as Fidel Castro is concerned, when did former President Carter endorse his dictatorship?
Jimmy Carter's biggest problem is that he is a Christian and lives his life accordingly, while many of his fellow citizens consider themselves Christians but advocate policies and actions worthy of the anti-Christ.
Alas, if Jesus came to the USA today and preached the same values he articulated two millennia ago he would be labeled a communist and would be ostracized by all.
Complain about this comment
452. At 10:30am on 13 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #450 He is, indeed, very white. He also happens to be a champion for the disenfranchised and the abused, which make him a lightning rod for the ire of the far right.
He was also a failure as President and I would argue by supporting dictators like Hugo and Fidel he has not supported the abused."
Bush was a hideous failure as President much more than Carter.
And Carter supports a democractically elected president in Chavez who is far preferable to the Colombian regime with its death squads who only this year have butchered unarmed Awa indians fo r the crime of being indians.
The cousin of the President of Colombia was arrested for being connected with these murderers and US soldiers have been accused of equipping them.
Mind you the US armed forces have historical form when it comes to killing unarmed indians.
Complain about this comment
Ref 453, Magic
"Now if you are supoorter of a single payer system, how can the goverment which does not have a great record in managing commerce related matters do it?"
Would you mind providing some evidence to substantiate your claim?
Most US Federal government departments and agencies run very well; the problem is that politicians often use them as political footballs to achieve their goals and minimize the severity of our problems. The latter is the case with Social Security, a system that works extremely well but is in trouble as a result of successive administrations - both Democratic and Republican - raiding its trust fund to give the illusion that our budget deficits are not as bad as they really are. Given our precarious fiscal and economic circumstances, the chances of us repaying the $2 trillion that have been misappropriated from that system are slim to none.
Another agency severely affected by our political heroes is NASA. Its budget has been reduced several times throughout its history, and appropriations were often targeted for high visibility manned programs while R&D and science were consistently neglected.
Examples like these do not mean the federal government can not provide services effectively, it means the politicians we vote for are not qualified or don't have the integrity to be dog catchers.
The real reason so many oppose a public healthcare system is ideology. Many of our fellow citizens are terrified by the possibility of a public system being so successful that it may likely put our beloved insurance companies out of business, and that is simply unacceptable for the kill a commie generation.
Complain about this comment
449. At 09:55am on 13 Oct 2009, DavidRMurrell wrote:
I don’t disagree with Israel’s existence, though I view it a well meant mistake. The creation of Israel de-stabled an already unstable region, bringing in outsiders (mostly Europeans) and displacing the existing population. Before WWII Britain had already realised the difficulties in bringing Jewish immigrants into what was then Palestine, it led to anger and violence committed by both Muslims and Jews.
Due to the horror and collective guilt the world made a rash decision, though probably for the right reasons and for the moral good. I don’t believe any area of the world would have easily dealt with large numbers of immigrants taking up lands and rights, especially when those immigrants had significantly different beliefs to the indigenous population. Looking at the historical evidence, North America, Australia, Caribbean, New Zealand, South America etc, each time this has led to conflict and disruption, with the marginalised locals feeling repressed and making their anger felt."
It is not a case of justifying or not justifying Israel. It was a disastorous mistake and one that needs to be corrected and the bloodshed and land stealing stopped.
It was set up to secure western interests in a sensitive area in the cold war. RSA was set up to control Southern Africa for western interests and Pakistan served to keep India and Nehru in check.
However the time has now come to change the equation. Israel is not needed as a strategic answer ot Russian influence so it must be made to change and remove ethnic distinctions among its population and grant all people under its dominion basic human rights.
This can be done quite simply by the application of sanctions, as was the case in the RSA.
Ireland had a similar problem and removed references to the RC church in its consitution with no problem.
Israel's current commitment to ethnic and racial superiority is why the far right, with who these sort of beleifs are a staple, support it so strongly
Complain about this comment
448. At 09:55am on 13 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #437
Last time I looked Jimmy Carter was white"
But he associates with black people et al doesn't he
Complain about this comment
Ref 454, dceilar
"On the issue of health reform. I know I'm an outsider looking in but, how can the majority allow themselves to be rolled over by a small and vocal minority orchestrated by the health insurance lobby."
