Wake-up call for world peace
The president's press secretary woke Mr Obama at six o' clock in the morning eastern time to tell him that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't yet know the president's immediate reaction but the official one is that he is "humbled". Apparently when a senior TV correspondent broke the news to a couple of very senior aides even earlier, they thought it was a wind-up.
Although the prize can be awarded to obscure if worthy figures or organisations there has certainly been a scattering of stellar names. The first well known figure to get it was also a president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt in 1906, for negotiating a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Since then, Woodrow Wilson, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela have all won the award.
Most of them had achieved some tangible triumphs before the award was made but this time the committee has made it an aspirational, although of course not conditional, award. They've given it to him for fostering multilateral relationships and particularly for his vision of a nuclear-free world which, diplomats tell me, is a real and very personal obsession. The citation also says:
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson. Mr Obama might want to reflect on their triumphs. The treaty of Locarno in 1925 negotiated by the former was an early example of appeasement towards Germany. The latter won it in 1934 for overseeing the world disarmament conference, which wasn't a huge success in light of subsequent events.
But I am in danger of being captured by Washington cynicism and the narrative of the president's enemies, who see any sign of what Americans call "reaching out" as weakness and failure.
I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here. But in much of the rest of the world, Obama really is seen as a beacon of hope for a better future, a symbol of a more grown-up America. There was already a huge weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier.
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.
As an Obama Voter,I don't think he should have received this award until after he accomplishes what he says he's going to do.Many President have talked of Peace.But the former 2 Americans Presidents who won the awards were people who did it.yes Roosevelt only delayed tensions between Russia and Japan,but he got something on paper.I am glad my president is popular but that should garner some results first before giving a Nobel out.Maybe I think to highly of the Nobel Awards.The President is a good guy with good intentions but you also need results.
Complain about this comment
The conservative talking heads are already sneering. But they are in the kind of company that suits well with their narrow-minded world view. The Taliban are also complaining and condemning.
Complain about this comment
I'm pleased.
With Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho Mr. Obama find itself in a great company of international peace makers.
More power to him!
Complain about this comment
I thought this was a wind up. Part of me still hopes it is.
This is as bad a decision (and I'm not a conservative moaner) as Time Magazine naming their person of the year as "You" a couple years back.
As they say on a prominent social networking site: #epicfail
Complain about this comment
Cabeus Crater impacted. Samples from the plum collected.
What a great day!.
From other news: pres. Obama....
Complain about this comment
I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here. But in much of the rest of the world, Obama really is seen as a beacon of hope for a better future, a symbol of a more grown-up America. There was already a huge weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the rest of the world, has yet to see the result.Visions dont make world peaceful. Everyone, including me has that vision..Its the job description of the post of president to have such visions and to work for them.. Its not as if Putin doesnt and Obama does.
Complain about this comment
"The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson."
I suspect you'll be getting a letter from Lord Trimble's office in the morning.
Complain about this comment
An American president calling for nuclear disarmament! This was an absolute watershed moment on the world stage, and whilst we are yet to see the impact of this it was something I can recall marching for 30 years ago. The fact that a US president is of a similar mind to those many millions calling for this down the years, is in itself astounding and fully worthy of recognition, when we consider the fears that nuclear proliferation have created.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, Mark, but you think 'conservatives' don't want 'a better future'?
Given up all pretence of impartiality, have we? Give me back my licence fee.
Complain about this comment
The Nobel peace prize is a farce. Recent undeserving winners include Annan, El Baredi and Carter. All failures.
The requiremnt the last 8 years has been to bash Bush or his policies.
The prize used to be for accomplishments. Even CNN can't find justification.
Let Simon Cowell award it in 2010
Complain about this comment
I'm glad the Nobel committee is giving out 'aspirational' - as you put it - awards. My aspiration is to cure cancer. Now please can I have a Nobel prize and two million dollars.
Complain about this comment
There was already a huge weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Obama decided to stand for the president, he accepted these responsiblities. This medal has released him from those responsiblities..From today on wards and rest of his presidency, he will blame others for his failures. If Obama is what he projects himself to be, he should politely thank the people for pre-emptively giving him the prize and tell them to wait till they have seen something concrete.
Complain about this comment
I like him - voted for him etc. But for sure it's too early for him to win this; you don't get an award without competing in the event! As for the "sneering" conservative media, it's just another day at the office I suspect. Although I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was just an attempt by the Nobel committee to steam them up.
Complain about this comment
What is Obama getting this award for? Have I missed something?
Complain about this comment
Another issue to consider nominations for the Nobel peace prize were due 11 days into Obama's Presidency
Complain about this comment
"I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here"
Actually I think that statement is a little offensive Mark. Back in ol' Blighty there's more than a little negativity (or sneering as you put it) not because those people are conservative, but because it's a pretty daft idea to award someone who has accomplished so little so far.
Hope is one thing but even Miss World's all hope for World Peace. It'd be more than a little odd to see one of them awarded the prize if they hadn't actually accomplished anything.
Maybe there's some justification to the "sneering". Let's fawn over Obama when he achieve something, not beforehand just because he's the popular kid in school.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations. But where do I get one?
Seems to me a tad premature but it may now motivate Obama to a greater extent.
The hard right commentators will certainly be belly-aching over this but they shouldn't get too carried away - Kissinger didn't deserve his either.
Complain about this comment
Talking and doing are two different things. He hasn't done anything yet to warrant The Prize. But, so far in his 9 months of greatness, what has he really accomplished? Good speeches. Nothing else. The US is $1.4tn in debt (not caused by him) and the dollar is falling like a lead balloon. He should have been awarded The Prize when the US shows the world they have weathered the financial crisis and have not killed each other in the time being.
Complain about this comment
Who remembers the day satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Prize for Peace?
However, hopefully this will give Obama more prestige in international relations for the pursuit of peace. We live in hope!
Complain about this comment
"I am in danger of being captured by Washington cynicism and the narrative of the president's enemies, who see any sign of what Americans call "reaching out" as weakness and failure."
I think you can blame Pres. Jimmy Carter's lack of a firm hand for creating this very fundamental fear in American conservatives. It's pretty much the foundation for most of the Republicans in my own family: they feel humiliatated by the events of 77-81 and remember how the Iran hostages were released 1 minute in Reagan's presidency. I'm a leftie, but I totally understand how these feelings develop in people. But again, it's too early to make a judgment on Obama for this. As he said, talking is not appeasing. Personally, he won me over in the election precisely because he didn't seemed to fear anything.
Complain about this comment
The conservative talking heads are already sneering. But they are in the kind of company that suits well with their narrow-minded world view. The Taliban are also complaining and condemning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually if you give someone something to sneer about, then you cannot blame them for sneering..I think you should also condemn it. Objectively if you reflect on it, you will find out that he was the weakest candidate,still at the visionary level..The zimbabvian prime minister was stronger candidate, as for the sake of peace he decided to join hands with his and the enemy of whole europe and west, Mugabe. Come to think of it, even president zardari is a better candidate than him, because for the sake of peace in the world, he does what obama tells him to do, which includes not once complaining to UN everytime american drones violate the country's sovergienty of his country, killing his own countrymen and soldiers..
Complain about this comment
With Yasser Arafat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arafat and Issac Rabin got the prize because both of them signed peace treaty, both extremest, one who refused to even accept the existance of palestinians and the other who used extreme measures to get freedom changed their attitudes and ended up signing a peace treaty.Those were the two best prize winners after ww2. You can campare Omaba to Peres Shimon.
Complain about this comment
Obama's foreign policy direction isn't much different from Bill Clinton’s. What’s changed? George Bush was between them; and we all know how hated Bush was by the Europeans (and “intellectuals,” and European intellectuals). The Nobel committee is just finding another way—like when they awarded the prize a couple of years ago to that bumbler Jimmy Carter—to stick it to George.
Americans should be pleased that such an elite group of European thinkers is so consumed with passion about an American leader (not Obama, but Bush) that an American president could beat out every other candidate, whether European, African, socialist or dissident.
Complain about this comment
Given the history of this award, I will file it under "wishful thinking." Why does everything have to be political?
Complain about this comment
It seems premature to me, and, as you suggest, a bit of a burden. It could be seen as an attempt to influence US politics by coming so early in his presidency.
The Peace Prize has, on occasion, been controversial. This one is.
Complain about this comment
The fact that a US president is of a similar mind to those many millions calling for this down the years, is in itself astounding and fully worthy of recognition, when we consider the fears that nuclear proliferation have created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its neither astounding nor worthy of recognition. They have seen that they can cause life long misery to the people without the use of nuclear weapons, so why go for something that they have used and seen that both nagasaki and heroshima managed to develop from the debirs within a few years of their destruction and that they are once again full of living people..On the other hand look at iraq, and afghanistan..generations not lost by death buy by neglect..and no hope for coming generations. The nuclear weapons seem more civilized compared to the present day war tactics..atleast they ended the war.
Complain about this comment
Jesus Christ move over. Saint Barack Obama, the American rock superstar will be sitting beside you. You may be king of kings but you are not king of Presidents, at least not of this President of the United States of America.
Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and the image, expectations, and demeanor it confers would present any sitting American President with an unresolvable dilemma. It is incompatible with his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States with all the vast means at his disposal he swore to uphold. Sometimes this means waging war even unilaterally and vigorously where many seemingly innocent people will be severely injured or lose their lives. How will he resolve this apparently insolvable dilemma if he accepts?
Mr. Obama's initiative for global nuclear disarmament is delusionary especially at this moment in history. How will he convince al Qaeda, North Korea, or Iran to give them up? Is his strategy to set an example and hope that they will see his vision and do the same? That would not be merely foolhardy, it would be treason. How will he convince Israel to give up its presumed arsenal of nuclear weapons since that is its one and only ultimate guarantee that it will not be attacked again and overwhelmed by it neighbors in another effort to destroy it? Does he presume to commit to an equivalent guarantee to Israel in perpetuity on behalf of the American people? How can anyone count on such a promise when America has broken so many others in the past? If I were the Israelis, I wouldn't.
In the nearly nine months he's been President, I cannot find even one action Mr. Obama took that brought the world closer to real peace. His overtures are just words and often they have met with derision and contempt from those he seemingly held his hand out to like Iran and North Korea. In response to his call to North Korea for example, their government detonated another nuclear weapon and launched missiles intended to deliver them to far away targets, ultimately the US itself.
The neutering of America's potent military force, the only real instrument of peace for itself that exists would be the most heinous of crimes anyone could commit against the American nation. It would be a complete betrayal of our country, its history, its culture, its essence which is one of crushing armed defiance against all agressors. If those who are mesmerized by President Obama's personna think the rest of us who see clearly what he is doing are going to sit by silently, they are very much mistaken. For us, their name calling falls on deaf ears.
Mr. President, I call on you to decline to accept the prize.
Complain about this comment
#9 hubert
I'm sorry, Mark, but you think 'conservatives' don't want 'a better future'?
Given up all pretence of impartiality, have we? Give me back my licence fee.
Hop off Hubert! We'll be lucky to get any future with the conservatives. At least Obama hasn't invaded another third world country yet!
Are you imbecilic enough to compare the American conservatives with the British Conservative Party? The latter, compared to the former, are a bunch of peacenik Socialists!
Complain about this comment
Cocktail Sauce 8
"An American president calling for nuclear disarmament! This was an absolute watershed moment on the world stage"
Dead wrong as usual from the left. President Eisenhower called for Worldwide nuclear disarmament in the 1950s with unannounced instrusive on site inspections to assure compliance but the USSR rejected it. It is a fact those who oppose America's security conveniently forget. It's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back in.
Complain about this comment
The only two British winners I can spot... A particularly superficial search, by the look of it! As well as David Trimble, already noted, Robert Cecil won the Peace Prize in 1937 for his work on development of the League of Nations.
Complain about this comment
I like Obama as much as the next man, but frankly, this is a bit silly. He was innaugurated only 2 weeks before the deadline for nominations, and whilst he has done things subsequently which might warrant a little more attention, he has hardly done enough to warrant this. One big speech promising to renew America's relationship with the Arab world is all he has done, and America are still fighting Arabs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, Obama even chose not to keep his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre!
The committee may well have been trying to draw attention to Obama's vision, but in so doing they have made a bit of a mockery of their award. I'd love to hear what Obama said when he found out. Bet he thought it was a wind up too.
Complain about this comment
So Pres. Obama won a Nobel, good for him. The prize has never really ment all that much to me anyways, it just means hes the popular guy in Europe, which I conceed can be diplomatically useful. But, it's time to get back to Afghanistan and actually make the peace.
Complain about this comment
As a White House aide said earlier today 'It's not April 1, is it?'
He was nominated within 11 days of taking office.
What exactly did he 'achieve' apart from make a speech or two and back office admin?
If he'd turned it down, it would have made him look statesman like and modest - now he looks hubristic for achieving the square root of bugger all so far.
Complain about this comment
"The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson."
I hope David Trimble doesn't read this blog...
Complain about this comment
Here's a good post outlining Obama's credentials for winning the Nobel Peace prize from St Dom in the Ruscha blog.
Complain about this comment
There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama is a very good man indeed, but the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him is too early in my mind. In this respect the wider world was not even aware of him just a mere three years ago. I am not saying that he was not a worthy candidate, but where there are more worthy people in this life who indirectly save millions of lives, are completely unknown for their effects on global peace work and are therefore never considered for the Nobel Award. This is the dilemma hovering over the Nobel Peace Prize. Have those who have won the Prize saved more lives that anyone else through their actions? Unfortunately I have to say that at this point in time I doubt that Obama can enter into such an illustrious group of people who have literally saved more lives than any others in our world history.
I had the privilege to work with two of world’s most unknown celebrities who did indeed save millions of lives through their incredible work and where this work still saves millions every year all over the world. The first is the late Glenn Seaborg, the ‘father’ of the chemistry of Chemotherapy and initiator of the ‘Test Ban Treaty’ for Nuclear weapons. It is estimated that Seaborg through his chemistry and his creation of many of the chemical isotopes used in chemotherapy, has saved literally over 100 million human lives to date over the past 50-years alone. This has been through a cure or an extension of human life and where their loved ones have benefited through having these loved ones with them far longer than would have been the case without Seaborg’s incredible creativity. Many more millions of human lives ravaged by Cancer will be saved in the future and today. Indeed the number of people saved by the nuclear test ban initiation is incalculable, but one has to only think, where the world might be today without Seaborg’s initiative. Indeed, Nuclear war might well have happened already in our own lifetime.
The second person that I worked with was the late John Argyris, the modern-day inventor of the ‘Finite Element Method’. To put this great engineering achievement into perspective is hard to do for the layman, but where it has revolutionised global engineering design so much that we now have far safer cars, buildings, bridges, aeroplanes, dams, trains, and the list goes on. Indeed, without Argyris’s input for NASA’s pre-runner, the 1969 moon landing would never have happened and the space-shuttle may never have removed itself from planet Earth..
