Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html en-gb 30 Fri 11 Jul 2014 09:54:27 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html DrMWest http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=99#comment196 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. Mon 26 Oct 2009 15:42:36 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=98#comment195 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. Sun 25 Oct 2009 19:39:34 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=98#comment194 At 173. At 11:17pm on 10 Oct 2009, Interestedforeigner wroteeverything intelligent it is possible to say on these topics.There is nothing more to say except Amen. Sun 25 Oct 2009 19:07:04 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=97#comment193 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. Sun 25 Oct 2009 18:30:48 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=97#comment192 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. Tue 20 Oct 2009 13:26:18 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=96#comment191 shall I rephrase that. defending Isreals right to have nukes while denying others hand grenades. Thu 15 Oct 2009 15:07:55 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=96#comment190 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 sideYou 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 againYou 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. Thu 15 Oct 2009 14:15:05 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=95#comment189 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. Wed 14 Oct 2009 19:20:31 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=95#comment188 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? Wed 14 Oct 2009 18:05:40 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=94#comment187 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. Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:10:09 GMT+1 be the hokey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=94#comment186 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? Wed 14 Oct 2009 01:44:20 GMT+1 be the hokey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=93#comment185 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. Wed 14 Oct 2009 01:40:51 GMT+1 socialistlibertarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=93#comment184 184, IF -Excellent remarks. A well-balanced analysis, I would say. Tue 13 Oct 2009 22:19:31 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=92#comment183 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. Tue 13 Oct 2009 19:41:14 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=92#comment182 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. Tue 13 Oct 2009 15:52:55 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=91#comment181 "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. Tue 13 Oct 2009 15:15:17 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=91#comment180 179 DRIf 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 IsraelAgainst 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. Sun 11 Oct 2009 17:55:17 GMT+1 jcjnyc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=90#comment179 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. Sun 11 Oct 2009 17:02:39 GMT+1 Define_real http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=90#comment178 #178You 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. Sun 11 Oct 2009 14:11:16 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=89#comment177 174. Mary; 175 DRI 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. Sun 11 Oct 2009 12:54:32 GMT+1 Define_real http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=89#comment176 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. Sun 11 Oct 2009 08:36:24 GMT+1 marineSemperfi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=88#comment175 #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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 23:09:32 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=88#comment174 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 22:28:22 GMT+1 mary gravitt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=87#comment173 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 22:24:52 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=87#comment172 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 22:17:35 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=86#comment171 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! Sat 10 Oct 2009 19:13:24 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=86#comment170 161 DRYou 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 18:56:48 GMT+1 american grizzly http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=85#comment169 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 PittStay free, think free, exercise your freedom daily. Les they take it away! Sat 10 Oct 2009 18:52:08 GMT+1 Define_real http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=85#comment168 #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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 17:38:59 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=84#comment167 World peace is the most important thing.Every Miss World and Miss Universe contestant knows that very well. Sat 10 Oct 2009 16:36:45 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=84#comment166 159. Bienvenue.I hear you. We are indeed talking about the same thing. Sat 10 Oct 2009 14:24:32 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=83#comment165 ukawailee;Wherever it is, it won't be in Britain. Sat 10 Oct 2009 14:10:05 GMT+1 hms_shannon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=83#comment164 post 163 Marcus,I think you need a holiday... Sat 10 Oct 2009 13:57:15 GMT+1 hms_shannon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=82#comment163 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.Overhere we have hmmm it rains a lot,but the rain is warmer in summer!! Sat 10 Oct 2009 13:53:32 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=82#comment162 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 13:15:49 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=81#comment161 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 doesBut 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 11:45:52 GMT+1 Define_real http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=81#comment160 #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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 07:53:37 GMT+1 BienvenueEnLouisiana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=80#comment159 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 06:34:14 GMT+1 BienvenueEnLouisiana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=80#comment158 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 06:04:52 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=79#comment157 IF, you want to go to the Keymaker's Mall Kiosk, and please leave a message thereif you have found it. Sat 10 Oct 2009 04:56:06 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=79#comment156 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 Sat 10 Oct 2009 04:22:59 GMT+1 socialistlibertarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=78#comment155 IF - Sorry, not "slainte." Someone else! Seanspa has gone camping for the weekend but can show you the stairs when he returns. Sat 10 Oct 2009 03:42:43 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=78#comment154 152 Guns; 154 Slainte.Can't seem to find the stairs to the kitchen. Sat 10 Oct 2009 02:55:36 GMT+1 socialistlibertarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=77#comment153 IF - And there are no moderators in the kitchen! Instant posting! Sat 10 Oct 2009 02:31:53 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=77#comment152 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 01:15:52 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=76#comment151 IF, you really should come into the kitchen. Publius has found themother-lode of all firearms museums. Sat 10 Oct 2009 01:07:44 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=76#comment150 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. Sat 10 Oct 2009 01:04:43 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=75#comment149 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 doesBut that isn't the point is it. Sat 10 Oct 2009 00:57:28 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=75#comment148 a liberal democrat-------------------------------------------------------------------------since when did the democrats start calling themselves to be liberal? Sat 10 Oct 2009 00:21:35 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=74#comment147 Re 134The 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:55:52 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=74#comment146 138. GunsOh, 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:54:21 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=73#comment145 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:53:25 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=73#comment144 132. trueconservativeJust 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:43:29 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=72#comment143 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:22:26 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=72#comment142 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:20:43 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=71#comment141 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 23:12:03 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=71#comment140 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:58:59 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=70#comment139 "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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:58:44 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=70#comment138 PatrickPoorSingerI 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:55:52 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=69#comment137 126, IF, having grown up in an environment where slush was the predominantelement, I have since become acclimated to warm, friendly, semi-tropicalclimates where I am carefully watched over by palm trees.I have been told that Lacrosse is the real game. If the Indianshad played for high stakes, our ancestors would have had to get back ontheir boats and head back to Europe. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:53:56 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=69#comment136 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:44:02 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=68#comment135 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:42:44 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=68#comment134 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:40:52 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=67#comment133 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:23:23 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=67#comment132 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:19:50 GMT+1 parityisbetterthancharity http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=66#comment131 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... Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:11:50 GMT+1 davidstuarthill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=65#comment130 #67What 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 22:07:15 GMT+1 Mike Dixon Londoner in Spain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=65#comment129 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:57:04 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=64#comment128 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/200910090048Personally 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:53:34 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=64#comment127 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:49:53 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=63#comment126 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." Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:43:41 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=63#comment125 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:42:29 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=62#comment124 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:38:20 GMT+1 edinkler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=62#comment123 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:33:21 GMT+1 Mike Dixon Londoner in Spain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=61#comment122 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:32:17 GMT+1 Mike Dixon Londoner in Spain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=61#comment121 To: MarcusAs 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 21:23:25 GMT+1 john-In-Dublin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=60#comment120 # 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.... Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:46:08 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=60#comment119 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:39:25 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=59#comment118 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". Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:36:22 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=59#comment117 IF, likewise. If I made a living out of playing a game where theobject is to beat people up with sticks and keep score, then Iwould be happy to just survive and cash my paycheck, much lessreceive an award. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:24:26 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=58#comment116 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:19:02 GMT+1 rodidog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=58#comment115 I will gladly pay you peace tomorrow for a Nobel prize today. Or was that a hamburger? Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:08:51 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=57#comment114 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:06:08 GMT+1 parityisbetterthancharity http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=57#comment113 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:04:37 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=56#comment112 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 20:00:44 GMT+1 Define_real http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=56#comment111 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? Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:54:50 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=55#comment110 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:53:23 GMT+1 Rory Andrews http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=55#comment109 John Boyd-Orr won it in 1949. Guess since he was Scottish he doesn't count as a British winner. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:52:51 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=54#comment108 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... Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:43:26 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=54#comment107 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:43:06 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=53#comment106 Ref 2, Gavrielle"The conservative talking heads are already sneering."They are in good company, the Taleban is too. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:31:07 GMT+1 Skidd http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=53#comment105 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? Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:28:42 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=52#comment104 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:27:39 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=52#comment103 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.. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:25:45 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=51#comment102 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:22:32 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=51#comment101 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:21:55 GMT+1 colonelartist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=50#comment100 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:14:55 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=50#comment99 97This 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 19:03:07 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=49#comment98 87. GunsGood to hear from you. Liked your poem on the other thread.As for your goals, I believe that is the Maurice Richard trophy. Fri 09 Oct 2009 18:59:42 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/wake_up_call_for_world_peace.html?page=49#comment97 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. Fri 09 Oct 2009 18:51:19 GMT+1