The USA remains a very conservative country socially, fiscally, and politically. Politicians - Democrats and Republicans - are well aware of the fact that promoting another "socialist" program could be the end of their tenure.
President Obama's victory last November, and the gains made by the Democratic party in Congress, had more to do with rejection of Bush's policies than a cultural shift to the center-left. President Obama's biggest challenge to implement healthcare and energy reform does not involve the Republican minority, but reluctant Democrats scared to lose their jobs if they lean too far to the left.
Obviously, the current system is unsustainable, financially and morally, but the possibility of making drastic changes to it is unlikely. What is likely to come out of all this are incremental changes such as ending the pre-condition clause, eliminating caps and reducing co-pays, making portability available, etc.
The same is true for energy reform. Drill baby drill sounds good during presidential campaigns, but most of us object to offshore drilling and the oil and coal industries are not about to let their mother lode go away without a fight.
Complain about this comment
444. At 05:46am on 13 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
There will never be a nuclear-free world. If we do not have nuclear weapons, we will not be able to keep the peace with other countries.
China and Russia get along, because if they threatened nuclear war on each other, both countries would take each other out. They know this and that is why they get along, because neither wants nuclear war.
So Russia gets to keep its land and China gets to keep its land.
Same with USA. We don't fire our nuclear weapons at either of them, because we don't want nuclear war and neither do they. SO we get along.
Ironically, nuclear weapons have actually kept the peace between Russia, China, India, USA and other countries all these years. We have all kept our borders and lands, because of this. Otherwise, there would be many many more wars right now. There was a Time article about this recently and I agree with it.
Nuclear weapons should be given the Nobel Peace Prize!"
Is that so? DOn't think the Indias would claim Pakistan has been peaceful with them, border war, mumbai is that peace?
And do Switzerland and Sweden have nuclear weapons? Pretty peacefull though
Complain about this comment
Ref 444, Illinoisan
"Ironically, nuclear weapons have actually kept the peace between Russia, China, India, USA and other countries all these years."
Does this mean Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because if they did it would lead to peaceful coexistence?
Complain about this comment
#341 Marcus Aurelius II
*MI5 evidently believed it. Putin and the FSB believed it. But then they are not nearly so smart or well informed as you are.*
Hi old friend. I agree, though I suppose you make a difference between the decision makers (such as Obama or Putin) and the MI-5 or the FSB (former KGB).
In the old days, I was fond of reading books about these omnipresent gigantic structures. The result was amazing: both organizations were well stuffed with many highly professional decent people of all breed (the brains), of many technicians in charge of the communication facilities, and of several platoons or, at the best, of several companies of professional killers. Not even a battalion, or a regiment!
Their main weapon is the information. Their main skill is how to seek information and how to treat it. All the rest is a job of the politicians. And the politicians always manage to draw the line between themselves ant the said structures. People do not like to be spied.
Complain about this comment
#462 SaintDominick
Not ironically, the Iranian president openly declared, several years ago, his intention to get rid of Israel.
Complain about this comment
Well Ronald Reagan did far more for the cause of peace than Gore and Cater. the latter was a monumental failure.
-----
What did Reagan do for the cause of peace? Oh yeah! He built up the military to unprecedented levels. He traded missiles with Iran and funded pocket rebel groups in Nicaragua. Oh, I guess you mean he ended (or presided over the end of) the Cold War. ACandidWorld.com puts its best:
"The rich/poor gap increased drastically on Reagan’s watch, as real wages actually declined; he wasn’t much of a deregulator; he invented the modern budget deficit; and he wasn’t even that popular, in or out of office. Basically, he was a domestic disaster, who stepped into office in 1981 to take credit for the end of the late ’70s economic slump, already in the process of resolving itself (his inauguration coincided with a drop in worldwide oil prices), and went on to create the early ’90s slump that would kill his immediate successor, pave the way for President Clinton, and set in motion the events that would lead to our current predicament. Meanwhile, he ignored the growing AIDS crisis, and dealt with terrorists to fund other terrorists in contravention of express law to the contrary. His contributions to the Cold War were to provoke Russia with a profoundly ineffectual but politically costly missile defense program, and to inhabit the Oval Office at the same time as a reformist Russian leader (Gorbachev), allowing him to take credit for a collapse that was, by that time and all reports, already inevitable. Nothing special, or profoundly peaceful. The question, it seems, isn’t why Reagan didn’t get a Nobel Prize, but why the hell we still have schools and airports named after the guy."