Adding to this today through Argyris’s revolutionary engineering work we live in a completely safer world and where his work has even spread into all the sciences, including physiology, where the minutest of stress in the human body can be detected and a patient’s life saved. Indeed, it is estimated again that Argyris has saved hundreds of millions through this far greater safety in structural design throughout the world, through buildings and dams et al not collapsing. But were these two great men of science and engineering who have saved literally millions and millions of lives ever considered by the Nobel Foundation for their Peace Prize by saving all these millions? No.
I therefore feel that the Nobel Prize as today belittles itself again, its real value and against those humanitarians who do truly deserve it.
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland
Complain about this comment
Mark,
"I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here. But in much of the rest of the world, Obama really is seen as a beacon of hope for a better future, a symbol of a more grown-up America. There was already a huge weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier."
You're totally right that the Republicans won't see this as anything but an undeserved award based on the fact that he's not George Bush, as aposed to how I presume most of the conservitives in every other democracy in the world see it as; a prestigious prize awarded someone whom though they may not like his policies per see, they realize that the award is much deserved due to their ambitious vision and dogged pursuit of a peaceful and safer world. What a shame!! More grone-up America? Not in the Republican party!!
The downside to winning this award, however, is that while yes he is seen as a beacon of hope in much of the world (a feat that in and of itself is damn near miraculous for an American president to achieve,) him having won this award only makes the potencial negative ramifications for screwing up and/or making mistakes all the greater. He'd really better A. not let it go to his head and B. concentrate three times as hard on not letting 7 billion people who's happyness in a sense rest in his hands down, if for no better reason than the sake of America's reputation for decades to come!!!
When it comes to America, the world is quick to anger, and slow to forgive.
Complain about this comment
informative and interesting article. I can't help thinking Obama may wish he hadn't received it though. It will, as you say, be a heavy weight around his neck.
btw "hubertgrove", I don't see this article as being particularly biased. It's a fact that conservatives are already sneering about this (take a quick look at the usual plethora of biased right-wing press websites) and it's a fact that for much of the world Obama is indeed a beacon of hope (polls frequently suggest this).
Complain about this comment
"Americans should be pleased that such an elite group of European thinkers is so consumed with passion about an American leader (not Obama, but Bush) that an American president could beat out every other candidate, whether European, African, socialist or dissident."
Alternatively, you've just confirmed the thoughts of the rest of the world: Bush was so bad that any next American president could beat out every other candidate, whether European, African, socialist or dissident!
Complain about this comment
I think that Obama is beginning to be seen as not living up to expectations, although a great improvement on his predecessor. However, it is quite farcical to have awarded him the Nobel prize, nominations for which had to be made within, I believe, 11 days of his taking office. The prizes are strange bedfellows, those for scientific studies clearly being much more easily assessed on a factual basis than those for nebulous ideals. Even so, this must rank as one of the dafter awards made in the last 50 years.
Complain about this comment
Noble price is becoming a joke now! How can a person who has been in office for 9 months receive a noble prize? What has he done in 9 months except for bailing out the banks?
Complain about this comment
superbright-eyedRose (#14) "What is Obama getting this award for? Have I missed something?"
Here is a link to the press release from the Nobel committee: Nobel press release
While the nomination was made at the very start of Obama's presidency, it is clear that the committee has taken into account events during his term to date.
Complain about this comment
27. At 4:32pm on 09 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Jesus Christ move over. Saint Barack Obama, the American rock superstar will be sitting beside you. You may be king of kings but you are not king of Presidents, at least not of this President of the United States of America."
______
LOL.
Even though I knew this was coming, Marcus you have not disappointed.
Complain about this comment
I was wondering Why Mahatma Gandhi was not awared Nobel Peace Prize. Now I feel that Gandhi was much beyond the Nobel Peace Prize. It's for Politicians.
Complain about this comment
I'm not saying Obama deserves the award (considering Afghanistan, Pakistan, detention policies, etc.), but the conservative sneerers really are out of touch with the rest of the world. These idiots really believe that simply by being vocal enough they can alter reality to make it so that Obama really was born in Kenya. We need less conservatives in this world.
Complain about this comment
colonelBULLartist;
If there was one scintilla of doubt that the Noble Peace Prize is worthless tripe, awarding it to Yassir Arafat was the most damning possible proof dispelling the last shred of it. Subsequent to signing the Oslo accords, Mr. Arafat proved with every action he took for the rest of his life that he remained a terrorist at heart as dedicated to the destruction of Israel as anyone else in Palestine or the rest of the Islamic World. A most telling moment came when after every one of his demands had been substantially met in 2000 at the peace conference conducted by President Clinton, he suddenly brought up a new demand for the right of return of up to five million Arab refugees to Israel in what would clearly have been a demographic weapon to destroy it. When that demand was not immediately met too, he walked out of the talks and called for a second "intifada" a code word for a war of terror against the Israeli people.
Complain about this comment
"23. At 4:14pm on 09 Oct 2009, YaMolodets wrote:
"Obama's foreign policy direction isn't much different from Bill Clinton’s. What’s changed? George Bush was between them; and we all know how hated Bush was by the Europeans (and “intellectuals,” and European intellectuals). The Nobel committee is just finding another way—like when they awarded the prize a couple of years ago to that bumbler Jimmy Carter—to stick it to George.
Americans should be pleased that such an elite group of European thinkers is so consumed with passion about an American leader (not Obama, but Bush) that an American president could beat out every other candidate, whether European, African, socialist or dissident."
________
Another predictable reaction, but expected from somebody else.
Generally speaking, the anti-European, anti-poncy-French hairdresser (as the West Wing put it) platform has in the past been the specialty of our old friend MAII, who has articulated that viewpoint with great vigour.
Are you perhaps related to Marcus in some way?
Complain about this comment
I think he has given hope to many people. The little people. People who don't usually have a voice unless they unite, and hope helps them to unite. The little people usually don't want war, they just want clean water, food, shelter and a decent job. The griping will come from the other side, like the wealthy who could provide clean water equipment for an entire third world nation for what it cost them to furnish their luxury second vacation homes.
Complain about this comment
oops sorry the nominations for nobel prize were filed when obama was two weeks into his presidency
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
Complain about this comment
People are unreasonable,illogical and self-centred:
Love them anyway!
If you do good,people will accuse you of selfish motives:
Do good anyway!
If you`re successful,you will win false friends and true enemies:
Succeed anyway!
The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow:
Do good any way!
Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable:
Be honest and frank any way!
The biggest people with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest people with the smallest minds:
Think big anyway!
People favour underdogs but follow only top dogs:
Fight for some under dogs anyway!
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight:
Build anyway!
People need help but may attack if you help them:
Help them anyway!
Give the world the best you`ve got and you will get kicked in the teeth:
Give the world the best you`ve got anyway!
Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway,By Susan Jeffers.
Don`t stop Mr Obama.
Complain about this comment
ref 21. colonelartist
But I love those drones and their incursions into Pakistan to kill al Qaeda terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I've got to ask you, what is this obsession with the phrase "reach out?" You've sighted it twice already when describing our efforts to befriend current and potencial enemies. How is "reach out" a strictly American term? It has no refference to American sport(S), music or traditions. Its not like the phrase "step up to the plate," a refference to baseball meaning to get something done, or "walk the walk and talk the talk," I believe which has its roots in American gang life and which means do what you say you'll do. So what is so "American" about "reach out?" The British don't use that phrase? What phrase do the British use to indicate...well...reaching out to one's enemies? "Extending a hand?" "Dialog?" "Turning a page?"
I'm an ignorant yank. Will you please educate me?
Complain about this comment
If Yasser Arafat and Le Duc-tho could get it why not Mr. Obama?
Just because he hasn't caught Mr. Osama? In Tora-Bora or Bora Bora?
Or hasn't managed to put an end to North Korea's and Iran's nuclear arms programs?
Complain about this comment
Just three points: 1. Remember he did not ask for this. I suspect that no-one is more surprised than he is himself - he has acknowledged this in his statement.
2.Read the citation - is there anything in it that isn't true?
3. Many congratulations to him, and I know he will do his utmost to carry out his intentions. I do worry, though,about the pressure this will put on him.
Complain about this comment
davidstuarthill (#36), I agree with you about the importance of Glenn Seaborg's contributions, but he did receive the Nobel Prize for chemistry.
His work for the nuclear test ban treaty might have justified a second prize, for peace. Was he nominated for this?
Complain about this comment
Well it seems like the people giving the award out were a hell of a lot smarter than the posters here.
He got it for making an attempt at and doing pretty good at stoppingthe world jumping on the water slide of death that GW tried to take us down.
He has stated this is no crusade.
What morans say " what has he done?"
He has said "enough" to Israel ( which is one reason he gets so much crap from so many americans).
And has accepted America made mistakes.
If there are attacks on american soil now they are not attacks against him they are attacks based on the crazy years as they will get called.
the years of Bush and the crusades he started.
what part of getting Peace and the environment is not worthy of the award.
But then they are the Birthers teapartiers the same that have said nasty things about him since he appeared on the scene.
Sad desperately pathetic right wing nut jobs will deride thus and look past the real attempts and gestures ( diplomacy is all about gestures you dweeb heads) that have shown so many that they should be able to trust him in order to harp on about the economy.
Economics is another battle.
not one that can be won without having all his side on board.( thyat means You yopu GOP that took votes for your war but will not help vote for our peace.
shame the idiot tea party people can't see that or the reason why he was given this prize.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Wayne Rooney can win the Nobel Peace Prize one next year...for doing nothing whatsoever to promote world peace.
Complain about this comment
"France has arrested a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) for suspected links with al-Qaeda, officials have said.
The 32-year-old man of Algerian descent was one of two brothers detained in the south-east town of Vienne on Thursday.
Police believe they had been in contact over the internet with people linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and had been planning attacks in France.
Cern's Large Hadron Collider is aiming to recreate conditions of the Big Bang." [BBC World Service]
Perhaps that's the guy who should have received a Nobel Peace prize?
Just for trying to stage another Big Bang?
Complain about this comment
colonelartist thanks for pointing out that people from Middle East have also won Nobles Big Deal.And your comparisons of nuclear bomb dropped by my Great Grandparents(by the way USA rebuilt Japan from rubble) and Army Drowns are as silly as Southern Politicians arguments in State Congresses.Afghan and Iraqis aren't being neglected because USA isn't there parental figure.You can't neglect what isn't yours,they aren't citizens of the US and even if it brought more freedoms and financial support I don't think they would want to be territory.They have their own Governments before and now forming after our temporary occupation.Those 2 countries will be better places when they want them to be better places.Americans will supply the resources those countries need but,the decisions on how to use them is up to themselves.We can only weed out Middle Eastern Terrorists who are entering the borders of a foreign country to attack Westerners in Afghanistan and Iraq because they are to cowardly to do in own countries like Saudi Arabia,etc...Because they don't want to involved their own citizens in an attack or loose money on their Oil profits.They are more guilty using neighboring countries to fight.Why don't they go home to there own country and let Afghan and Iraqis figure it out on their own.And what does any of this have to do with President Obama getting a Noble.
Complain about this comment
52 I couldn't possibly disagree with your penultimate sentence .
Complain about this comment
tkrishnakant (#44) "I was wondering Why Mahatma Gandhi was not awared Nobel Peace Prize."
Gandhi was nominated five times and might have been awarded it had he lived longer. The Peace Prize is awarded only to living persons (and organizations).
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Here's the problem. While Obama has amost worthwhile vision, there is the republican cabalist/think tank/militarist/industrial complex dark side of the US to contend with. It is extremely powerful and will never surrender itself to the the world unless and until global power shifts and there comes a new 'balance'.
When Ike Eisenhower gave his thank you & good night speech warning about militarism and the industrial complex let's suppose for a moment, this was actually a green light code for a go ahead to create all mentioned in this speech. The mind-set then in the 50s would have had it no other way. It springs to mind the dislike between Eisenhower and JJK. Eisenhower referred to JFK as 'little boy blue' with all its idealistic and impractical connotations, and JFK referred to Eisenhower in more graphic terms referring to his aged nether regions. The Eisenhower speech is on the internet for all to read - and it has transpired.
Now, has anything changed? We have a similar situation. Obama playing an idealistic round table player with the constant threat of diehard neo-con republicans utilising religious & nationalistic avenues to maintain this ever-powerful thread that continues to run throughout the US. It's to a certain extent in the gene pool of US history when immigrants landed, the hardiest staked their claims and wanted no local or foreign interference. I sincerely hope that Obama shall accomplish good and within a mere 2 terms but the ugly beast may rise again.
Complain about this comment
Obama will collect his award on the 10th December in Oslo, not too far away from the climate change conference in Copenhagen that is on at the same time (7/12 to 18/12).
Maybe this is a subtle attempt to make sure that he attends and uses his 'aura' to help set down proper targets to tackle climate change. The Nobel prize committee gave the same award to Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007 after all.
Complain about this comment
Can'tGetADateNohow;
"I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here. But in much of the rest of the world, Obama really is seen as a beacon of hope for a better future,"
More than likely this light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of an oncoming train. Weakness by American presidents in the face of aggression and threats has never brought peace, always war. This time will be no different. In all probability, perceived weakness will embolden America's enemies until they go so far that America's government will have no choice but to retaliate. Americans are getting sick and tired of seeing their leaders restrain their military's actions and demand that they fight with one hand tied behind their backs to appease world public opinion. What is the point of American taxpayers spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined if its government will not use it effectively when it has to be used at all? In Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and everywhere else America has put its troops in harms way, fight to win or get out. Stop trying to win hearts and minds, start trying to win wars by finding and killing the enemy.
Complain about this comment
Oh and as for the two weeks rubbish for nomination.
He had already shown what he was about by then.
Rev wright and all the other "scandals"
by preventing the USA going into civil war over the palinesque thinking of the right (and hillery) with those words of unity and conciliation.
Before he made it to president he had prevented a civil war.
So just give up.
Complain about this comment
My hypothesis about why Gandhi did not receive it was wrong. The rule against posthumous awards was adopted in 1974. Dag Hammarskjold was awarded the Peace Prize after his death.
Complain about this comment
To #44
Gandhi died before he could be awarded the prize, otherwise he would have almost certainly received it in 1947. The Nobel committee does not award posthumous prizes.
And sorry to disillusion you, but Gandhi was a highly political individual. His salt march, ideas of non-violent protest etc. were pure political genius and completely transformed freedom movements everywhere, inspiring people in distant shores (from India) such as Nelson Mandela and Dr Martin Luther King, and even a certain President Obama, who keeps a picture of Mahathma Gandhi in his office.
Does Obama deserve this particular prize? Well, since he came to office, he has managed to put some sanity and confidence back into the world economy, he has returned America to its rightful place in the world, he has generally secured global support for his initiatives in Afghanistan / Iraq and most of all, he has restored hope to humanity. All that certainly deserves a prize (!), but I must agree, it's probably a bit early for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I hope this prize spurs him on to try harder to reach the lofty goals he has set himself and confirm the high hopes most of the rest of us have in him.
