OSLO (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew criticism as well as praise.
The decision to bestow one of the world's top accolades on a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, provoked gasps of surprise from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
Gasps... Are you sure it was surprise?
In a further attempt to make me go tinfoil-hat-crazy, Hamas had a very sensible statement:
The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best.
"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. "Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes."
Isn't it interesting that this comes after failing to get mean on Iran's intent to produce nuclear arms?!
But hey, check the excuse list to see that you can win through sheer points-for-effort.
"for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East"
Mr. Feckless himself joins such ethical giants as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yasser Arafat. On second thought, it's kind of fitting as I look at the weird history and weird laureates of the Nobel, which is named for a man who's death was celebrated by the French and who invented dynamite.
It's getting to the point where if you made up the most ridiculous thing about Feckless that you could think of, it just might be tomorrow's headline.
Posts
20 comments:
While I do not agree with your vitriol (might I recommend Xanax?), I do agree that someone jumped the gun. President Obama has not yet earned this award, and I would hope he will acknowledge as much.
Apologies, I only landed on vitrol by mistake. I was aiming for exasperation.
It's a contest between agreeing that a "peace prize" is not deserved, but also being annoyed that this "prize" exists or that anyone cares who gets it after it's been sullied by the recipients, and the reasons for it being received.
I tend to view the Nobel Peace Prize the same way I view the Academy Awards (at least the 74th): 9/10 popularity contest and 1/10 white guilt.
As to anyone caring about the Nobel Peace Prize? I can’t see why the plebeian would. The award only exists so that elite prigs can congratulate each other.
Now, if President Obama wins an Oscar too? Shit will burn.
Hugh Hewitt had an interesting take here: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/fa683232-f764-4ebc-8b87-f24a661772b4
Essentially, let's not slam this. It's an honor to a US president, and maybe it will encourage Obama to get more proactive and steel his spine a bit. But I have to disagree.
Obama is an egotist, and now he just received the most prestigious award in the world that any politician could receive. I'm not going to say he got it for nothing. He got it for pursuing a all talk, no action agenda that the left loves. So when you reward an egotist for doing something, how does that make him want to do the opposite?
If anything they just reinforced his ridiculous approach to foreign affairs. It's like Pavlov's dog or something.
In Obama's skewed world view he has now just been told the most damaging thing for us: that he was right. And he was told by someone with accreditation. Look for more of the same, damn the results, as Barack looks for a Nobel repeat.
For whoever is up for it, how about a list of people who didn't get a peace prize despite providing peace?
How about Israeli Air Force General David Ivry who, in 1981, led the bombing of Osirak, a nuclear reactor which was nuclear bomb components for Saddam Hussein?
@ Raconteur: I don't think 'egotist' is what you are looking for -- that really is more Ayn Rand’s thing. Though I'll cede the point somewhere around narcissist.
Oh course the Nobel Committee reinforced his “ridiculous approach to foreign affairs”, that is exactly what they were awarding. I find it funny that you call for us “not to slam this” but then go on for three paragraphs doing just that.
This award should be given based on achievements, not intentions. If President Obama’s “ridiculous approach to foreign affairs” pays out over the next 20 years, he should be given the award then. Not now.
Peace Prize for bombing shit? Please tell me that was laced with sarcasm...
@Ep0pEE - I didn't say we shouldn't slam this. I was paraphrasing what Hugh Hewitt said.
And yes, people who bomb shit should get peace prizes, as long as they're bombing the instigators of oppression and and totalitarianism.
Truman did more to bring about world peace than Ghandi, and he did it by dropping a big fucking bomb.
I would argue that Truman was a coward for using the bomb. But you do have a point: kill enough people and the world will be a very peaceful place.
Unless it ends up being an Omega Man situation. Then it is all 'bout the zombie ass-kicking...peace can suck a dick.
Wow. I'll bite. How was Truman a coward? He'd have been brave if he sent half a million Americans to die on the shores of Japan? An estimated 3 million Japanese deaths as well?
What a pussy for choosing the path of least death.
Do you have any idea what would have happened to the 20th century if we didn't drop that bomb? Who would have kept the USSR from marching all the way across Europe instead of only half way?
One way results in the death of tyrants. The other results in the conquering of the innocent.
Boy did I pick the wrong day to sleep late.
The line between The Onion and reality gets more blurry by the day.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped on “tyrants”. They were dropped on pseudo-military, metropolitan areas. The “tyrants” were miles away.
What would have happened if we did not drop the bombs? Japan would have completed the peace accord they were brokering through the Soviets. Surrender would have been finalized by November.
Now, the above scenario brings up a whole new set of consequences that are too tedious to get into in a comment thread; though it would make for a great discussion over beer.
Hold up- Ep0pEE - Did you really just argue that Truman was a coward for dropping the bomb?
The only way peace has historically been achieved was through strength.
To pretend that peace can be achieved through any other means is naïve.
I'd love to be enlightened about any real, lasting peace that happened entirely through flowing rhetorical speeches and apologies. One that doesn't end with the feckless side being enslaved, that is.
Oh, and BTW, Hugh is is dream land here. There is no way that Feckless will use this as anything but an endorsement of his "speak rhetorically and dismantle all of the sticks" policies.
Wow, a peace accord with the Imperial Japanese brokered by Stalin-led Communist Russia?
What a great deal! I can't believe we didn't jump on that!
Hiroshima was a very significant manufacturing city, and Nagasaki was their sea port. You don't win a war by killing the most people, you win it by attacking the enemy's infrastructure, until they can no longer fight, or no longer have the will to try. Then, magically, peace happens, like we've had with the Japanese for over 60 years.
Again, pseudo-military. Your point was that certain actions killed tyrants; my point was that it killed innocents.
Stop being so dramatic, I never claimed that a Soviet-Imperial alliance would have been a good thing. My point was only to illustrate that surrender was imminent. The US was just pissed that it wasn't on our terms. So we made them surrender on our terms. That is the action of a coward.
McArthur, Eisenhower, and Nimitz all thought using the bomb was unnecessary. They knew that Japan was defeated and it was just a matter of weeks for everything to be settled. Had the US joined the surrender discussion in earnest, we could have resolved the surrender in days and avoided the messy Soviet-Imperial alliance.
If MacArthur and Nimitz and Eisenhower all agreed the Japanese were going to surrender, then why did they advocate invading? Even after the Hiroshima was bombed?
The Soviets claimed half of Europe. No one there, including us, had the troop strength to stop them if they decided to press forward. A treaty is not the same thing as a surrender. The last thing the world needed was to give Japan the chance to rebuild, or to give the Soviets another chance to expand their own empire. It's not an act of cowardice to make the enemy surrender on our terms, its an act of intelligence and wisdom.
Cops don't arrest criminals on the criminal's terms. They don't get the option to drop their gun but keep their knife. You force an unconditional surrender.
And surrender was not imminent. Don't state opinion as fact. At best, it's a debatable point.
Don't walk through life thinking everyone out there thinks like you. There were precious few sides in WW2 who were fighting to achieve peace. How many times do we have to see Iran or North Korea stall for time at the negotiating table so they can spit on the process behind closed doors? Remember when we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, and he called for a time out to discuss surrender. He slipped out the back.
Sorry, but negotiations between two powerful sides are only ever duplicitous, political stalling. You get lasting peace by stepping on their necks, getting an unconditional surrender, and then extending your hand to help them.
History bears that out.
As the Generals (Fleet Admiral) it would have been irresponsible for them not to advocate further military operations, even after the bombing. Military operations don’t end on the assumption of surrender, they end with surrender. Until the Japanese surrendered, it was their responsibility to continue the war efforts.
You are correct; no one had the troop strength in Europe to stop the Soviets. But once the Japanese surrendered, there would have been little reason to keep the same troop levels in the Pacific Theater. That would have given us the strength in the European Theater to push the Soviets back. But that is all hypothetical.
-----
Your Qwerty U blog just made my “Writers/Authors” blog roll, really good stuff on there. I will be checking out Transylvania Television tonight, it sounds very promising.
Dammit, you complimented me. Now I have to stop arguing and preen myself in the corner.
Muwahahaha!
Post a Comment