Complain about this comment
464. At 12:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, ironfranco wrote:
#462 SaintDominick
Not ironically, the Iranian president openly declared, several years ago, his intention to get rid of Israel"
He didn't he called for the end of the Israeli regime. And he is correct Israel's ethnic based system of government will need to change.
Unlike Palestinians who have no rights in Israel (not even the rights to their land and water) jews are specifically protected by the Iranian consititution.
The iranian president also gave a large donation to Teheran's jewish hospital (one of the largest outsider of Israel).
The Israeli government however always needing an enemy to justify its oppression has threatened iran frequently and one US senator even made a song about bombing Iran whihc he thought was a joke.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist,Hilary Clinton was not my Senator she was the senator for NY,1 state out of 50.My Senators are Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin neither voted for Iraqi invasion.In fact Senator Levin wrote his own proposition to allow UN inspectors to finish their job.Senator Levin is one of the highest ranked Senators for Honesty and Fairness.He a good man who really does want whats best for others including staying out of others people business,however most people of Michigan have always been isolationist when it comes to foreign engagement.America is 50 states all like little countries and subcultures.
Complain about this comment
Re #410
Factually correct.
P.S. I wonder whether Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyr-Brigades and other similiar outfits' apologists know why the lands in question are called SAMARIA and JUDEA.
And why Nobel Peace Prize laureat Yasser Arafat named one of its terrorist groups - Black September :-)
Complain about this comment
If Mark M. wants to deserve a title of North America correspondent
perhaps he could finally start reporting about developments in Mexico and Canada?
Let alone in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Dacotas, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming?
Go West, young man!
Complain about this comment
#466 Simon21
*He didn't he called for the end of the Israeli regime.*
How shall you interpret a slogan that still hangs on every street corner in Tehran, and which reads: *For a world without Zionism*. Who did fire this evidently threatening call? The Pope of Rome maybe?
Complain about this comment
410. At 7:33pm on 12 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #409
If you read the earlier post, I said it would be a fantasy for Obama to do it. but Bush has done far more for the world than those 3 and Tutu and Mandela.
Mandela did nothing of value outside of South African except support terrorism"
Sorry can you prove where Mandela supported terrorism?
Did you support apartheid?
"Bush liberated the Kurds and lead the fight against islamic terroism and did more for Aids prevention in Africa than Tutu and Mandela."
Bush was a disaster in Africa and there would have been no fight against terorism without Mandela andTuts risking their lives.
Did Bush ever put his life on the line for anything?
Complain about this comment
468. At 1:51pm on 13 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #410
Factually correct."
Completely incorrect. Mandela risked his life liberating the people of the RSa and others.
Bush talked, and killed many.
"P.S. I wonder whether Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyr-Brigades and other similiar outfits' apologists know why the lands in question are called SAMARIA and JUDEA."
FOr the same reason Europe was called "greater Germany? in 1939-45?
"And why Nobel Peace Prize laureat Yasser Arafat named one of its terrorist groups - Black September :-)"
Because palestinian women and children were massacred on that date - glad you find the death of semitic women and children amusing.
How are you on 1939-45 - that a laugh as well?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – These apologists are no better or worse than Israel apologists who refuse to admit that Israel has committed acts it should be ashamed of, such as using bombs to kill children, directly or indirectly, shooting independent observers and charity members.
By the by Black September is named after the failed coup in Jordan and the Jordanian King’s response including the expulsion of the PLO. What is not clear is the relationship between BS and Arafat, including whether he created/named them.
I am not a terrorist apologiser, regardless whether the terrorism is group or government sponsored and also regardless of the religion/ethnicity of those involved.