Complain about this comment
eddyrapide wrote:
I'm not saying Obama deserves the award (considering Afghanistan, Pakistan, detention policies, etc.), but the conservative sneerers really are out of touch with the rest of the world. These idiots really believe that simply by being vocal enough they can alter reality to make it so that Obama really was born in Kenya. We need less conservatives in this world.
What we need is less intolerance for other points of view; which Obamaphiles are notorious for.
Complain about this comment
Oh so finally found out why the Peace Prize is given - Not for ACTUALLY striving to produce peace, BUT saying PEACE alot. Cool. Just a warning I am comitted to speaking about peace twice a day for the next year so vote for me.
Complain about this comment
"The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson."
I hope David Trimble doesn't read this blog..
--
Why? Last time I looked Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom not Great Britain? Hence the name, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain *and* Northern Ireland" ?
Complain about this comment
Had say, Morgan Tsvangirai been chosen I could understand. Obama seems to embody an idea and a noble one yet I always though the award was for actions and achievements. That said the Peace Prize committee are not always known for their detachment. For all the genuinely justified recipients there are many others like Gore, who are just the current fad. As observed in the blog it really adds more pressure but they can hardly ask for it back if he doesn't come up to the mark.
Complain about this comment
MAII wrote:
"... In Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and everywhere else America has put its troops in harms way, fight to win or get out..."
You forgot to mention how America has helped us to rid the world of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... or was it to just confirm that Saddam was a lot of hot air and didn't have any ... help me out please!
I think you would find America generally safer from external threats with a few more friends than a few fewer ... or perhaps you know better?
Complain about this comment
It's not just to be expected to be "a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here". There's even more reason for any anti-imperialist peace activists to be more than a little perturbed by it all, too. This media fabrication that Obama is somehow a man of the left can only be sustained in a country as skewed right as Amerika. While an imperial conservative like Obama goes on bombing the crap out of peasant villages in Afghanistan and starving Palestinians, some establishment armchair committee in Oslo gives him an award for it! The only bigger travesty of peace picking was giving this tarnished award to an unabashed war criminal like Kissinger. That 'Peace (sic) Prize' was unconscionable, this latest award is a farce.
Complain about this comment
#23 Ya
Obama's foreign policy direction isn't much different from Bill Clinton’s. What’s changed?
Obama's foreign policy is nothing like Clinton's. Clinton very quickly resorted to international violence to prove he was 'tough'. Have you forgotten Sudan, the almost daily bombings on Iraq, and the so-called 'humanitarian intervention' in Bosnia to name but three.
Complain about this comment
Why is anyone surprised at St. Obama getting the 'I'm not George W. Bush' Prize?
They awarded one to Gore for telling his scary faerie tales.
Complain about this comment
I think everyone should be nice to each other - not fussed about the medal but can you send the million quid to my numbered Swiss account.
Nominated within days of taking office - the C-in-C of the American military waging two wars currently with the odd noises about Iran, North Korea.
Peace prize - when does the Beatification take place ?
Complain about this comment
Should we not wait for specific results before handing out such a price. Obama might deserve it one day, but let's see. Good intentions are not enough. Nobel is not Noble anymore.
Complain about this comment
If there was one scintilla of doubt that the Noble Peace Prize is worthless tripe, awarding it to Yassir Arafat was the most damning possible proof dispelling the last shred of it. Subsequent to signing the Oslo accords, Mr. Arafat proved with every action he took for the rest of his life that he remained a terrorist at heart as dedicated to the destruction of Israel as anyone else in Palestine or the rest of the Islamic World.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A man who believed in extreme measure against an extreme occupation led by people who refused to even see his existance, signed a peace deal..That was the best moment..The nobel prize is for such occassions and people, not for presidents with a vision and no practical record..What has he done for peace. The pre/emptive mentality has now moved from wars to the nobel prize. Its like giving graduation degree to a first year student..The man doesnt deserve it. And just because someone disagree with neo/cons or conservatives or taliban and since they condemn it, you should automatically support it..You have to view this objectively taking into accounts the criteria for such medal and then decide if he deserved it or not. Its not Obama\s prestige thats at stakes , but that of Nobel peace prize.
Complain about this comment
Although at first sight Obama seems to have achieved little in terms of world peace, perhaps the Nobel Committee are looking at a longer term picture.
Many previous winners have simply been signatories to this or that treaty which may or may not have lasted in terms of its effects.
In this award Obama is being identified as showing a strategic desire for world peace, and by slow and steady diplomacy should go a long way to achieving it.
Several American posters suggest that it may not be compatible with his role as c-in-c of the US armed forces, but this is disingenuous. Obama is in a position internationally to influence events across the world, not just in one small arena. The error is to expect results mmediately.
For me the problem is that the US is too polarised at the moment and many people will not think through to the logical conclusion .... that this is an honour for the entire USA - after all Americans voted him into office.
It is not a snub at Bush - it is a positive aspiration for the future, and if it lends Obama greater influence in the dreary slow world of diplomacy thn so much the better for all of us.
No one on the planet is in a similar position of influence on the future peace of the world. Accepting the prize does not mean he has to put away all the US war toys - he just may use them more carefully now.
And other major powers have an impartial recommendation that he is serious about peace, in a way that his predecessor was not.
Peace is not about a treaty here or there, but about laying the foundations for a world of countries that will talk to each other rather than fight. It may be a dream, but if no one dreams it then we are doomed to constant conflict.
Complain about this comment
And not matter what everyone says, I deserve it more than Obama, I have vision for peace..which is even better than him. Every tom dick and harry has that vision.
Complain about this comment
Well sadly, we all know how Billo the Clown, El-Rushbo, and Glen "lonesome roads" Beck (all names given out by Former Sportscenter Anchor Kieth Olbermen) are going to respond to the Presidents winning the Nobel Prize. They are going to become anti Nobel Prize, just because the President won the award. They are going to say how can they award the prize to a country that is currently fighting two wars. Well they forget one thing, those wars were started by George W, Bush. A man who had no interest in world peace. Barak Obama inherited these wars. He did not start them.
Complain about this comment
68 magic
"What we need is less intolerance for other points of view; which Obamaphiles are notorious for."
If you'd left out the last phrase I'd have been with you 100%.
However if you're going to tar Obama's supporters with the brush of intolerance, then at least add in a few other groups .... like the former Bush adherents (with us or against us ; unamerican etc).
Or you give the lie to your comment.
Complain about this comment
Come to think of it, the Motivater of Iraq war in UN, colin powell was much better candidate than obama. The congresswomen who voted against the afghanistan attack, the only person to stand up against war, was a perfect candidate. Tony Blair was somewhat better than Obama. The saudi king, is far more better candidate. The people of afghanistan who are putting up with Obama\s war deserve it more than him.Imagine if they just get tied of all this forced war on them and decided to break all boundries..
Complain about this comment
80. colonelartist wrote:
"And not matter what everyone says, I deserve it more than Obama, I have vision for peace..which is even better than him. Every tom dick and harry has that vision."
I don't know Tom or Harry, but Dick didn't seem much of a fan of peace to me - even on his vacations he shot people!
Re Obama's and you own vision for peace - who is in a better position to do something about it?
Complain about this comment
PatrickPoorSinger
"help me out please!"
Okay, walk through that door, walk to the top of the stairs, close your eyes, open the door, and walk fifty paces straight ahead ............................. Oh, and watch out for that first step after the parapet, it's a lulu. (Wonder if he heard that last part. Oh well.)
Now who do you suppose put the notion that Iraq had WMDs into President Bush's head? Could it have been MI5 with their Dodgy Dossier? Putin who warned Iraq was planning to attack America on its own soil? The Director of the CIA George Tenet who was a holdover from the Clinton Administration who told him it was a slam dunk? Or do you suppose he just got it into his head all by himself?
Pat, America doesn't have any friends and never really did. It would like to delude itself into thinking it does but with the kinds of friends America has, it doesn't need enemies. One advantage of the war in Iraq was that some countries we thought were our friends revealed themselves for what they actually were. Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg immediately come to mind. America was far better off when it remained isolated. If nothing else, it knew where it stood.
Complain about this comment
@20(A00S): You are more on track, I believe, than you know. Much of the current instinctive hatred demonstrated now by both left and right in this country appears to be the result of actions and reactions that stretch back at least 44 years, with some roots extending back to the 1930s and 1950s. Your reference to Carter and his time in office is a part of that, but only a part. This has been building for a long time; I fear it may escalate still further.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
I have great goals, too. Why didn't I get a prize?
Complain about this comment
#42 Gh
Thanks for the Nobel website link.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.
Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
Barak Obama inherited these wars. He did not start them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats not a criteria for nobel prize. Now if he had stopped those war, that would be something else. This award has taken the concept of pre-emtivenmess from war to peace. Or norwegians just wanted to create an excuse to have him visit it...I am sure Obama would never have visited oslo otherwise as a president..
Complain about this comment
Discussion questions:
1. Will this award influence any of his ongoing decisions as Commander in Chief?
2. Did his awareness of the short-listing of his name before October 2 influence his decision to travel for the first time to Scandinavia(Denmark) on October 2, to campaign for...for...for Chicago?
3. Will he donate the financial prize to the Acorn Fraud Defence Fund?
4. Does the award constitute a rather blatant attempt to buy influence of future American foreign policy decisions, and as such constitute Norwegian interference in America's internal affairs?
5. Is Iran now safe from an American strike?
Complain about this comment
83 colonel
"The people of afghanistan who are putting up with Obama\s war"
What planet were you on from Oct 2001 - Jan 2009?
Words fail me. In what way is this Obama's war?
Complain about this comment
Why should anyone be rewarded for something they intend to do? You go by that logic, I intend to write the next classic novel, so where's my Nobel Prize for literature? I expect it in tomorrows mail.
What none of the liberals on this site will admit is George W Bush did more in 8 years to help eradicate AIDS in Africa than any other President.
Marcus, give up trying to change any minds on a BBC blog. It's not their active duty military children over in Afghanistan being ignored and not given the supplies they need. It isn't their tax dollars being blithely given away like so much Monopoly money. And I beg to differ with whomever stated the 1.5 trillion dollar budget is not Obamas fault. Falsehoods. The stimulus package and the government buyout of General Motors racked up the majority of it. Now throw in another trillion for healthcare reform. Our great grandchildren will be working until they drop dead, and the money still won't be paid back. The looters will always take from the producers if they can get away with it. And they have. And there can be an earthquake in Chile in 2109, and that will be George Bush' fault also.
Complain about this comment
" The error is to expect results mmediately."
The error is to make the award without any results.
I am not American, but a peace prize sits uncomfortably with the concept of C-in-C. who is bound by Oath to defend the USA.
Quite how that squares with invading other countries escapes me and even if the unstable Bush started them - I still see the body bags coming home and it will be the American peoples revulsion at the cost both financially and in human terms that will change things just like Vietnam.
The US is engaged in an unwinnable war in Afganistan - the Russians failed after 10 years and without the constraints of democracy.
You cannot award "achievement" prizes on rhetoric. Where is the peace in "still" being involved in 2 major theatres and dangerous posturing over Iran and North Korea ?
Complain about this comment
27. At 4:32pm on 09 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII
You are totally missing the point here. If the push by President Obama to work with the world as an equal partner succeeds, we win. If the push fails, then we can clobber the daylights out of anybody with impunity because all we have to do is point out that Obama tried to reach out and they spat in his face. We win, with a license to kill. Either way, this is a wonderful long term development for the US and its allies. The only difference if Obama fails is that many more people will die. I personally hope he succeeds.
Complain about this comment
Obama's and you own vision for peace - who is in a better position to do something about it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That which hasnt happened , hasnt happened..If i were the president than I would have acheived my vision, so I deserve it more..Just because I am not in a position to do anything doesnt make any difference.. Its an award for vision not acheivment..I deserved it.Anglina Joli has done more she deserve it, after me.Obama was noone until last year and would not have won this prize if he had lost the elections..He is the president. His job is to work for peace..he gets paid for it. and gets all the perks as well. His prize is presidentship. Now he should be a true gentleman and tell the committee to give prize to someone else atleast til he has shown something concrete, or risk being the worst winner of nobel prize.
Complain about this comment
#65 Fluffy
Yes, well remembered. People forget his calls for unity and conciliation during a very divisive Presidential Election as well.
#79 Stu
Yes I think the Nobel Committee are looking at the big picture. Channel 4 news here in the UK has just shown pictures from the G20 summit in London with Obama joking with the Russian president, and video of his speech at the UN talking about a nuclear weapon free world. In the scheme of things these events are huge.
#81 Sportfan
I bet those right wing pundits weren't complaining when Kissinger won the peace prize. What did he do to win the prize again?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
67 Ghandi wasn't first to use non violence protest.Hunger strikes were used by Irish to Protest being thrown off land during Potato famine they would die on or near land Lords properties.American women also used non-violence and hunger strikes as well.When men started to throw rocks and bottles and beating Women,the women were sent to jail,they then had a hunger strike in jail which got them further support eventually they got the right to vote.
Complain about this comment
87. Guns
Good to hear from you. Liked your poem on the other thread.
As for your goals, I believe that is the Maurice Richard trophy.
Complain about this comment
97
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Too bad, it was one of the funniest ones I ever wrote. I guess the moderators thought it was too sophisticated for this audience.
Complain about this comment
What planet were you on from Oct 2001 - Jan 2009?
Words fail me. In what way is this Obama's war?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other places, the place where obama is waging war. Its not me, but obama who is sending drones in pakistan..if thats peace then I have completely misunderstood the word peace. or you and I have two different meanings about the word peace.As long as he doesnt stop the war, its his war.
Complain about this comment
Re 96,
YOu are right about Doctor Kissenger, he really didn't deserve the prize for peace. Yes he negoitated the end of the Vietnam War, but at the same time he gave aid to Augusto Pinoche and his overthrow of the democratically elected marxist government in Chile.
Complain about this comment
95 The President's job is not to make World peace.It is to carry out and enforce Congress' decisions,which are Representatives of the American people without going against the Constitution or other documents approved by Congress,signed by president,and announced constitutional by Supreme Court.
Complain about this comment
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not internation politics, but bilateral relations between usa and europe, between russia and usa. Its not as if Obama has finally recognized the importance of hamas the more truely elected representatives than his ally, karzai. Its not as if he has finally realised that he cannot force pakistan to defend american interests.Its not as if he has said that dead or alive, we will talk and he has not given ressurance to iranians that military force would never be used..its not as if he has lifted sanctions on iran, burma. As far as nuclear weapons are conscerned americans have used it, they have developed even more harmful ways to wage wars and it can defend from any incoming atom missile..In 20th century they used it, now they have no use for it so he can have vision of nuclear free world..But lets see if russia, china or india or that matter israel or france accepts his vision..Its just a vision, Luther king had a dream, fast forward, obama gets visions..In good old days vision was just limited to prophets..now every tom dick and harry can claim to have visions..
Complain about this comment
Angelina Jolie,right when she decides to give her own money away instead of a foundation to give others people money away or trying to get American tax money to pay for poverty of others instead of Americans than maybe.
Complain about this comment
85 - MAII
"Now who do you suppose put the notion that Iraq had WMDs into President Bush's head? Could it have been MI5 with their Dodgy Dossier? Putin who warned Iraq was planning to attack America on its own soil? The Director of the CIA George Tenet who was a holdover from the Clinton Administration who told him it was a slam dunk? Or do you suppose he just got it into his head all by himself?"
Or maybe he was just looking for an excuse to prove himself to his daddy and was willing to believe any rubbish fed to him by anybody, even if some of his own advisors were advising to the contrary. Who knows? I don't, that's for sure, but I daresay you don't either.
I am from Singapore and currently live in Belgium. Singapore joined the coalition in Iraq being a long-term friend of the US. Belgium did not. From the way events turned out, I know which country feels more comfortable right now with the decisions made then.
Stay isolated if you like but I think America's finest moments, and the times when the rest of us have truly looked up to the American ideal, has been when America was engaged. Or perhaps you don't believe that being victorious in 2 World Wars and being a founder member of the United Nations were fine moments for the US?
Whoops, forgot - Democrat Presidents had those achievements and you would have trouble acknowledging that, wouldn't you?
Complain about this comment
Ref 2, Gavrielle
"The conservative talking heads are already sneering."
They are in good company, the Taleban is too.
Complain about this comment
Angelina Jolie,right when she decides to give her own money away instead of a foundation to give others people money away or trying to get American tax money to pay for poverty of others instead of Americans than maybe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atleast she visited refugee camps of afghans..and didnt make any "surprise visits" like thieves. And as if obama will pay to have all those peaceful meetings with all those non-peaceful people he will meet..Everything will be covered by the american state..Nothing from his own pocket.
Complain about this comment
Ref 10, Magic
"Even CNN can't find justification"
I heard on NPR this morning that a Taleban spokesman also voiced outrage and disagreed with the decision.
If CNN does not think proposing nuclear disarmament, stopping the provocative deployment of missile sites in Eastern Europe, getting Russia's support to end the Iranian nuclear crisis and actually getting concessions from a regime that had been intransigent until now, getting China's Premier to travel to North Korea to push for nuclear disarmament, ending torture, and announcing the upcoming closure of Gitmo are not enough to justify awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, perhaps the Nobel committee should recall all previous awards and re-write their criterion before new ones are given.
This should be a time for all Americans to be proud, instead we read posts from the far right denigrating a U.S. President that has earned the respect of most of the world and taking sides with the terrorist organizations that we are, purportedly, fighting.
Let's hope their endorsement of the Taleban position on this issue does not extend to other matters...
Complain about this comment
John Boyd-Orr won it in 1949. Guess since he was Scottish he doesn't count as a British winner.
Complain about this comment
But I love those drones and their incursions into Pakistan to kill al Qaeda terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name how many alqaida terrorists were killed and prove that they were alqaida and then count the number of civilians killed..Pakistan is not occupied palestine and america is not israel..both the countries are independent and violating another country's soverginty is not acceptable according to UN of which both usa and pakistan are member.Its strange that people who want the world to respect their country could at the same time support such incursions of their own country against another..Here I would like to remind you, that usa was the country which used to cry out how soviet union violates the laws everytine it sent its planes to very same areas back in the good old days of afghan soviet war..
Complain about this comment
As the nominations went in (I'm led to believe), in february---Can someone explain how aspirations before Obama uses the first loo roll constitute qualification to a NPP?
Complain about this comment
If CNN does not think proposing nuclear disarmament, stopping the provocative deployment of missile sites in Eastern Europe, getting Russia's support to end the Iranian nuclear crisis and actually getting concessions from a regime that had been intransigent until now, getting China's Premier to travel to North Korea to push for nuclear disarmament, ending torture, and announcing the upcoming closure of Gitmo are not enough to justify awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, perhaps the Nobel committee should recall all previous awards and re-write their criterion before new ones are given.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything he has proposed it to safeguard the interests of europe and america..nothing to do with world peace..All nobel commitee needs to do is to recheck the criteria and see if obama fulfills any..There is no gaurantee that he will not find a way to persue the war.
Complain about this comment
I'm not about to sneer about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, but I think it would have been more fitting had it come after peace had been achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a sinking feeling that Pres. Obama may be so awed and distracted by this award that he forgets his duties as president.
The question remains: Will he rest on his laurels? Or will he work wholeheartedly in the next three (or seven) years to get the troops all home in a way that doesn't leave a power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I sincerely hope for the latter. Even though those wars were in no way my fault (I was 15 when G. W. Bush got his second term) I feel sick every time I hear that more people have died there. If the American media emphasized the deaths of Iraqis and Afghans to the same degree that they emphasize deaths of Americans, I believe there would be far fewer Americans who support prophylactic wars.
Complain about this comment
he was nominated two weeks into presidency and the nobel committee accepted his nomination? They somehow could forsee the future that obama will abort the anti missile shield, that he will ask russians to interefer in iran in return, that he will declare in martin luther king style, his vision of nuclear free world..pre-emptiveness of the highest order..
Complain about this comment
I will gladly pay you peace tomorrow for a Nobel prize today. Or was that a hamburger?
Complain about this comment
I'm not about to sneer about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, but I think it would have been more fitting had it come after peace had been achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a sinking feeling that Pres. Obama may be so awed and distracted by this award that he forgets his duties as president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I am telling you you can sneer all you can without feeling guilty. Such moments are rare, when someone provides with an opportunity on a silver plater than you have the right to do so..You have a sinking feeling that he will be distracted and I have this horrible feeling that he has been given a soft cushion. He can now be as unreasonable as george bush and in fact even more and blame the failure on the others..Its the opponents who will be seen as not peaceful no matter how reasonable they may be..Pre-emptiveness is never good..not when its form of war and not when its in the form of awards.
Complain about this comment
IF, likewise. If I made a living out of playing a game where the
object is to beat people up with sticks and keep score, then I
would be happy to just survive and cash my paycheck, much less
receive an award.
Complain about this comment
I don't yet know the president's immediate reaction but the official one is that he is "humbled".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president's reaction should be that he is "Embarassed".
Complain about this comment
The dead line to receive nominees: the letter must be postmarked ist january...Someone sent Obama's nomination between 20th of januray-1st feb. The short list of nominees takes place between feb and march. where the comittee assess the work of the nominee. Which were the criteria he was short listed for? not the anti missile shield, not for persuading russia to talk to iran, and not for persuading china to talk to north korea. So there must be some mysterious invisible criteria which only committee members could see.
Complain about this comment
# 85 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Pat, America doesn't have any friends and never really did."
Not for the first time, and, I am sure, not for the last, MAII is confusing America with MAII....
Complain about this comment
To: Marcus
As a Catholic a can say to you that according to Matthew 10 verse 34, Jesus Christ was firmly on your side I quote:- Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword - and so on. His followers have been wielding said sword with vigour ever since.
We could still do without the rants though.
Complain about this comment
To. SingaporeExpat and al.
Gandi did not want peace as you say. His one aim was to get the British out of India. He was prepared to use any means to do so, including inviting the Imperial Japanese Army into India. This is way he was interned by the British, not surprisingly.
The irony was that India was promised independence in return for Indians fighting against the Japanese. Britain, to her credit honoured this pledge. Unlike that given to the Vietnamese by the French, but that is another story.
Complain about this comment
I would suggest that "The Audacity of Hope" will command a very stiff price in terms of failed peace, political quagmires, and ruined lives. This type of Tinkerbell-ish "Wishing Upon A Star" is lunacy tempered with idiocy at best.
Complain about this comment
115. At 9:06pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
he was nominated two weeks into presidency and the nobel committee accepted his nomination? They somehow could forsee the future that obama will abort the anti missile shield, that he will ask russians to interefer in iran in return, that he will declare in martin luther king style, his vision of nuclear free world..pre-emptiveness of the highest order.."
Presumably nomination is not the same as getting the award. Among the considerations would be who else has been nominated and how keen the members of the committee were on Obama.
The award is presumably not given simply because he became president of the US.
Complain about this comment
118 Guns:
Well, we don't usually let the score-keeper have a stick.
Publius, Time-waits, and I all love the game. People sometimes think the game is violent, but it isn't when played for recreation. We are, after all, a peaceful people, like our good Scandinavian friends.
It's exhilarating. It's about feeling the cold night air in your face as you race down the wing, fend off the defenseman, roof it over the goalie's stick-side shoulder, and then glide back, gasping for breath, waiting to stop the next rush.
It's about the sound of blades carving ice. The way your toes burn when you take the blades off. The incredible, beautiful, magic sound of the snow squeaking under your feet as you walk home in the dark, the clear night sky full of stars, the air still, -25C.
Oh, there never was a better game.
Complain about this comment
85. At 7:26pm on 09 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
PatrickPoorSinger
"help me out please!"
"
Now who do you suppose put the notion that Iraq had WMDs into President Bush's head? Could it have been MI5 with their Dodgy Dossier? Putin who warned Iraq was planning to attack America on its own soil? The Director of the CIA George Tenet who was a holdover from the Clinton Administration who told him it was a slam dunk? Or do you suppose he just got it into his head all by himself?"
Oh dear we seem to have forgotten Bush buddy Karl Rove and Dicky Cheyney not to mention Ruination Rumsfled.
You can see it - "sign here George and you can go to bed, easy war, big parade, elections in the bag."
Complain about this comment
Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew maybe right when he quoted jesus quote, but the bible has taken it out of context...What jesus was saying noone should think that his message would be received with open hands and that his message would divide people and those opposed to him will take up swords against him..The catholics have misunderstood this quote..when they picked up sword they did what jesus said his enemies would do..the Romans..I will not say anything about the catholics and their headquarter in Rome and this history of their popes. I am basically afraid of the catholics and their swords.
Complain about this comment
Well it didn't take long for El Rushbo to respond to the News that the President won the Nobel Prize:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910090048
Personally I find his comments disturbing. This is the same man who would question other peoples patriotism when they didn't agree with President Bush. Now who is looking unpatriotic Mr. Limbaugh.
This is what disturbs me about the extreme right in this country. THey are perfectly willing to question the patriotism of others, when it is usually their Patriotism that should be questioned.
Btw, Mr. Mardell I think you would do your readers in Europe a public service conducting interviews with some prominant members of the American Media such as Kieth Olberman and Bill O'Reilly. It would give people an idea of the variety of opinions that exist in this country. It would allow your readership the chance to form its own opinion. You could even post these interviews right here on this blog.
Complain about this comment
I find the whole this most unconvincing. The citation appears to me to be for aiming to undo the damage done to the USA and her standing around the world by President Bush and the Neo Cons.
I have two problems with this:
The policy aims of the American Government are for that Government alone. The President is answerable to Congress and ultimately the American people and nobody else except by Treaty obligations.
I personally doubt whether President Obama has the necessary streak of tough ruthlessly to drive though these policies. My guess, and I hope I am wrong, is that you have got a Hoover and not an FDR or better still a Harry Truman. Quote - If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
#67
What evidence have you got to support that Gandhi would have certainly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 when he was assasinated in 1948. It does not quite make sense? But again where is the evidence that he would have won it in 1948 as he had been nominated 5 times and basicaly turned down by the Nobel Foundation.
Complain about this comment
126 Interested Foreigner--Ice hockey sounds exhilarating but I've never had a chance to try it. It hardly ever gets down to -25C (-13F) in my area, and when it does it hardly ever stays there for enough time to get thick ice. I can only dream...
Complain about this comment
Presumably nomination is not the same as getting the award. Among the considerations would be who else has been nominated and how keen the members of the committee were on Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely nobel comittee doesnt accept nomination of every person..and I was talking about when they short list the nominees...On what criteria did they do it..In feb or march had obama talked about his nuclear free vision? he said that two weeks ago.the shield decision was taken a few weeks ago..The comittee somehow foresaw everything when his name was sent to the referal committee..This decision is based on emotions not on obama's credential. He must have good refrences..
Complain about this comment
Personally I find his comments disturbing. This is the same man who would question other peoples patriotism when they didn't agree with President Bush. Now who is looking unpatriotic Mr. Limbaugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You find his comments distrubing, wait a few years when obama would not be able to acheive anything, what will you do when you hear limbaugh and riley giving their best.
Complain about this comment
133. At 11:19pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Presumably nomination is not the same as getting the award. Among the considerations would be who else has been nominated and how keen the members of the committee were on Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely nobel comittee doesnt accept nomination of every person..and I was talking about when they short list the nominees...On what criteria did they do it..In feb or march had obama talked about his nuclear free vision? he said that two weeks ago.the shield decision was taken a few weeks ago..The comittee somehow foresaw everything when his name was sent to the referal committee..This decision is based on emotions not on obama's credential. He must have good refrences.
Who says they do? That is your weird interpretation. Pehaps he does have good references and has born up the expectations at his nomination.
Nomination is not the same as winning the award. A presidential nominee is not the same as winning the elction.
You seem to have a gripe he was nominated.
Complain about this comment
Gandhi with all due respect was another figure just like obama, turned into larger than life by the europeans. The difference between ghandi and obama is that the former changed his entire get up to look like the native indians..He over did a bit thought, but creating an image was all he was interested in..Without his silly get up, he would have been lost among all the strong personalities in india of that time.
Complain about this comment
128. At 10:49pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew maybe right when he quoted jesus quote, but the bible has taken it out of context...What jesus was saying noone should think that his message would be received with open hands and that his message would divide people and those opposed to him will take up swords against him..The catholics have misunderstood this quote..when they picked up sword they did what jesus said his enemies would do..the Romans..I will not say anything about the catholics and their headquarter in Rome and this history of their popes. I am basically afraid of the catholics and their swords."
Really when did catholics "pick up the sword" specifically? As opposed to non catholics who also picked up swords on a fairly regular basis.
Seem to be afraid of black presidents too.
Complain about this comment
126, IF, having grown up in an environment where slush was the predominant
element, I have since become acclimated to warm, friendly, semi-tropical
climates where I am carefully watched over by palm trees.
I have been told that Lacrosse is the real game. If the Indians
had played for high stakes, our ancestors would have had to get back on
their boats and head back to Europe.
Complain about this comment
PatrickPoorSinger
I do wish you'd take some singing lessons.
"[President Bush] was willing to believe any rubbish fed to him by anybody..."
Oh yeah, just anybody, the British Secret Intelligence Agency MI5, Russia's secret intelligence agency the FSB or whatever the KGB calls itslef these days as related through Putin, and his own intelligence agency whose director was appointed by he predecessor from "the party opposite." Just anybody. Heh, why didn't he just call YOU up and YOU could have given it to him straight. His mistake.
Has it ever occurred to you that if the US hadn't entered World War I there might not have been a World War II? At least no matter how badly things turn out in Iraq, Singapore can say it helped try, it did as much as it could. Belgium can't say that. Had the axis of weasel and all of America's other "partners" applied sufficient pressure on Iraq, it might have stopped playing games with the UN inspectors and finally cooperated. When it didn't the aftermath of the invasion might have been very different also if there had been support from America's fair weather friends. But many of them were angry because President Bush told them that those which did not contribute to the military effort would not get to bid on contracts to rebuild the country at American taxpayer expense. Now isn't that just too bad. When the US walks away, others can clean up the mess. And use their own money to boot.
Complain about this comment
"136. At 11:42pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Gandhi with all due respect was another figure just like obama, turned into larger than life by the europeans. The difference between ghandi and obama is that the former changed his entire get up to look like the native indians..He over did a bit thought, but creating an image was all he was interested in..Without his silly get up, he would have been lost among all the strong personalities in india of that time."
Fascinating. I thought Ghandi was a native indian, where do you think he came from? His get up was not particularly amusing as onyone who was in India at that time would tell you.
As for trying to stand out Indians did not follow his lead simply because they liked his wardrobe did they? Unless you think Indians are exceptionally stupid.
Complain about this comment
You seem to have a gripe he was nominated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To win the award , you have to be nominated first and to be nominated, you have to have done something first..Last time i checked the committee was very strict about accepting nominations..and even more when they short list the names of nominees..There is a discrepency between the timing of the process and the reason the comittee has given for his award.. And the second reason is that as per today, he has done nothing to stop wars his country is waging..He has increased drone attacks on pakistan.At his command, the pakistani army is waging war and everytime it talks about peace deal with talibans, american government discourage it.
Complain about this comment
Really when did catholics "pick up the sword" specifically? As opposed to non catholics who also picked up swords on a fairly regular basis.
Seem to be afraid of black presidents too
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No just afraid of catholics and their swords..if you read the history of their popes..you would also be afraid..
I come from a civilization, although not directly, but still from the same. which had its black leader a slave, hundred of years ago..these things are not all new to me..In america its a new thing..but we have seen it all..black slave as the ruler and black woman as a ruler..
Complain about this comment
Fascinating. I thought Ghandi was a native indian, where do you think he came from? His get up was not particularly amusing as onyone who was in India at that time would tell you.
As for trying to stand out Indians did not follow his lead simply because they liked his wardrobe did they? Unless you think Indians are exceptionally stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i thought the whole world, especially the europeans who created the image knew about it..Gandhi actually left india to practice in south africa, and he had a terrible expearnce over there, almost racist, he returned and changed his get up..Noone knows why he had to change his get up, could be due to post traumatic stress syndrom after the episode in south africa or to get more attention..but his change of get up was surely a bizzare behaviour.
Complain about this comment
141. At 11:58pm on 09 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
You seem to have a gripe he was nominated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To win the award , you have to be nominated first and to be nominated, you have to have done something first..Last time i checked the committee was very strict about accepting nominations."
Realy well you didn't get the citation very correct did you?
"and even more when they short list the names of nominees."
Which means what the other nominees have done counts.
".There is a discrepency between the timing of the process and the reason the comittee has given for his award.."
Really. Creation of a new climate in diplomacy? You deny he did this? Pardon me if I and the Nobel committee disagree.
"Is there how And the second reason is that as per today, he has done nothing to stop wars his country is waging..He has increased drone attacks on pakistan.At his command, the pakistani army is waging war and everytime it talks about peace deal with talibans, american government discourage it."
But the award does not say the person cannot under circumstances be waging wars.
Does it.
Complain about this comment
132. trueconservative
Just plain "hockey" is ok.
It doesn't have to be that cold. However, the colder it is, the better it feels, and the snow doesn't really start to make that beautiful sound until the temperature is colder than about 5 - 10 F.
Ice is usually only an inch or so thick on an outdoor rink e.g., in the schoolyard, and if it's thicker than that in an arena, especially an old arena, the ice making equipment will have trouble re-freezing the surface water quickly after the Zamboni has been on it. Arena ice is usually warm (about 20 - 25 F), so it is soft. The blades carve it easily.
Cold natural outdoor ice is much harder, more brittle, and takes a sharper blade. If you are on a body of water, it should be thick enough (4" or more) to take a Ford F150 or equivalent. Natural ice on a lake or a river tends to look clear black, and will usually have big cracks or fissures. It may be quite bumpy. That's ok, so long as you've got the thickness. Natural ice is best when it is bone-chillingly cold, and the wind has had a chance to polish it for a day or two.
It is hard to describe what it feels like when the ice is running under the blade. You take off your shoes, you put on your skates, and suddenly you have this freedom. It is so fast, so effortless. It is like flying. The cold air feels wonderful on your face. You gulp it into your lungs and it tastes so cold and so good. The world is a wonderful place. You feel alive.
And when you teach a child to skate, and suddenly they get it, and the smile comes across the child's face ... absolute, 100% pure joy.
_______
When I see some of these posts, particularly the repetitive ones, written by people who are so manifestly miserable, so bitter, so hateful, and so negative, I wonder if they have never felt that joy, never felt the blades run, never heard the snow squeak, never tasted the cold night air.
And I wonder if the world wouldn't be a better place if they had.
_______
I don't know if President Obama deserves the prize. It seems a bit premature. In accepting it he is accepting a moral duty along with it, and that duty may become a burden.
But I certainly don't wish him ill, and I don't think anybody who has known the feeling described above would ever wish him (or anyone else) ill on that account. I hope he lives up to it. If he does the world will be a better place.
Complain about this comment
But the award does not say the person cannot under circumstances be waging wars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good then, keep on waging the wars and keep on giving awards..Its not as if Nobel was my paternal grandfather that I have to stand up for his will and wishes..
Complain about this comment
138. Guns
Oh, you are right about that. Lacrosse is a real game. But it takes more courage than I've got. If you want to talk about a violent game, Lacrosse would be right near the top of the list. Even in school the kids used to whack each other about the head when the teacher was looking the other way.
There are people who play this game seriously.
Really seriously.
And if you play against a Six Nations team, you are taking your life in your hands. They're proud of their heritage, and they don't play Lacrosse to lose to citified white kids.
Complain about this comment
Re 134
The reason I find it disturbing is the fact that these people on the right simply are willing to say anything, just so long as it disagrees with a liberal democrat. They are unwilling to accept that occassionally the Democrats will come up with a good idea. They refuse to accept anyones right to govern the country other than themselves. They refuse to accept the results of elections. If they lose an election it some how becomes illegitimate. That's is what worries me.
Complain about this comment
a liberal democrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
since when did the democrats start calling themselves to be liberal?
Complain about this comment
146. At 00:53am on 10 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
But the award does not say the person cannot under circumstances be waging wars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good then, keep on waging the wars and keep on giving awards..Its not as if Nobel was my paternal grandfather that I have to stand up for his will and wishes.."
Well given your rather limited undeerstanding that is as well.
If you really wanted to think like Alfred you would certainly find he would strongly object to any non-white people getting the awards. He would probably find many winners far too radical.
One can't see him approving of MLK, but the world geenrally does
But that isn't the point is it.
Complain about this comment
114 treconservative
"The question remains: Will he rest on his laurels? Or will he work wholeheartedly in the next three (or seven) years to get the troops all home in a way that doesn't leave a power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Do you really have to ask?
Nothing yet done by Obama suggests he will rest on his laurels.
Complain about this comment
IF, you really should come into the kitchen. Publius has found the
mother-lode of all firearms museums.
Complain about this comment
139 marcus
"Has it ever occurred to you that if the US hadn't entered World War I there might not have been a World War II? "
Even by your standards this is pretty lame revisionism.
Complain about this comment
IF - And there are no moderators in the kitchen! Instant posting!
Complain about this comment
152 Guns; 154 Slainte.
Can't seem to find the stairs to the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
IF - Sorry, not "slainte." Someone else! Seanspa has gone camping for the weekend but can show you the stairs when he returns.
Complain about this comment
148. At 00:55am on 10 Oct 2009, AmericanSportFan wrote:
"The reason I find it disturbing is the fact that these people on the right simply are willing to say anything, just so long as it disagrees with a liberal democrat. They are unwilling to accept that occassionally the Democrats will come up with a good idea. They refuse to accept anyones right to govern the country other than themselves. They refuse to accept the results of elections. If they lose an election it some how becomes illegitimate. That's is what worries me."
Where were you in 1994?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
IF, you want to go to the Keymaker's Mall Kiosk, and please leave a message there
if you have found it.
Complain about this comment
145:
"When I see some of these posts, particularly the repetitive ones, written by people who are so manifestly miserable, so bitter, so hateful, and so negative, I wonder if they have never felt that joy, never felt the blades run, never heard the snow squeak, never tasted the cold night air. And I wonder if the world wouldn't be a better place if they had."
--What you are describing certainly becomes difficult if it only snows once every 8 years; but I wonder, have you ever read in the shade of live oak, smelled the sweet scent of rain before it fell, watched the flat boats slip down the river from the levee, or heard the cicadas sing their evening song?
There are many things out there that bring the kind of peace of mind you are describing, and yet the world is what it is. These things remain our small private refuge from the world.
Complain about this comment
in ref to 148 & 157:
Where were you in 2000?
It works both ways; and for the record, I don't believe that Obama's election was illegitimate either.
Complain about this comment
#147
''And if you play against a Six Nations team, you are taking your life in your hands. They're proud of their heritage, and they don't play Lacrosse to lose to citified white kids.''
I'll tell my other half that. Once upon a time she played for her county at Lacrosse. Not bad for a 'citified white kid' eh? I wonder if that post would be allowed by our complianced BBC if the colour was transposed? Hmmm, somehow I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
If you really wanted to think like Alfred you would certainly find he would strongly object to any non-white people getting the awards. He would probably find many winners far too radical.
One can't see him approving of MLK, but the world geenrally does
But that isn't the point is it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you are creating scenarios and talking about them as it was reality. Alferd nobel is dead. Neither you nor I know what he would have done..Its like saying if hitler had not killed himself and agreed to work with the allies, like the japanise king decided, he would have become the finest person of his time.
Complain about this comment
America is not about peace, it is about freedom and democracy. That was bought and paid for with blood and defended in trail after trail with more blood. That is the lesson of America, be strong to thwart challenges to its power over itself, be ready and willing to use that power in overwhelming measure to defend it. In defending American freedom, American lives are worth more to an American president than non American lives. If President Obama doesn't know, accept, and act on these truths that are self evident to those who have studied America's history, then he isn't the American I think he is. His committment to them must be 100% and unshakable. The Nobel Peace Prize is incompatible with these responsibilities we have granted him when we elected him to serve us.
The signifigance of WWII and the Cold war is that in one way or another, every person alive today everywhere in the world owes whatever freedom they have in one way or another to that American committment because if it hadn't been for American actions and sacrifice, the entire world would have succumbed to Fascist or Soviet world dominaiton. And this includes the fact that had it not been for American assistance, the USSR would have lost WWII to Nazi Germany as would Britain.
Complain about this comment
Post 145 Interestedforeigner & 159 BienvenueEnlouisiana.
I so love it when Folk paint pictures with words of the beauty of what they can experience in their home lands, it makes the blog worth reading.Over
here we have hmmm it rains a lot,but the rain is warmer in summer!!
Complain about this comment
post 163
Marcus,I think you need a holiday...
Complain about this comment
ukawailee;
Wherever it is, it won't be in Britain.
Complain about this comment
159. Bienvenue.
I hear you. We are indeed talking about the same thing.
Complain about this comment
World peace is the most important thing.
Every Miss World and Miss Universe contestant knows that very well.
Complain about this comment
#163
''The signifigance of WWII and the Cold war is that in one way or another, every person alive today everywhere in the world owes whatever freedom they have in one way or another to that American committment because if it hadn't been for American actions and sacrifice, the entire world would have succumbed to Fascist or Soviet world dominaiton. And this includes the fact that had it not been for American assistance, the USSR would have lost WWII to Nazi Germany as would Britain.''
You do indeed have a valid point or three Marcus; but I do hope you're not running away with the idea that the American establishment of the time (or subsequently) have been pillars of propriety? After all it was the grandfather of that modern architect of 'God is on my side' politics G W Bush who worked at high level in an institution that financed the Nazi party in Germany. American politicians decided after the war that the only good Nazi wasn't dead, but in fact spirited away to the USA to help engineer their space program. Strange (And I don't understand) how the US Jewish establishment didn't have a problem with that after what had just transpired. Naturally, Stalin too had his pick of the football team, with Churchill sat twiddling his thumbs getting wasted on brandy, as the carve up commenced.
Since then, almost every major world conflict has been engineered by the CIA, or the US administration directly.. Kissinger being a major player. 'We don't like that democratically elected government, so we'll make sure we set up and arm right wing armies to force a coup'.. This has happened in Indonesia, Central and South America,parts of Africa and parts of what used to be the Soviet Block. Remember Pinochet of Chili? Who put him there?(Psst-Kissinger!) Noreaga of Panama--he was put there by George Bush Snr when he was head of the CIA.. Olli 'Just doing my duty Sir?' North? My my, didn't he get himself involved in all this spreading of 'freedom and democracy'? They love those two words do the US administrations and how the rest of the unfree world should be shown by them how it's done--what a pity they don't actually know what it means. They know full well what fascism means though, well, you'd expect them to, as they're quite good at their particular brand of didactic foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
So while people rot in prisons around the world for freedom, the Political Class Elite structure of more government has chosen Obama. Didn't they also award Gorbachev a peace prize? I remember how popular he was with the world. But wasn't too popular with his own people as his country was greatly diminished and weakened. Meanwhile in Afghanistan, and on the domestic front Obama is pretty much viewed the same. Today the joke at work was we(meaning the US) have a President. One that is trying to ram thru full speed ahead healthcare. The same leader who wants to be cautious and take his time in Afghanistan; while soldiers and others are losing their lives. Yeah give it back to the (now good)Taliban and declare victory, an peace in Obama's time. What a total disaster, farce, and the Hollywood minute of the Nobel prize. Both parties in the US are no longer in touch with the American people.
I shudder to think what the EU Political Classes will do with the Europeans when they begin to govern and explain what is good for you.
Power to the people only when the politicians allow you to exercise their will.
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail-its roof may shake-the wind may blow through it-the storm may enter-the rain may enter-but the King of England cannot enter!-all his force dares not cross the threshoild of the ruined tenement!" William Pitt
Stay free, think free, exercise your freedom daily. Les they take it away!
Complain about this comment
161 DR
You make a good point, and I had to think on it a bit. But really, to say Six Nations take a special pride in winning at Lacrosse is similar to acknowledging the Welsh or Kiwi liking for and proficiency at Rugby; or Brazilians at football; Indians, Pakistanis and West Indians at cricket, and so on. They play it with passion.
Not unlike the more general Canadian passion for hockey,
or the (to foreigners inexplicable) passion for that game where people throw rocks down a long narrow rink, while other people follow along with brooms.
Complain about this comment
170 grizzly
"Stay free, think free, exercise your freedom daily. Les they take it away!"
Have you heard of the patriot act? While you were cheering bush and thinking about how free you are .... they took it away!
Complain about this comment
170. At 7:52pm on 10 Oct 2009, AmericanGrizzly wrote:
" ... Today the joke at work was we(meaning the US) have a President. One that is trying to ram thru full speed ahead healthcare. The same leader who wants to be cautious and take his time in Afghanistan; while soldiers and others are losing their lives. Yeah give it back to the (now good)Taliban and declare victory, ... "
"Stay free, think free, exercise your freedom daily. Les they take it away!"
________
Dear Griz:
Well, what is America's ongoing strategic interest in Afghanistan?
What, realistically, are America's options?
If American forces are there to catch bin Laden, then there's a fundamental problem: bin Laden isn't there.
If the objective is to keep the Taliban out, then why isn't that the business of the local population? Shouldn't the Afghans themselves be the ones fighting off the Taliban? Aid them as much as you like, but if the Afghans themselves aren't interested then we're all wasting our time.
If we are trying to support the Afghan people in obtaining a representative government, (i.e., "Nation Building") then how is it we are joined at the hip to a government that is widely reported to be incurably corrupt, and that ties us to really unsavory warlords and druglords (same difference, often).
If America wants to solve that problem, then western forces need to kick over the Karzai government, round up all the drug lords, and install an army of occupation - on top of fighting the Taliban.
In that case, let's see: Afghanistan has a population in excess of 20m, and a land area comfortably bigger than France. Afghans are pretty docile, right? So we should be able to occupy it with a force not much larger than, say, 350 - 400,000 troops.
No problem!
Congress can authorize that (and the consequently necessary re-institution of the draft) in an afternoon, and the NATO allies will be only too pleased to chip in.
________
America has no strategic interest in Afghanistan. None.
It is a landlocked, grindingly poor, dry country in the Hindu Kush, about as far from Peoria as you can get both geographically and culturally. (Although, no doubt, Caterpillar can probably make good on its promise of spare parts deliveries within 24 hours, notwithstanding).
It has no trade goods needed in western markets.
It does not provide a significant market for western goods.
It does not supply mineral ores, fuels, or hydro power.
It is not a big player in agricultural commodities or forest products.
It is not in any way important to the physical security of western nations, other than being one of several failed states in which non-state actors (i.e., bad guys) can hide.
It is a law enforcement and drug problem, but so are Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, and dozens of other places.
America has an interest in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, but as long as bin Laden is in Pakistan, hidden in a sea of sympathizers, the practical options for doing this are very limited. The chance to catch bin Laden was at Tora Bora eight years ago, and it was flubbed.
Large scale conventional forces are not a particularly useful tool for finding individual fugitives, like bin Laden, and bringing them to justice. That is what police are for. It is not what armies are for.
________
If you want to chase bin Laden down, then we could always invade Pakistan. It has a population of 180m, and a land area not quite twice the size of Sweden. It's not common to invade a nominal ally, of course, but Americans are so popular there, I bet they'd be welcomed with bouquets. 1m soldiers should be enough.
Unfortunately, however, there is no guarantee that bin Laden would not slip through the net again, and take up residence in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, or ??? Why couldn't he live under an assumed name in, say, Dubai, or Lebanon, or ... Londonistan? Are we going to invade every possible country where he could be hiding?
When you look at it, there just aren't any really good choices here, are there? If you have a better one, then say what it is. The whole world is waiting for a good answer to this problem.
And would you then fault this President, or any other, for taking time before deciding what to do? If only the previous government had taken a little more time to think, we might not be in this jam. Our boys are dying there too. But the last thing we need is to go off on another hasty, ill-considered adventure.
_______
The thing is, while we may have no genuine strategic interest in Afghanistan, there are other countries that do.
There are the two immediate neighbours of significant size and regional influence, Iran and Pakistan, who clearly have an interest, not necessarily benign in either case.
There are also major powers - India, the dominant and ascendant power of South Asia; China, with interests and problems of its own in central Asia; and Russia, also with interests and problems of its own in central Asia.
Neither India, nor Russia, nor China, nor probably Iran, has any interest in seeing the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan. Neither India, nor Russia, nor China, nor Iran has a genuine interest in having Afghanistan being a failed state on a long term basis.
Leaving aside the army-of-indefinite-occupation-and-nation-building option, there is nothing of geo-political strategic value that America and its NATO allies can do in Afghanistan that, for example, India cannot do, and do a whole lot better, much more discretely, at a much lower price, out of its own regional self-interest.
As for the drug lords, well, America could drain off their wealth by realizing that the "War on Drugs" is just as foolish a waste as the "War on Terror", and just as much a failure, or worse. Have the billions spent on drug interdiction achieved anything beneficial? Is there any benefit that America has obtained by locking up so many of its citizens for drug offenses? Educate, regulate, control, and reduce.
If America puts its own house in order the drug lords will lose the economic underpinnings of their power, and not only the drug lords in Afghanistan.
And as for bin Laden?
Whether bin Laden is caught or not, whether he lives or dies or not, there will always be nut cases bent on terrorism. Radical Islam does not have a monopoly on nut cases. Oklahoma City, Air India, Lockerbie: none were Al Queda adventures. No matter how many of them you catch, there will always be two more for every one caught, and ten more for every one killed. America and every other major nation will have to take the same preventative measures whether bin Laden is ever found or not.
All the time, bin Laden and everybody else knows that he will always be a hunted man.
All the time, bin Laden and everybody else knows that the nation or group that eventually finds him and brings him to justice will have America's profound gratitude.
America may be going through tough times, but it is still the richest, most powerful country on earth. America's gratitude is still worth having.
Marbles has suggested many times that the long-suffering Afghans should be left alone. Maybe she is right.
America has other fish to fry. America needs to stop wasting blood and treasure in Afghanistan and move on. If India, China and Russia want to work this problem out, so be it.
... and then, too, perhaps people will realize that maybe there are worse things in the world. Maybe the Americans weren't so bad after all.
Complain about this comment
There is a giant difference between Appeasement and Respect. Iran, North Korea, Syria and all other nations deserve respect. It is when the West loses respect for the feeling of peoples in other nations that wars break out. But it seems that if you do not own a WMD, you get no respect from the West.
When you say Appeasement, you are mouthing the words of the Neocons that draged the US out of Afghanistan, when we had the possiblity of winning, so that we could Invade Iraq to keep Israel safe and take possion of the oil. If Saddam were still in place, we could find all the terrorist because he would have the Iraqis under control.
What is keeping the world violent today is the excuse of Israel desire to have all of Palestine. This is the truth, not some made up Anti-Semitism. But any criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic. But what and how will the rest of the world find peace if there is no peace in the Middle East.
Israel living under the rules of Apratheid South Africa cannot work when weapons are so pleantiful and there are still lose nukes out there. Killy all the Iranians won't make the Arabs not want their own bombs against what they consider a interloper, but making all the peoples of the Middle East see they have more to gain than to lose by being friendly with Israel is not Appeasement on any level.
We live on HOPE and illusion. But I prefer Real Politik.
Complain about this comment
Well, that previous post certainly got way out of hand.
______
170. At 7:52pm on 10 Oct 2009, AmericanGrizzly wrote:
" ... Today the joke at work was we(meaning the US) have a President. One that is trying to ram thru full speed ahead healthcare."
"Stay free, think free, exercise your freedom daily. Les they take it away!"
________
Dear Griz:
On the full speed on healthcare thing, what I don't understand is why you (Americans in general, and each individual such as yourself) wouldn't want healthcare reform as fast as possible? Why wouldn't you want it, like, yesterday?
The single most expensive option, by far, is the status quo.
The sooner you have healthcare reform, the sooner you begin to save money. If America adopted public healthcare, the average American family would stand to save about $5000/year, even on quite conservative assumptions (i.e., that America cannot run a public healthcare system as efficiently as most other industrial countries).
The sooner you have healthcare reform, the sooner mid-sized and large manufacturers stop facing what amounts to an absurd import subsidy.
What's wrong with that?
______
As for the last part, when I first read it, it sounded like you were recommending
"Stay free, live free: exercise daily".
If every American did that, the cost of healthcare really would go down, and many of America's social problems would lessen.
Complain about this comment
#174. Iran, Korea. (NORTH?) deserve respect.
???
Respect is earned not deserved. How can the West respect nations that are so brutal in regard to basic rights.
Do you realize just appearing on a forum like this in those nations could lead to prison and worse.
Complain about this comment
176# The hypocrisy of the Wests' attitude to respecting (or not) countries with a less than homely attitude to basic human rights is exemplified by singling out Iran, N Korea and Syria.
Under the direction of a UN directive (based on false and corrupt 'evidence') Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussain didn't tell weapons inspectors he had WMD and where he hid them. This was whilst Blair was insisting that any conflict wasn't to enforce a regime change! Then the tack was changed again; Now he was a brutal and murderous dictator (No news there then?) and he'd inflicted terrible suffering on his own people--well yes, but he'd been doing that since he was Iraqs leader, aided and abetted and in the full knowledge of the west. Then we were told he was Osama bin Ladens brother in arms; this must have come as something of a shock to both men, as neither could stand the other! It didn't matter though, because the American people lapped it up, hanging onto every word; some still believe Saddam was responsible for the tragedy on the WTC's! Why let fact and common sense get in the way of a good story?
Saudia Arabia: That beacon of misogynistic and brutal non democratic feifdoms. Wait though, we can't criticise them can we? Oh no no... we'll gently skirt round their little ways and help them put down any naysayers who step out of line. We can always play the 'anti arab card' if things get too near the knuckle.
China: Oh bless China, now being dragged into the twentieth century and becoming the worlds fastest (only?) developing industrial country. In it's major catch up programme, it's polluting our planet per day more than than some countries do in a year. It's human rights record is shameful, it's censoring of the net is down to paranoia, yet it holds the vast majority of the USA's debt--what happens when that's called in? Most of the West's hard goods come from China, so they can't be all THAT bad, can they?
Zimbabwe; Once the bread basket of Africa, Mugabe seen by the west as the natural leader after the ousting of Ian Smith and the demise of Rhodesia. What now? Runaway inflation, a country starving, brutality on a scale unimaginable. You think Morgan Tsvangirai (ex miner) will be their saviour? Last time I saw him being interviewed on the BBC he was wearing what looked to be a very nice gold wristwatch..I wonder on whose back that was bought?
If North Korea, Syria and Iran were important to the west's interpretation of right and wrong, we'd do something about it, but we trade with Iran, we trade with Syria, North Korea is an irritatnt but containable. Iran for instance is only making the news because of Isreal; now call me an old sentimentalist, but even IF Iran were developing a nuclear arsenal, who is Isreal to complain? They've had one for years, and all they have to do is ring up the Whitehouse to get extra supplies-after all, they do own the place! Isreal are no strangers to human rights violations, remember the case of Mordechai Vanunu? Imprisoned (after being dupped into going to Italy, where he was kidnapped by Mosad)for eighteen years. Solitary confinement. His crime? He stated that Isreal had a nuclear capability, woopee doo, no-one believed they didn't! Ironically Vanunu was a Nobel prize nominee!
Yes, I think there are a few 'friends' who need to get their houses in order first-including the west.
Complain about this comment
174. Mary; 175 DR
I have considerable difficulty in lumping Iran, Syria and North Korea into the same pot. They are not interchangeable. They are not automatically deserving of the same level of respect, or, indeed, of any respect at all.
_____
Iran is a serious country that appears to be drifting from a theocratic dictatorship into something of a populist military dictatorship with more than a whiff of fascism about it (other posters here have disagreed on this point). Its status has soared since the second gulf war. It is the modern incarnation of a civilization and culture with a long, proud and sophisticated history. It has a large, relatively highly educated population, and the natural resources, institutions and economic potential easily to regain its position of a regional power of considerable influence and reach in central and West Asia.
_______
Syria is a rather different kind of dictatorship, more "traditional" in the sense of being more like an old style monarchy. A nasty place, to be sure, but rational nonetheless. While it has ample scope to be a troublemaker in its own backyard, Syria lacks both the population and the economic potential to be a major regional power.
_______
North Korea is a thugocracy resting on the inherited apparatus of a Stalinist police state. It is led by a bunch of clowns acting out a real-life version of Dr. Strangelove or some hokey James Bond master villain plot, except that the acting is bad, and this film just isn't funny. Why these people are deserving of any respect is beyond understanding.
That North Korea is dangerous, and difficult to deal with may suggest that caution and circumspection are appropriate, (as is having a well armed and exceedingly vigilant army) - appropriate because the North Korean leadership is dangerous, not because it merits respect.
The world has waited half a century for successive members of one incredibly pig-headed family to die, in the hope that someone in that dynasty will finally see that the country is being stunted; re-unification with the South will follow, and the North will eventually become the stronger half of a re-united economic powerhouse.
Thank heavens that China's patience is finally starting to wear thin. Not before time.
______
As for the origin of the second gulf war, oh, please. Enough already.
The limp-wristed failure to remove Saddam Hussein when French forces were 15 minutes from Baghdad in the first Gulf War is what cost George, the elder, his job the following year. The second gulf war occurred because George the younger saw an opportunity to pole-axe that feller who made a fool o' his daddy. The rest was obfuscation, and why anybody believed it in the first place... No, I don't have much patience with that.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussain was a good thing, long overdue. The regrettable thing is that neither the goals nor the planning for that war or its aftermath seemed to advance a whit beyond the idea of payback for daddy. Great evil, death and suffering have come from that myopia.
________
You do not have to be a partisan supporter of Israel to see that there is a huge difference between a nuclear armed, vigorously democratic Israel; and a nuclear armed, doubtfully democratic Iran whose would-be military strong-man leader has threatened more than once to wipe Israel off the map.
Complain about this comment
#178
You do not have to be a partisan supporter of Israel to see that there is a huge difference between a nuclear armed, vigorously democratic Israel; and a nuclear armed, doubtfully democratic Iran whose would-be military strong-man leader has threatened more than once to wipe Israel off the map.
Democratic or not, the mindset of Israel is one of hit first and discuss negotiation later. Even if Iran was a true democracy, I doubt Israel would see them having nuclear arms acceptable. I believe one of the only reasons the sites in Iran haven't yet been hit was the threat of their aircraft being shot down if they flew over Iraq. I think that was a somewhat empty threat, no way would the Whitehouse hierachy allow that. If the threat had been made, someone in a high enough office in Israel obviously believes it is a promise, rather than a threat.
Complain about this comment
The unmentioned fact here is that the award is a private award given by a private organisation, decided on only by a five member committee. You and I have no vote or say in the deliberation. Many of the committee's decisions over the years have been controversial. So what. There have been times when the prize was given for extraordinary accomplishments or efforts, and other times when it was obviously given to encourage vision and progress, or actually help to facilitate it.
It just is what it is. As with any philanthropic organisation, it is all about where the organisation itself wants to put its money and influence. Debating the merits of who gets it is like debating which charity is the most deserving...when you are giving the money, then you get to decide who wins.
Complain about this comment
179 DR
If Iran were a true democracy, it wouldn't be trying to acquire the bomb. It would have more important things to do. It has no genuine enemies or strategic interests that would prompt acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The calculus for Israel is much different. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours, some of whom have never acknowledged that Israel even has a right to exist, and some of whom have been very plain in their desire to wipe Israel off the map. A reasonable person might well conclude that these neighbours pose a genuine threat to Israel
Against that backdrop, the Israeli military has very, very little room for error in terms of defending against a conventional attack - the entire country is hardly bigger than a postage stamp.
While I agree with your observation that Israel tends to act with speed and without hesitation against what it perceives as threats, there is no evidence that such a policy pertains to nuclear weapons. Given that Israel has had the bomb for more than 30 years, it is clear that Israel regards its nuclear arms as doomsday weapons, for use only if Israel's very existence is threatened.
Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is manifestly defensive. The Iranian President's unwavering desire to obtain nuclear weapons, for which Iran plainly has no legitimate need, is clearly intended to scare the bejeezes out of people outside Iran - as it is doing. Hardly the same thing at all.
The fact is that any nation that uses nuclear weapons will pay an enormous price for having done so. The American refusal to use atomic weapons in Korea, or Vietnam, for example, points to a recognition of that truth. Humans do sometimes learn from experience.
The reason Israel has not bombed Iran probably has far less to do with fear of Iranian air defense than with the inevitable political fall-out that would follow an attack, coupled with the uncertainty that such an attack would be successful in any case. That kind of risk is not one that any country is going to take unless it is desperate. Israel is not there quite yet, but you can see the day is coming.
Of course, one country, and, indeed, one man, could take all the steam out of the situation, but instead of doing that he is playing a game of nuclear brinksmanship.
Reckless?
Irresponsible?
Quite.
But what else would you expect.
What a jerk.
Complain about this comment
"If Iran were a true democracy, it wouldn't be trying to acquire the bomb. It would have more important things to do. It has no genuine enemies or strategic interests that would prompt acquisition of nuclear weapons."
So IF
america France the UK are not true democracies and neither is Israel by this logic.
There is NO difference between the aggressive attacks from Israel and the aggressive words from Tehran . Except Iran has stuck to words.
" The calculus for Israel is much different. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours, some of whom have never acknowledged that Israel even has a right to exist, and some of whom have been very plain in their desire to wipe Israel off the map. A reasonable person might well conclude that these neighbours pose a genuine threat to Israel"
Absolute bias bull IF.
Iran is threatened by presidential candidates with being "obliterated" " bomb bomb bomb Iran"
Jokes about attacking it.
are they better than the word games Ahmadinnasbas makes?
Boy you really can't see the other side on this issue can you.
You read the mistranslations as they are the words of the regime.
" Against that backdrop, the Israeli military has very, very little room for error in terms of defending against a conventional attack - the entire country is hardly bigger than a postage stamp."
What in the world of NO nukes says "israel can have some because they are a tiny place so wont do much damage.
Luxemburg needs a missile.
What bare you saying here.
You think the country with the most aggressive record can use nukes because they have no other way of defending themselves.
Wow IF you would rewrite the meaning of non proliferation like the rest to include
"non proliferation except for Israel" what happened to there is no excuse to use them.
How about Israel give up the dream of and move on.Or are they allowed to scorch earth the place and the surrounding countries because they feel threatened.
On to more apologist stuff then shall we.
" While I agree with your observation that Israel tends to act with speed and without hesitation against what it perceives as threats, there is no evidence that such a policy pertains to nuclear weapons."
Wow any other country acted with such "speed and without hesitation against "perceived" threats " you would be up in arms about them.
"Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is manifestly defensive."
sounds a bit "manifest destiny" to me.
"Of course, one country, and, indeed, one man, could take all the steam out of the situation, but instead of doing that he is playing a game of nuclear brinksmanship."
So you are not talking Netenyahoo then are you?
"The Iranian President's unwavering desire to obtain nuclear weapons, for which Iran plainly has no legitimate need,"
Dude you are SO bias you think you're straight.
Iran wants them because the aggressive neighbourhood that the world has let have a free ride, the Iraq that we helped arm against Iran is still there and both have a future so they are not to worry about it because Americans have never tried to do anything to Iran. Never?
Israel seems to have it as In for Iran as the other way around.
They have used pre emptive attacks (acts of war) but they are too nice a folk to use the bomb , but Iran are not so nice.
You bigot.
Not much of one but on this issue as blind as a naked mole rat.
Complain about this comment
IF .
I would also ask where the isolation we treat Iran with has worked?
We tell them they are evil they re bad. we give the right there ammo by continually bashing them.
I do the same thing about america on this blog, and the right leap on it as evidence that america should get more isolated. more aggressive. more threatening.
They see it as External influence.
So they rally against it.
(not all as the demos prove.)
If you think letting Israel have their way and the west telling them they are "bad children" again is a way to make it less radical then you are not as smart As I once thought you to be.
Nor as peace orientated as you would claim.
Treat em like fascists and they might just become it.
Simple education lessons.
treat people as you wish them to treat you.
Complain about this comment
Fluffy:
You might recall that I raised the ire of other posters here some time ago by pointing out that America should stop feeling obliged to be held hostage to unreasonable behaviour by the government of Israel.
America and Britain both got the bomb as part of winning WWII. Most people would regard WWII as having been a national security emergency of the first order.
France got the bomb because well, what else would you expect from France. (This answer is deliberately facetious, discussion of France and French foreign policy, and the determination to have an independent nuclear deterrent are themselves a whole, huge topic. Not for today.)
If Luxembourg is threatened with nuclear annihilation by France, Spain or Poland, ask me the question again.
It is fairly rare for me to defend actions of the government of Israel, but in the last week I have done it several times. Israel developed the bomb at a time when it did have very credible fears of its neighbours. The success in the six day war in 1967 came only because the Egyptian army and airforce were massed in forward positions ready to attack Israel, and as such were abnormally vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike. There is no dispute about this. Israel very nearly lost the Yom Kippur War in 1973: it was attacked by its neighbours on the Jewish high holidays. That seems to me to be basis for a reasonable person to think that Israel, a country lacking much room to retreat (we're not talking Stalin and the Russian steppes), might have had very legitimate security concerns at the time it developed its nuclear weapons, and, notwithstanding the dislikable nature of the present leadership, might still have quite legitimate security concerns.
I am not Jewish, and I do not hold a brief to defend Israel. But I can see that as a task for a military planner, the conventional defense of Israel is quite a challenging problem.
I do not agree with Israel's policy of lashing out at its enemies whenever it feels threatened, or when it feels like dishing out retaliation. I believe that policy to be counter-productive. But I do agree with Bethpa that this is in fact Israeli policy, and has been for as long as I can remember. That does not mean I support or otherwise agree with that policy.
But given that lack of hesitation with conventional weapons, the point is that although Israel has had nuclear weapons for over 30 years it has kept them in the shed. This suggests, at least to me, that a much different policy is being applied to their use as compared to deployment of conventional forces. Again, this does not seem either an uncommon or an unjustified observation: Lots of commentators have made the same observation - right here on the BBC, too.
There is a big difference between Israel and Iran on this issue: Israel has never threatened to mount a nuclear attack on Iran. The President of Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel. He has been at pains to create the impression that he intends to fire one at Isreal the minute the first one arrives in the mail. If this is a negotiating ploy, it is a really risky and stupid one. People might take it seriously, and that could lead to all sorts of unhappy outcomes.
Israel is quite plainly getting ready to mount an air attack on Iranian nuclear installations. Lots of people, me included, think this needs to be headed off, and the sooner the better. We do not want Israel to attack Iran. That would be a catastrophe. We do not want Iran to brandish nuclear weapons at its neighbours. That could also lead to disaster. It is long past time to turn off the stove, and put the pot in the freezer to cool.
Iran can justifiably point to past interference in its internal affairs by both the UK and the US. By neither of them threatened to wipe the place out in a thermo-nuclear attack. Iran does not have any credible fear of nuclear attack. It certainly has, or had, credible fears of a conventional attack, and it is now more than amply armed to deter any aggressor that might seek to invade.
Consider Iran as compared to, say, Thailand, or Argentina, or Kenya, perhaps. Argentina tried to obtain the bomb - under a nationalistic chest-beating military dictatorship. But none of these countries has a need to develop nuclear weapons, and they all have moved on to other priorities. But Iran has to have a bomb.
Why?
Iran has a bombastic military-backed leader, who has quite plainly thretened Israel, who has engaged in holocaust denial, who has organized international conferences on holocaust denial, whose government sponsors proxy armies to wage war against Israel, and who has chosen as defense minister a man reported in the press (by the BBC, if I am not mistaken) to be a person of interest in respect of the bombing of Jewish cultural institutions in Buenos Aires.
As far as I know, none of the foregoing is particularly controversial. I don't see why a reasonable person would think that Israel should take comfort in those things.
McCain's singing is not unlike Ronald Reagan's joke about outlawing the Soviet Union. I am not prepared to defend either one, but I am also not prepared to take either incident as being a serious representation of American foreign policy, or as a credible threat of nuclear attack.
You are on stronger ground, or at least clearly principled and logical ground on the subject of nuclear proliferation. The only logic in my position on that subject is that however many countries have nuclear weapons now, I don't want any more countries to have them, no matter who they are. Two wrongs don't make a right, and 17 wrongs really don't make a right.
As for your "bad children" comment, you will know from previous postings here I support a reappraisal of our interests in the middle east, so that our own interests come first, rather than being held hostage to the whims and policies of a quixotic foreign political party and its parliamentary allies over whom we have no control.
I am in favour of much stronger actions with respect to Israel - removal or abandonment of all settlements built since the Oslo Accord, for example, and an end to military or other aid in the event that Israel pursues policies that it is inappropriate for western taxpayers to continue implicitly or explicitly to subsidize. Refusal to make credible steps toward assisting the Obama administration, or merely the present intransigence, in promoting peace in the region would be right at the top of that list. Western service personnel (and, more so, civilians) should not be placed at risk by irresponsible Israel government policies designed to pander to Israel's right wing religious splinter parties. I have pointed out on several occasions that patience with the government of Israel is wearing very thin in many western democracies.
As for rallies in Iran, the last ones I remember were by civilians protesting in unprecedented numbers against a government that does not represent their views. Those were not the typical "death to America" rent-a-crowd protests, either.
I do not know any Iranians who have much use for the current President of Iran or the government he leads. Some have expressed these sentiments in far stronger terms than anything I have written here, and I do not see how any of them could be termed bigots.
The one who is playing nuclear chicken here is the President of Iran. He is a significant threat to peace in his region and beyond.
Did I say he is a jerk?
Well, that's putting it mildly.
Complain about this comment
184, IF -
Excellent remarks. A well-balanced analysis, I would say.
Complain about this comment
Why not Obama? - At least he doesn't seem to have any blood on his hands yet, unlike most of the list of previous winners listed in your blog. I wouldn't be surprised either if Adolf & Josef had made a previous year's shortlist.
Complain about this comment
7. At 3:31pm on 09 Oct 2009, U11662441 wrote:
"The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson."
I suspect you'll be getting a letter from Lord Trimble's office in the morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But John Hume might be more forgiving?
Complain about this comment
IF sorry but I 'm in disagreement with the socialist liberaterian.
you do answer well but you are a little economic.
I hope you can say Netenyahoo is a jerk as well.
You continual defence of Israels right to hold weapons that it cannot use by any standard of decency even when threatened with being turned into another country.
They would be better off saying "OK I'll convert " than using bombs thgat are nukes.
you talk like they could use them if invaded.
What happens if tomorrow you woke up to see all the neighbours saying " we've had enough get out" again.
Would you say "use them nukes Israel"?????????
No yuou excuse Israel.
You condemn the others for trying to take back the land that Israel seized.
You side only with the aggressor in this conflict.
You try to distract from the very basic FACT that Israel was created on others land. and have excused Israels behaviour.
You say the old days were better. When they were actively terrorising the locals to form their state.
All of which you seem to care very little about but would hold others accountable.
you blame Israel for massing troops.
Intent or not that seems to be a bit GW ish to me.
You say you patience is running out .
how come it is taking so long.
Because you are giving them benefits you refuse to give others.
Ah madinnasbad may be a jerk but so is Netenyahoo. Try saying it.
Protests in Iran were for change. yes the people want to change. just like the people in Bulgaria seemed to want a change back when they had to make a choice.
But you do them no favours do you.
keep promoting the Israeli right to be pissed at what you still have not addressed, , , that miss translation.
You say they say "destroy" Israel.
YOU say it not ahmadinnasbad.
As far as I can see.
You cannot understand that the nukes of Israel have not been inspected that the IAEA has not been allowed access.
Before you complain that a nation is trying to create you should complain that a country HAS created.
You have a bias view point. that is why.
Sorry , you try to sound reasonable but you are not.
you attempts to say Israel bad behaviour should be expected because they can see a threat that others do not have is a joke.
" Israel has never threatened to mount a nuclear attack on Iran. "
This is a bull crud line if ever there was one.
Sorry but they do not admit to having the capability ,yet ,really , not officially . If they did why do we not inspect?
Again you twist to the favour of Israel.
I'm not so sure that Iran has said they will nuke Israel either.
I would say the politics would prevent Iran doing so. that they would face too stiff penalties to use a nuke pre-emptively. And they know it. but you would call them blood thirsty maniacs.
You would say they would use it.
Now I don't think Israel would use them unless facing total invasion (which is no excuse to nuke the area).
I do not think the Iranians would either.
Netenyahoo has done nothing to stop the settlements continued expansion.
He has provided plenty of anger to the debate by being a naysayer on peace.
Iran has said. we'll see.
You're a smart guy but an fool on this issue.
try to look at it from the point of view of the displaced not the displacers.
Israel continually uses little land grabs to steal land to erode the borders.
You may thing Mc cain was a joker but Sara palin thought him just on the ball with the bomb bomb bomb. America has said publicly it would not rule out ANY including nukes against Iran.
You think Israel has more right to be worried about Iran than Iran has a right to worry about america.
You say this and them didn't get them . well they decided not to. that doesn't take away from the FACT that a non proliferation treaty and talks about nukes in the middle east that do not include Israel are bias and will do no good because those on other side can see the bias.
You want bombs out of Iran. or rather they don't get there.
You reassure them that the aggressive angry pit bull nation that was thrown amoungst them is not nuke armed.
Yes dinnas bad is playing brinkmanship. But so is Israel.
America has to act to prevent Israel attacking which would set things off. right?
So why not harp on to Israel that if inspected Iran has as much right to a nuke civilian (and military really) facillity as they do to the land they stand on.
And you like most westerners think he will see the results. etc.
what are you trying to do?
did russia fall apart in a way you liked.
It is you almost seemingly endless tolerance of Israels position that marks you as one not that interested.
So you got some flack from the gherkin brigade.
I've had some attacks on me as well as you might know.
I have seem you appologise for Israel as much as condemn their actions.
They threaten all locally ,by the way, with the nukes they have.
Complain about this comment
Or to put it another way IF what you have said so far is .
We can trust Israel but not the iranians because they are...... nicer people?
Complain about this comment
No, I wouldn't say Netanyahu is a jerk. More of an obnoxious idiot, in my view, but I'm not sure that advances anything.
You will know from previous postings that I resent it when these strings constantly end up being hijacked and sent down this same Levantine rat-hole time after time after time. This is in part why.
I start from the premise that Israel and its neighbours all have a right to exist peacefully within defensible borders. It is the same standard I would apply to the existence of any sovereign state. Whatever anyone may say about who took land from whom, the UN agreed on the creation of Israel in 1948.
As a person who has no stake in middle eastern affairs at all, from my own observations, there are several posters here who simply cannot accept the creation or continued existence of Israel, under any circumstances. One has on occasion submitted postings that were outright holocaust denial. Other postings have clearly called for the population of Israel to be wiped out. One posting flatly said that Israel did not "deserve" to exist.
That's right: "Deserve".
You gotta just love that.
As if I or you, or anybody else has the right to decide whether France "deserves" to exist.
Oh, please.
With regard to McCain and Palin, you may note that the American people decided that issue, fairly emphatically.
I say to you flatly that I have not seen any credible military analysis that indicates that Iran faces the threat of nuclear attack from anybody. Iran does, though, face some kind of imminent conventional attack on its nuclear facilities.
Iran has the same right as anybody else to civilian nuclear power. The problem here is that nobody believes that Iran is interested in civilian nuclear power, and the saga of lies and subsequent revelations, combined with the conduct of the President of Iran have reduced the credibility of the government of Iran on this issue to zero. Nobody buries a civilian power nuclear plant under a mountain on a military base.
I don't apologize for Israel, or for its enemies. I try to stick to what seems reasonable, and to oppose any action that leads to perpetuation of the dispute rather than resolution.
This is a dispute where many of the people involved to do not seem to accept as a basic premise of life that there is any importance in being reasonable, or even attempting to see the other side's point of view. There are far too many people on both sides of this thing who simply do not want peace, and are prepared to kill anybody on their own side who is prepared to compromise or to be rational. They would rather be miserable.
If these parties wanted to make peace, they could have had it decades ago. But they don't. They delight in aggravating each other, and then both sides dredge up every previous incident, no matter how long ago, no matter how petty, and use it to stoke up the fires of hatred in their partisans. They would rather spend their lives bickering, while their people live in squalor, than do anything constructive. And what really drives me, they expect the rest of the world to put up with this nonsense, decade after decade. Oh for the love God, stuff a cork in it, already.
The outlines of a peace deal here are obvious, and they have been obvious for decades. There is nothing here that either side is arguing about that is more valuable or more important than bringing this dispute to an end. What is lacking is a genuine will to make peace, and there is no outside power with the ability to remove the obnoxious leadership on both sides and impose a peace.
Complain about this comment
so net isn't a jerk? wow he refuses to allow peace discussions to take place unless Isreal is recognised as a Jewish state by hamas.
A reality that says "to hell with democracvy , even if they end up out numbering us in Israel they are never to change our jewish stateness.
And he is no0t a jerk. Sorry why, because he is Israeli jew?
You assume it is the creation of Israel that causes my anger. yes that is true. but it happened. will Israel ever accept that it did not behave very well in those days or just insist people do not talk about their suffering.
You show no concern for the lack of sovergigned state people. You don't tell the Israeli's to accept Gaza and west bank.
You are bias.
Here is where you really offe3nd.
This debate may have changed a little in the last few months under MM, new faces new names. but those that advocated killing were consistantly on the side of Israel.
Gherkin, MA, and a host of others.
All else opposed all killing. they took exception to the lack of accountability that Israel is held to.
they took exception with rocket attacks killing 20 people in 8 yearsbeing called the same as white phosphorous bombs, daily sonic booms.
You have said you are against it taking over all threads, but so Am I.
This time I just saw a pile of lies spouting out as usual.
When have we that oppoase Israels murderous management said wipe Israel out, nuke them.
You lie IF when you suggest that many here have said destroy Israel.
It has been the other way. And that is why I never give you a break because you lke so many others are so bias on this issue and any issue related it is a joke.
"I say to you flatly that I have not seen any credible military analysis that indicates that Iran faces the threat of nuclear attack from anybody. Iran does, though, face some kind of imminent conventional attack on its nuclear facilities."
flatly curvy no matter.
you saying it is a joke.
I say there is no credible evidence Israel faces a nuke threat.
Who would. you make allowances that show your true colours.
and stop the crap about no interest . Neither do I as an anglo brit in the usa have any concern except getting peace.
Which is not achieved by being bias to one side
You say sara palin mc cain didn't make it.
Wow they almost did and that is enough to give reason for Iran to want the same deterrent against invasion that Israel has.
No one threatens to wipe israel out with nukes. they would invade. it is all about land incase you never noticed.
it is the deterrent effect that Israel is allowed to hold against invasion. so it will only be used in a spiteful scorched earth. if the arabs had had nukes in 48 would it have been acceptable for them to scorch earth because Isreal was taking over?
Your bias shows again
You can say I'm a smart guy but a fool and you sound like a parrot.
You put yourself in the company of MA and gherkin.
We had NO right to create Israel there. I accept that, I also accept that it is there so move on. what you say is it is there so move on without the recognition that it was wrong to impose or that it was imposed at the behest of a terrorist organisation.
Equating with france is a clever lie of a comment.
we did not impose france 50 years ago on another people.
you mixyour fruits at your leisure but it does nothing to prove your point.
First nationers in the states barely but do enjoy better status than the Israelis allow their origional inhabitants.
(like I say Just and alpha only because Israel is so appaling can america get away with claiming it)
" Nobody buries a civilian power nuclear plant under a mountain on a military base."
They do if their neighbour is a country taken over by the USA which gives Israel a free card ,normally, to attacks on other nations in preemptive military strikes.Syria etc.
attacks on their land. But if Iran were to get a plane through to blow up the Israeli nuke plant you would consider it fair game eh?
Tell me IF how much research have you done on our and Israels' contribution to destabalising insurgents in Iran?
I do not say dinnasbasd is a good guy. or that he treats his people well. I would say that about very few places.
Why is there still the problem?
because no one recognises it exists. it is like AA you have to see it first to stop it.
and the refusal to accept and respect the hamas as freedom fighters while promoting Israel's terrorist beginnings as "heroic" is what stops peace happenong. People are willint to let the past drop, but not when your kids are deaf because of sonic booms etc bombs, .
You ability to be so one sided and to have read the posts here and still say people are calling for the destruction of Isreal is what show your true colours.
and it is not pretty that you excuse their disproportionate responses.
yes by all means blow up the guy with the missile buy do not blow up every welding shop in town because they have a cylinder.
Yes you are fed up so am I an fed up with the likes of you that always defend Israels rights before recognising others rights.
Complain about this comment
shall I rephrase that. defending Isreals right to have nukes while denying others hand grenades.
Complain about this comment
191. At 3:15pm on 15 Oct 2009, fluffytale wrote:
so net isn't a jerk? wow he refuses to allow peace discussions to take place unless Isreal is recognised as a Jewish state by hamas.
A reality that says "to hell with democracvy , even if they end up out numbering us in Israel they are never to change our jewish stateness.
And he is no0t a jerk. Sorry why, because he is Israeli jew?
"You assume it is the creation of Israel that causes my anger."
_______
No, I don't. I have not paid enough attention to figure that out. There are, however other posters on this blog who clearly cannot accept that idea.
________
"You show no concern for the lack of sovergigned state people. You don't tell the Israeli's to accept Gaza and west bank.
________
No, that is simply wrong.
You may not be aware of previous postings I have made on this issue. I think the situation in West Bank, and particularly in Gaza, is appalling.
The two state solution to this problem has been available for decades, and was proposed by the British at least as early as the 1930's. For most of the period up to Menachem Begin, the problem was that Israel's enemeies would not accept it. Since that time things have shifted, and now the government of Israel says it favors a two state solution, but then imposes conditions that make any reasonable or practical sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza simply impossible.
_________
"All else opposed all killing."
I have consistently opposed violence. I oppose the killing of civilians at any and all times. To say otherwise is simply incorrect.
I don't care how ineffective the rockets were, the people who were firing them (for eight years, as you note) were trying to provoke violence, instead of trying to make peace. I have no patience with that. Many, many innocent people lost their lives or suffered terrible injuries as the ultimate result of that foolishness. I do not excuse the killing of civilians by the IDF. But the people who fired those rockets had no concern for the safety of their neighbours either. They don't give a fig about the Palestinian people, and the pretense that they speak for Palestinians, or more specifically Gazans, ...
If you look, I think you will find that I have suggested that we offer to settle 250,000 Palestinians a year in North America, where they can live a better, safer life in peace, rather than in the squalor of Gaza. We have provided a safe haven and a beacon of hope for peoples from around the world for a long time.
The needless, stupid suffering of Palestinians for no good reason, but merely because of the obstinancy of men of violence disgusts me.
________
"You lie IF when you suggest that many here have said destroy Israel."
NO, I have not said the "many" here have advocated the destruction of Israel. Some do, and it would be easy enough to find and quote from their postings. I do not believe you have done so, but I do not read all of your posts, so I am not sure.
________
"I say there is no credible evidence Israel faces a nuke threat."
Other than the President of Iran openly saying that he wants to wipe the place out, you mean. But Israel shouldn't take that seriously, in your view.
__________
"Neither do I as an anglo brit in the usa have any concern except getting peace."
No, I do not believe you are an "anglo brit". Your command of English seems far too weak for that, the errors in grammar and sentence structure are not those of a poorly educated native English speaker, and it is not the accent I hear in your writing.
________
"No one threatens to wipe israel out with nukes. they would invade. it is all about land incase you never noticed."
All about land eh? Do you suppose that has nothing to do with why, in this very string, I have called for defensible borders with no net increase in land? But I'm not concerned with land. Right. Go pull the other one.
I have suggested that we offer a home, i.e., our own land, to people here. We cannot control the policies of stupid people far away. But we can offer to open our doors and our hearts to people who are suffering, as we have always done in the past.
________
"Equating with france is a clever lie of a comment."
Well fine, pick Germany, or Japan, or Italy, or Russia. It makes no difference.
_______
"Tell me IF how much research have you done on our and Israels' contribution to destabalising insurgents in Iran?"
I believe that what you really meant to say was in respect of "contribution to insurgents for the purpose of destabilizing Iran", which is quite the opposite of what you actually wrote.
This isn't my field, and I really don't care.
As far as I can see (and as far as I understand from speaking to Iranian expatriates) Ahmadinejad is doing just fine at destabilizing Iran all by himself. Why anyone would think he needs Israeli or American help to do that escapes me.
__________
"You ability to be so one sided and to have read the posts here and still say people are calling for the destruction of Isreal is what show your true colours."
No, I have no stake in this dispute at all. I have read the postings here, the same as you can.
_______
"Yes you are fed up so am I an fed up with the likes of you that always defend Israels rights before recognising others rights."
Well, that is a gross distortion, for sure.
But you feel free to accuse others of bias.
If you read my posts over the past year you will find that it is rare, if not very rare, for me to defend actions of the government of Israel.
Fellow, I know from experience that my views tend to be in the broad middle of public opinion. I sometimes favour one side, and sometimes another.
Complain about this comment
91. At 7:40pm on 09 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
83 colonel
"'The people of afghanistan who are putting up with Obama\s war'
What planet were you on from Oct 2001 - Jan 2009?
Words fail me. In what way is this Obama's war?"
I have wondered which planet, too, and decided either planet Pakistan or Planet Londonistan.
In this case, however reluctantly, I have to admit he has a [possibly unintentional] good point. It became Obama's war when he assumed the presidency. Blame GWB for starting it, sure, but President Obama will be praised or blamed for ending or not ending it and how he does or fails to do it.
Everyone should be wishing President Obama well, especially the right-wing GOP idiots, because the wars (plural) and the economic crises (plural) are potentially very bad for the whole world, especially for the US and its allies.
Complain about this comment
At 173. At 11:17pm on 10 Oct 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote
everything intelligent it is possible to say on these topics.
There is nothing more to say except Amen.
Complain about this comment
189. At 7:05pm on 14 Oct 2009, fluffytale wrote:
"Or to put it another way IF what you have said so far is .
We can trust Israel but not the iranians because they are...... nicer people?"
That is not what IF has written. Your hyper emotional reaction in #188 and #189 shows that you are unable to view the matter in a rational and unemotional way. The posts you responed to were rational, logical and balanced. There are posters who are "for Israel, right or wrong," but Interested Foreigner is not one of them.
With respect to nukes it was clearly stated that, *unlike in other areas,* Israel had shown restraint and responsible behavior. The problem with ending the impass in Israel/Palestine is that both sides are truculant, combative and uncooperative. The hold of the right-wing splinter parties on the Israeli government is pernicious, as is the composition and attitude of all of the Arab governments and movements like Hamass.
BOTH sides need to compromise in order for a lasting peace to result.
Complain about this comment
I believe this was a bold and courageous action by the Nobel group for a number of reasons.
Just receiving an award after doesn’t confirm you are honored to hold it, especially as something as important as the Nobel Peace Prize, if it does then it is more about bolstering the ego than it is about a person’s actions, which I dont believe is the case for either the Nobel group or the recipient.
The ability to take action with commitment and fervour are what are necessary to receive into yourself the honor.
By showing the intention of honoring someone for an award before they achieve the accolade shows great faith and huge courage which is what our world needs, by showing Barack that he is capable of doing something different and acting from a place of peace, will live in his heart and in his actions.
And this remind us that we the people can have faith and courage in ourselves that we can make a difference in others lives and our own, resolve war, produce peace, share love and respect, open handed and which is sustainability.
And I think this is why Alfred Nobel based his conditions for nominations based upon this principle.
An analogy would be to think of awarding our children at the age of 21 with a coin, for all their actions and decisions they made without us providing any time, love, encouragement and mentorship, and guardianship during their necessary growth. The coin would seem worthless and meaningless to us, as we have not participated in their joint co creation together....
I would much prefer to show my appreciation to someone for their abilities to make a difference than to award them at the end, this way I have said to them, I am holding you in faith and courage that you can meet and achieve these goals.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS