Friday, October 09, 2009
On that Nobel Prize: Don’t do it Barack…
Have to say it was a bit of a surprise to hear Barack Obama had won a Nobel Peace Prize… Ulster’s most famous Tory blogger Shane Greer asks why they are giving out the prize for hope... Apparently the nominations closed 11 days after he took office.. David Steven reckons the audacious thing to do would be just to say No...
Adds: Will was up at the crack of dawn this morning and saw the live feed… it was controversial from the get go...
Mick Fealty @ 11:07 AM
Bit of a joke since Kissinger got it.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 12:46 PM”...why they are giving out the prize for hope…
Why not? They certainly gave the literature award for hope in 1938 when Pearl S. Buck, who had not theretofore written anything worthwhile was the laureate, perhaps in an attempt to encourage her to try harder. Unfortunately that hope remained unfulfilled.
Obama’s award certainly seems odd to say the least but, what the heck, if Kissinger, Sadat and Trimble were worthy recipients then Obama’s nice smile alone would be sufficient for him to qualify.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:00 PMIMHO, Josh Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com says it right:
“This is an odd award. You’d expect it to come later in Obama’s presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the ‘hyper-power’ as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it’s a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was ‘normal history’ rather than dark aberration.”Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:00 PMMairead Coorrigan has said it was a bad decision. Some said the same about her.
Mick Fealty would be a better choice this year as he has tried reconciliation and could do with the loolah for his peace building initiative.
Hitler was once nominated for the prize for not invading Austria.
The wisest words on this prize have been uttered by Taliban and Islamic Jihad leaders. They see through the Scanidavian lapdogs who, lest we forget suplied arms to both sides in the Iran Iraq war even as they pretended to mediate.The BBC comments when I checked them were all negative though of ocurse world leaders/lapdogs have weighed in saying how wise it was.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:11 PMNo harm to Obama but the manner of this just serves to completely devalue the award, even more.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:15 PM“Bit of a joke since Kissinger got it. “
Anti-semite
(JOKING)
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:31 PMGerry I take it your reference to lapdogs is joke?
It has a quaint 1980s Workers’ Revolutionary Party air to it. You really need some “runningdogs” in their and also “petit-bourgeois” if possible to get the full retro feeling.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:39 PMSome previous deserving winners:-
George Catlett Marshall
Martin Luther King Jr.
Willy Brandt
Lech Walesa
Desmond Mpilo Tutu
Elie Wiesel
Mikhail Sergeyevich
Aung San Suu Kyi
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:54 PMMikhail Sergeyevich *Gorbachev* I mean
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:55 PMMy thoughts:
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 01:59 PMThere are two reasons he got it
1. He’s NOT George W Bush
2. He constantly apologizes for AmericaPosted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 02:18 PMShow me what he did then I’ll judge whether he deserves it….....
Ok then, it’s a bad decison the guy hasn’t done anything yet.
He might deserve it later but no way has he earned it yet - we shouldn’t be rewarding potential
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 02:19 PMIt would be highly ironic if he ended up using nukes during his presidency, wouldn’t it?
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 02:43 PM“It would be highly ironic if he ended up using nukes during his presidency, wouldn’t it?”
Not just ironic, pretty disastrous all round. Who do you think would be on the receiving end though?
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 02:49 PMNothing could be as undeserving as Trimble getting the Nobel prize (and keeping all the dosh to himself). Obamas not the worst to get it.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 03:09 PMBrit: “Not just ironic, pretty disastrous all round. Who do you think would be on the receiving end though?”
...
Judging by his performance so far, probably the U.S. Dollar.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 04:29 PMBased on his almost first year in office President Obama deserves the prize .During that short period he has done more than the previous incumbent did in 8 wasted , warmongering years :(
Meanwhile back at warmongering central i.e GOP Headquarters former Presidential candidate Senator John McCain is gung ho to send another 60,000 troops to Afghanistan . Just as well Obama was elected or we might already be looking at a devastated Iran with half the world’s oil supplies on fire nd 25 mile long queues outside petrol stations :(
Meanwhile the Afghan Army with 70% of it’s officer corp recruited from the Tajik minority (23%) and with the Pushtun (46%) majority divided into pro and anti Karzai factions the traditional enmity between Tajiks and Pushtun’s is amking recruitment difficult and training even more so . And then there is the Taliban and the other ethnic minorities .
A graceful withdrawal is what’s needed . Let the Afghans hang their American scalps alongside their Russian and British ones and let them find ‘democracy’ in their own time .
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:07 PMI think it’s all a ploy to hide the dismal failure of the climate talks in Bangkok.
Come back, George. All is forgiven. It wasn’t your fault after all.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:30 PMBrian MacAodh’s suggestion that one of the reasons Obama won the award, “that he was not George Bush”, was also suggested by a BBC correspondent on the Radio 4 six o’clock news. I have no argument but that is as good a reason as any to make him worthy with the slight feeling of being just a wee bit miffed as I have not been George Bush since before the end of WWII and haven’t been recognised in consequence one little bit.
Gerry Mander is pretty spot on with his observations on the political nature of the Nobel awards, they are to honour those who serve the advance of Western capitalism or to steal the glory from genuine sacrifice and altrusim so that it shines on the Nobel Institute and helps kosher up its image of feigned objective concern for the progress of mankind. The award of the prize to the NI “Peace people” trio in 1976 neatly fulfilled both objectives in that it served the British and the false image of the objectivity and altruism fostered made for feely-good publicity around the world (for a time). The Lenin Peace Prize served as a mirror image for the Soviet Bloc.
As a footnote to which I might add that the only joint winner of both the Nobel and Lenin peace prizes was a former Chief-of-Staff of the IRA, Séan MacBride, the son of Maud Gonne and whose father, Major John MacBride was executed by British firing squad for his role in the Easter Rising in 1916. MacBride won both prizes as a result of his role as UN commissioner for Namibia.
The Soviets had a policy supporting liberation movements in order to keep the West preoccupied and create division and dissent in its domestic populace and the West needed to be seen to oppose apartheid and support a fully democratic South Africa in order to advance its own exploitation throughout the rest of Africa, apartheid proving inefficient, counter-productive and terribly bad for the image.Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:33 PMGreenflag
There is no doubt Iraq was a blunder of historic proportions. That doesn’t mean that any president who doesn’t do something like that is automatically deserving of a peace prize.
Failure to deal with Iran on some level will ultimately lead to Israel taking direct action. The ensuing war will not be pretty for anyway. Getting Iran to actually give up their nuclear weapons program may not be possible, but that should be the international priority.
As for McCain calling for 60K troops…it was of course the General in charge of Afganistan who called for the troop raise. The number was closer to 40K. The General whom Obama put in charge. McCain, as a former military man, simply stated that obama should give the general what he needs to meet the objectives. Calling McCain, someone who was tortured and spend 5 years in a cage, a warmonger doesn’t help anything.
There should be no half-measure in Afganistan. Either we make a full push to achieve our goals, or we get out completely. The rules of engagement are changed, the troop numbers go up, and we actually make a full push for it. Anything short of that will accomplish nothing except drain the morale of the armed forces over there until our eventual withdrawel in disgrace.
I personally think we might as well withdraw but keep a close watch to make sure Al Queda and other groups like that can’t run terrorist camps with immunity. When they come out in the open for too long to set up a training camp, we send the bombers in.
I doubt Afganistan could ever have a fucntioning, democratic government. Tribalism, Islam, iliteracy, and the size of the country are all working against it.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:52 PMGreenflag
There is no doubt Iraq was a blunder of historic proportions. That doesn’t mean that any president who doesn’t do something like that is automatically deserving of a peace prize.
Failure to deal with Iran on some level will ultimately lead to Israel taking direct action. The ensuing war will not be pretty for anyway. Getting Iran to actually give up their nuclear weapons program may not be possible, but that should be the international priority.
As for McCain calling for 60K troops…it was of course the General in charge of Afganistan who called for the troop raise. The number was closer to 40K. The General whom Obama put in charge. McCain, as a former military man, simply stated that obama should give the general what he needs to meet the objectives. Calling McCain, someone who was tortured and spend 5 years in a cage, a warmonger doesn’t help anything.
There should be no half-measure in Afganistan. Either we make a full push to achieve our goals, or we get out completely. The rules of engagement are changed, the troop numbers go up, and we actually make a full push for it. Anything short of that will accomplish nothing except drain the morale of the armed forces over there until our eventual withdrawel in disgrace.
I personally think we might as well withdraw but keep a close watch to make sure Al Queda and other groups like that can’t run terrorist camps with immunity. When they come out in the open for too long to set up a training camp, we send the bombers in.
I doubt Afganistan could ever have a fucntioning, democratic government. Tribalism, Islam, illiteracy, and the size of the country are all working against it.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:52 PMI think it’s to act as a bulwark against the horrible neo-cons stateside and to discourage Obama’s administration team from even thinking about any additional belligerent actions of sorts whatsoever.
It’s a burden to America in as much as it tries to muzzle its war machine and instead increase the support for effective global diplomacy there.
Also gives him more global credibility that might boost his stalling domestic reforms back home stateside, as the more magic fairy dust about him can only help his chances to see off that truculent and very crude opposition.
Definitely seems too soon but perhaps he deserves it in a way that just being black and the President of the USA merits it alone - he did it. This is it, this is it, ops…sorry that was Jacko.
Erm…I meant to say: Yes We Can!
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:21 PMThe reason he got it is that he’s the first president in a long time to look like he’s putting pressure on Israel to face up to its international obligations, in terms of its nuclear weapons and ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people. Not to mention its ongoing efforts to ensure there is no prospect of a viable Palestinian state.
Israel is currently, and has been for some time, the greatest threat to world peace, and indeed the West’s oil supply.
Previous US policy has been to placate Israel for fear of what they may do. Current policy is to ensure they’re incapable of doing what we fear they may do.
QED.
“We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads”. Moshe Dayan
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 07:07 PMThe award is an embarrassing accolade from sychophantic Europeans who wish for the demise of the USA. Obama’s their man!
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 07:23 PMThat has rather killed off the possibility of any US action against North Korea or Iran.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2009 @ 07:34 PM