Complain about this comment
#470 Francolover
For a world without Zionism
All that slogan means is a world without Zionism. You'll be saying 2+2=5 next.
Complain about this comment
470. At 1:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, ironfranco wrote:
#466 Simon21
*He didn't he called for the end of the Israeli regime.*
How shall you interpret a slogan that still hangs on every street corner in Tehran, and which reads: *For a world without Zionism*. Who did fire this evidently threatening call? The Pope of Rome maybe?"
Sorry English is not your strong point obviously.
Zionism is not Israel. It is a noxious 19th century belief which was used as justification to dispossess an inferior "race".
Israel is republic founded by European colonists.
Zionism has been the cause, like Afrikaanerdom, of much unecessary suffering.
Or to put it simply seeking the end of communism is not the same as seeking the end of Russia.
Or seeking the end of the Commonwealth was not the same as seeking to eliminate the British.
Hope that clears it up. How big has your donation to jewish hospitals been?
Complain about this comment
469. At 1:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
If Mark M. wants to deserve a title of North America correspondent
perhaps he could finally start reporting about developments in Mexico and Canada?
Let alone in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Dacotas, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming?
Go West, young man!"
this is a good point. Mexico has one of the biggest populations in the Americas yet it gets reported about as much as Ecuador.
Complain about this comment
Ref 464, IronFranco
"Not ironically, the Iranian president openly declared, several years ago, his intention to get rid of Israel."
As I am sure you already know there are different interpretations of what Ahmadinejad actually said. I am inclined to believe the version that predicts the ultimate collapse of the State of Israel because of demographics, but I doubt his prediction will come true considering the large influx of Ashkenazi and American Jews.
The fact that Iran and other countries oppose Zionism is not surprising considering the number and severity of atrocities carried out by Zionists during the past six decades.
Complain about this comment
#475 Simon21
I did not know that Hizbollah was supported by the World Health Organization, and I thank you very much for the enlightenment!
I agree that my English is not my strong point. However, I would allow myself asking anybody among this lovely audience whether the following interpretation is correct or not:
*Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine. The area was the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel.*
Complain about this comment
Colonel. Constitution is a duff OK . but the declaration of Israel still contains the statement Jewish state.
sorry you pedant but screw the constitution . only americans have such an inflated Idea of what a constitution means.
but the statement that they did get around to saying said "jewish state" so argue that the apple is not a pear but don't try to say it is not an Apple.
The reason to say it was there is a certain scotch git that has several times tried to claim that
"The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority."
he did so so vehemently that Happylaze got banned from the BBC because he was trying to make the same point I make here.
Which is that those that say it, are wrong.
or dreamers. and anti zionist dreamers at that.
The Palestinians were told they were not going to be dealt with unless they recognised that. by the leader of Israel ,no less. Last I checked they didn't kick him out in their rigged democracy so I suspect that he has the majority.
I do know that successive leaders of Israel have mad similar demands.
I will also note the almost total absence of this poster Scotch Git until this topic came up. that means someone reads a lot but only joins in at this stage in the conversation. I would suggest a motive but then that would be inappropriate so maybe scotch Git can explain his fascination with trying to claim Israel is a secular state.
Complain about this comment
Marbels I remember you were going to have some fun with your brother visiting. did you ever smoke out the worlds ills;))
Complain about this comment
478. At 2:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, ironfranco wrote:
#475 Simon21
I did not know that Hizbollah was supported by the World Health Organization, and I thank you very much for the enlightenment!"
Neither did I. Can't recall where I said that it was as it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
As are the terrorist Iranian mujihadeen who receive help from the west in their murderous activities,
"I agree that my English is not my strong point."
That was not a pop - why should you be an expert?
" However, I would allow myself asking anybody among this lovely audience whether the following interpretation is correct or not:
*Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine. The area was the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel.*"
So what? Brigham Young beleived the Mormons orignally came from Utah and were therfore entitled to massacre the natives.
"The jewish biblical homeland" did not exist. For one thing even f you beleive the bible is completely true (and you apparently do) it makes clear that this area was also the home of Philistines, Amalekites etc.
The bible was largely written long after the events it describes and is of no or very little value as history.
Complain about this comment
477. At 2:49pm on 13 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
Ref 464, IronFranco
"Not ironically, the Iranian president openly declared, several years ago, his intention to get rid of Israel."
As I am sure you already know there are different interpretations of what Ahmadinejad actually said. I am inclined to believe the version that predicts the ultimate collapse of the State of Israel because of demographics, but I doubt his prediction will come true considering the large influx of Ashkenazi and American Jews."
No he is right. Ashkenazi judiasm is on the way out. As white westerners they are subject to same erosion of religion as we see everywhere from SA to Canada. Synagogues and congregations are closing all the time, marrying out has now become the norm.
Of course the hasidim do what they can but christianity and western judiasm are heading one way.
Quite sad from the cultural point of view, but you cannot force people to practice their religion.
of course none of this matters except that we have set up a state which increasingly desperately tries to define its citizens by a declining faith.
Complain about this comment
To #478 ironfranco
To save time, everyone probably agrees with these definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
Complain about this comment
"If Mark M. wants to deserve a title of North America correspondent perhaps he could finally start reporting about developments in Mexico and Canada?" (from powermeerkat at #469)
Oh, that complaint again. The title of this feature is "Mark Mardell's America," which most people take to mean "United States." No doubt Mr. Mardell does other work for the BBC beyond this blog. Anyway, isn't it up to the BBC alone to decide how well he's doing his job?
There are many reports in the "Americas" section of this website on places other than the US. For Canadian reporting, I go to the CBC web site. What does it matter if Canadian reporting is thin on this one? Is an event not important until Mr. Mardell reports on it? That's pretty extreme flattery which may make up for the petty whining that's so common here.
Complain about this comment
1st of all, the talk of Israel is stupid,People complain about the lines of Israel which were 1st started by British,however the British also made the line for Iran,Pakistan,Iraq,Afghanistan,India,Tibet etc....why is it only an issue for Israel which small inhospitable land of a few people.British made the lines for what is most of the countries of the middle East.Even if large amounts of people in Israel came from other countries same is true of Palestine and Pakistan.How many Pakistanis came from India they weren't indigenous to Pakistan.Big Deal it happens all through out history people move around.However those people are there now so why not figure out solutions for people now instead of arguing about history that happened before we were born,by the way it seems so stupid the obsession people have with Israel both Western and Middle Eastern. Or with Americas Native people some were killed some weren't,there is a lot that went on from having 3 different Western countries colonize what is now your borders of US. Spain,Britain ,and France,(there were a few more but very briefly)No one ever brings up what the Spanish did to people in North America let alone South America only what Anglo whites did,who are the hypocrites.Britain didn't do hardly half the inhumanity of the Spanish but no one ever talks of that do they when they talk of States of Spanish background. Hispanics also treated other Native people poorly.When the British gave up colonization it has left a Power Vacuum,however no one in Middle East has enough education or knowledge to fill the vacuum.Instead would rather focus on old Empires and nonsense of the past.The British and Ottoman left,get over it and move on,build something new there.The only thing I have heard from a certain poster is that Americans are better at protecting their troops with technology big deal.And if Pakistan didn't want trouble with US than hand over Bin Laden and stop protecting and defending the murders of 9/11,of course US wants to get those responsible,We have plenty of proof who did despite losers using conspiracy theories.I mean those responsible made a fricken video.Sorry but Pakistan brought it on itself.And despite what others say America has the right to deny trade to any one they please with or without reasons.Despite what it does to people of those countries.And you misunderstand the fact that Americans are not of one mind there are always different views and factions competing for Power.We're not hypocritical people but people of differing views because of the many cultures and religions,Americans want different things, some are peaceful others want an empire,most want nothing to do with any of you.By the way Obama never denied his background in the US,If he wanted to do that he could have legally changed his name or just went by school hood nickname Barry.Where did you get off making up nonsense with your facts that don't follow your ignorant statements.What does South Africa citizens have to do with Israel settlers.
Complain about this comment
#479
You are confusing the Jewish nation with the Jewish religion.
The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority.
The above statement is a fact. It is, in fact, factual. I, you and all others who contribute to these blogs are entitled to express our own opinions.
None of us are entitled to create our own facts.
Complain about this comment
483. At 3:58pm on 13 Oct 2009, _marko wrote:
To #478 ironfranco
To save time, everyone probably agrees with these definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
One needs to be very careful with wikipedia at the best of times, and there are a number of errors in these articles.
There is little "historical" evidence for the presence of jews in ancient Palestine the way Zionism has it .
That is to say there were people who called themselves jews but the faith they practised was very different from the way it is practised today -for one thing there is evidence that they may have had several gods.
And while it is partly true that those who practised the jewsih religion did leave Palestine there is no real evidence that the famous "diasporas" were anything like the way they are described in the bible - it was simply impossible for ancient states to actually expel whole populations (this is also why the babylonian captivity is also likely to have been a myth).
In fact the original people of palestine live where they have always done, in Palestine. They were once jews, byzantines now they are moslem.
Zionism was created at a time when white supermacy was taken as a given. it imbued all the rascist supremacist beliefs of its age - the world consisted of "races", some "races" were better than others, the white "race" was superior to all others, the oriental "race" was next and the black "race" was at the bottom.
There are some on this board who still beleive in this nonsense. For most of the rest of us however 1939-45 was enough to put these beliefs to bed for all time.
Unfortuantely as has been proven again and again we are in fact"all mongrels" to use an Australian phrase.
Complain about this comment
faeyth to tell you the truth I as a anglo american have heard many refer to the spanish conquest as being a little more religiously fervoured. ( Ie they killed so many that didn't believe)
",however no one in Middle East has enough education or knowledge to fill the vacuum"
I suspect that you wouldn't help much either.
Complain about this comment
President Obama himself said that quite frankly he didn´t deserved the prize, but besides his humble and honourable statement, it shows the world, how desperate George W. Bush left the World in awaiting the change of the US President.
It is obviously that George W. Bush will be the worst President the USA ever had in every history book. No wonder that the Republicans are very much in a fury, but to give President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is the answer not only as a sign of the committee to the USA for 8 years of George W. Bush and his policy, but further more a sign for the hopes of the world that Obama will make it better and bring the USA back again to that good reputation it had 10 years ago, or even better than then.
Complain about this comment
To further Marko's comments at 483 here's a link to wikipedia's article on revisionist Zionism and another to Herut. The latter shows the letter which condemned Herut as akin to Nazi and Fascist parties [and] as a Terrorist party and was signed by over two dozen prominent Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Isidore Abramowitz and Sidney Hook.
Complain about this comment
The "prize" was cheapened to the point of irrelevancy way back when it was awarded to Le Duc Tho, a Vietnamese general who, like Obama, had actually done nothing whatsoever to further the cause of peace. But at least the General had the honour and personal decency to refuse the prize, unlike President Egobama. Since then it's been degraded, through being awarded to despots and murderers like Yasser Arafat, to the point that I would take nomination, never mind award, as an insult.
Complain about this comment
477 st dom well said.
this translation thing should be taken to court. the oft quoted mistranslated comment should be brought forward as evidence of a conspiracy to promote hatred against Iran . (there are many legitimate complaints about Iran as with any nation, Iran having a death penalty (in company with which other? religiously fervoured supporter of state sponsored murder))
But unlike a company which could sue as an "individual slandered" Iran is a nation so it cannot sue for slander.
Complain about this comment
485. At 4:17pm on 13 Oct 2009, faeyth wrote:
1st of all, the talk of Israel is stupid,People complain about the lines of Israel which were 1st started by British,however the British also made the line for Iran,Pakistan,Iraq,Afghanistan,India,Tibet etc....why is it only an issue for Israel which small inhospitable land of a few people."
Oh we shouldn't get upset at Rwanda because Nazi germany was worse? Israel is oppressing 4 million people, but that's OK because Britain occupied India until 1949?
We shouldn't hunt Bonny and Clyde because Al Capone was worse?
If you got badly muggged would you like the police to tell you - "worse things happen to other people" and ignore your call?
I don't think so.
Evil is evil even if Israelis do it.
Complain about this comment
486. At 4:32pm on 13 Oct 2009, Scotch-git wrote:
#479
You are confusing the Jewish nation with the Jewish religion.
The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority.
The above statement is a fact. It is, in fact, factual. I, you and all others who contribute to these blogs are entitled to express our own opinions.
None of us are entitled to create our own facts."
And simply shouting a mistruth does not make it fact, as we learned from Stalin and Hitler
There is no jewish nation (fact), probably never has been. There is an Israeli nation, but that includes non jews who have fewer rights.
Jewish identity is defined by israel in terms of religion (fact)- hence the number of Ethiopians who have suddenly become practising jews in the hope of immigrating to Israel, and from there to the US etc.
Complain about this comment
Has everyone forgotten the joy around the world when Mt Obama was elected? A black president, with Mohammed as his middle name!(Excuse spelling)
It was like John Kennedy, but in Spades.
The commentators come across as a bunch of narrow minded Mrs Whitehouse.
Complain about this comment
Scotch git. you already ,got one poster banned for trying to correct you. buy you tell an inaccurate comment;)
"486. At 4:32pm on 13 Oct 2009, Scotch-git wrote:
#479
You are confusing the Jewish nation with the Jewish religion.
The State of Israel is a secular democratic republic with a Jewish majority.
The above statement is a fact. It is, in fact, factual. I, you and all others who contribute to these blogs are entitled to express our own opinions.
None of us are entitled to create our own facts."
Then stop making up your own dreams as facts.
I provided the statement from the Isreali ministry as to their creation and it contains the words "jewish state" so unless you have something better than your own dreams and an accusation that I am making things up ,or the bold faced letters to promote a bald faced lie , I would give up. But you won't.
You can't admit you are wrong.
You prove your name.
Oh and I see comments against you disappear. Now mods we can't be having this again can we?
really The BBC should not engage in promoting the LIE that Israel is a secular state when Israel at the moment is using that refusal of hamas to recognise it as a Jewish state ((STATE STATE STATE not religion. State being Nation.) to not lift restrictions.
Now scotch git (who mods if you want to remove my comments where I use his name you should force him to change his name because you guys did ban daisydiety for a bad name) is your next argument that Nation and state ( ps you used nation) are not the same in this context?
Complain about this comment
ah looks like it was not efferred yet so there is hope the mods are trying to be reasonable, but seeing as arguing with Scotch git has proven to be lethal in the past( as it is with so many of the cane toad posters).
Complain about this comment
Simon,
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Fellow bloggers,
For a perfect example of someone making it up as he goes along, see #494
Complain about this comment
I have never been a Republican and have claimed since the election of Bush to be a Democrat. But only now, I realize how much the Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs and no better. So I should call myself an Independent, I guess, as I agree with ideas from both parties.
Perhaps I was young and naive, but I thought Obama would be true to his word. Instead, he has already lied about two major issues: health care and gay rights, which he changed his stance on both. So I am already disappointed with Obama, for not telling us the truth. I know he is a politician. But I thought he was better than that. I thought he was the real deal. But like I said, Dems are no better than Repubs.
Congress does not relate to us, because they are all millionaires and so corrupt. Just recently, they voted to raise their own income, even though millions are suffering, losing their jobs and homes, families are breaking up, people are hungry. Yet Congress gives itself a raise. Tells you what kind of people they are and that they are not on your side.
As far as Israel is concerned, all is fair in love in war. If Hamas fired rockets at Israel, they have every right to defend themselves and fire back. Hamas knew what they were doing and the Palestinians allowed it, therefore, they were ASKING FOR IT. You fire at a country with lots of weapons, you should expect to get burned! The Palestinians claim abuses, yet they house terrorist organizations. What right does the UN have anyway? As I said, all is fair in love and war!
Complain about this comment
#498 Scotch Git
Everyone knows that Israel is a Jewish State.
Netanyahu has demanded that Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish State before any negotiations can be made.
Moreover, refugees have to be resettled outside Israel: Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS