« Our Abject President Sucks Up to China | Rutabaga Ridgepole's Blog | Big Medicine's Big Bribe for Michelle Obama »
Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize! Harharharhar!!!
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!
Harharharhar!!!
But some people aren't laughing.
At first light last Friday, in the Chardarah district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, the villagers gathered around the twisted wreckage of two fuel tankers that had been hit by a Nato airstrike."We didn't recognise any of the dead when we arrived," said Omar Khan, the turbaned village chief of Eissa Khail. "They were like burned tree logs, like charcoal."
"The villagers were fighting over the corpses. People were saying this is my brother, this is my cousin, and no one could identify anyone."
"I couldn't find my son, so I took a piece of flesh with me home and I called it my son."
Advertisement





















It's probably lucky for Obama that there aren't many images from Chardarah.
October 9, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Under the NYTimes article I linked, the sixth comment from the top...
"Someone please tell me this is a joke."
...has already accumulated 138 recommends.
October 9, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there are dozens more like it. All in all, it looks like a fairly even split between "hurrah" and "what the fuck?"
October 9, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comments on the top article in the Washington Post are split even more unfavorably than in the Times, with about two thirds incredulous or pissed off.
Of course, it's mostly Republicans who are pissed off, and liberals who are incredulous.
About 15 comments down "mitlen" says...
"I'm an ardent Democrat, Obama supporter and voter. I sure don't understand it."
...and there are many more similar, along with some cheering.
October 9, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must not check the comments in the Post very often - they're as rabidly rightwing as anywhere to the left of FreeRepublic can be.
That said, I agree that it's a ridiculous choice. This is an award for actual accomplishments, not merely "inspiring" people.
October 9, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about not reading comments on the Post.
And here's a tidbit that you may appreciate from ABC...
October 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Guardian reported that reaction to Obama's prize was a mixed bag all around the world, except in Iraq, where...
More of the same! Hurrah!
Harharharhar!!!
October 10, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Rootie, I think you need to rewrite your post. Chardarah is completely in keeping with the spirt of Alfred Noble. I mean the dude invented dynamite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel
The erroneous publication in 1888 of a premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper, condemning him for his invention of dynamite, is said to have brought about his decision to leave a better legacy after his death. The obituary stated Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead") and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.I guess the foundation is staying true to their roots.
Jesus, gitmo isn't even closed, a few hundred guys and the most powerful country in history can't figure out what to do. Hell bribe em. Do something. Peace prize?
October 9, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly seems to have some political motivation behind it, huh?
An obvious SLAP to GW Bush's face.
...and Obama's only been in office for almost 9 months?
WHOA!!!
October 9, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the weirdest aspects of this strange situation, IMHO, is that a lot of Obama supporters are puzzled, judging from comments on the Times and Post stories, and leaving aside Republicans and critics from the Left like me.
WTF?
Nobody seems to know, and your guess is probably about as close as anything else I read, Ickyma.
October 9, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the big outside world your narrow one sees things a little differently. Years ago my uncle (who is a citizen of a different country,) told me that America's problem was that they didn't know there was a biiiig wide world outside their borders. This blog is a perfect example of that ignorance.
I am surprised, but rather than dismiss the opinion of the Noble committee, I'd rather try to see what it is we here in America are missing.
Not doing so seems pretty damn arrogant.
For now, it's enough to feel pleased and proud that I voted for him.
October 9, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very condescending comment for a barnyard animal to make about somebody who has lived with great-souled subsistence farmers on Crete and Almanach de Gotha nobility in France and flown into Beirut more times than you ever got out of the chicken-coop.
Cluck cluck to you, too, you bird of little brain!
October 9, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, you didn't learn respect for other cultures, or pick up on any noblesse oblige.
You're a common thinker, thinking predictable, common thoughts. Much like any winger.
Learn to question your mostly negative assumptions, and you might become a decent thinker, someday.
I kind of doubt it, tho. As you have obviously let yourself become infected with ignorance of the world around you, daily trips outside the USAs borders won't help you.
You are stuck inside the narrow walls of your own spite.
(shrug) What a waste.
October 9, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has Obama done in his 9 months as President to deserve this? Or was it his work as a US Senator for two years?
October 9, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very good question, especially in comparison with other winners.
This is the same prize they gave to Nelson Mandela!
And Martin Luther King!
And Albert Einstein!
And Albert Schweitzer!
Mother Teresa!
Desmond Tutu!
Aung San Suu Kyi!
And now...
Barack Obama?
October 9, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it's because he's "committed" to a world without nuclear weapons.
Well, that's nice but I would think you'd have to be responsible for an actual reduction in nuclear weapons before you get awarded for something.
Miss America is also committed to world peace...is she next?
October 9, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if she has the smarts and the guts and the class and the strategic vision to get herself elected President and in a position to do something about it.
While I have been troubled by Obama's proposed policies in Pakistan in particular, I do trust him to make rational decisions based on facts. Chasing mythical WMDs around Iraq and thereby turning Osama into something of a hero for the more impressionable of Muslim youth is not a error he would have made.
October 9, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So having strategic vision gets somebody a Nobel prize? You don't have to actually have any tangible results?
October 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's started digging us out the hole that the Bush years have left us in. That's why America's standing has shot up in the world.
Winning the Presidency is not a beauty contest -- it requires political talent and determination.
Your post is objectionable both because it fails to recognize what is good about Obama and because it assumes that a beauty contestant automatically will not have the ability to do anything useful.
It is a matter of pride that Obama is taking time to explore what we should do next in Afghanistan. All Cheney had to do was say boo to Bush and America was dropping bombs in massive numbers where we shouldn't have. In contrast an attempt to remove the threat of stolen gas tankers which went tragically wrong pales in comparison. In Chardarah we produced by mishap the results we were attempting to prevent the Jihadists from accomplishing on purpose.
War is hell. Obama in the past has scared me by saying he was against stupid wars. This implies that there is such a thing as a smart war. You may get to a point where it is necessary to carry out a war but going to war is itself almost the definition of failure.
Sarah Chayes who lived in Afghanistan supports McChrystal's plan to attempt to give security to the Afghan people against the oppression previously visited on them by the Taliban. Charlie Wilson says he would cut and run. It is not clear whether it is doable in the first place.
How many lives are worth sacrificing so that Afghan women are allowed to learn to read one or two generations sooner? If you have a pat answer for that, let me know.
October 9, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has he actually accomplished (as opposed to just words and speeches) in terms of better peace in the world?
Do you feel safer? I don't
October 9, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, since he pitched a known warmongering party out of office I both am much safer and feel safer.
Now if he just keeps his promises.
October 9, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. So promises and speeches win a Nobel prize. Amazing.
October 9, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, you are being deliberately blind to my argument -- he got the prize because he unelected a bunch of Republicans -- or hadn't that reality sunk in yet? Yeah, that actually did happen!
October 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? I fully realize that he won the election. But I am not being deliberately blind. If your argument is that he won the Nobel Prize just because he got elected and unseated a Republican, that's a really poor argument.
October 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if the Germans had democratically unelected Hitler?
We had the American government in the control of a party which was willing to go to war on phony and flimsy evidence. Obama's election and its impact on the Congressional races ended that. This is a significant contribution to peace in the world.
If the Republicans had won, McChrystal's demands would have been immediately granted and we would probably be debating -- when, not whether, we invade Iran.
Obama is carefully checking his facts and theories on how to handle the situation in Afghanistan. This is somewhat of a political risk to him since he previously stated that this was a war that needed to be fought. I may or may not agree with what Obama decides but the approach is much better than the knee jerk bellicosity of George Bush.
October 9, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Just because a majority of Americans voted for him, he's worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize? Even though he's accomplished very little in his 9 months in office. Carefully checking his facts and theories gets him the Nobel prize?
October 9, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, precisely, convincing the majority of Americans to vote for him over the war party is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Certainly far more likely to contribute to peace than any other single thing he is apt to have the power to do.
Or do you really believe we would not be contemplating war with Iran at this very minute if McCain had been elected?
October 9, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. So it doesn't matter who was running on the Democratic ticket. As long as a Democrat won, whether it was Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, etc. - then that winner wins the Nobel prize for peace. That's certainly one argument I haven't heard from anyone else
October 10, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to answer your initial question, if the Germans had democratically "unelected" Hitler, that doesn't mean that the new ruler of Germany all of a sudden is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Running in an election and winning is not the basis for the Nobel Prize. It can't be the only thing on your resume.
October 9, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A President's record does not spring de novo from Jupiter's brow. The political accomplishments which may be involved in getting elected count also. In the German analogy, the new 'ruler' would have defeated the Nazis party before being elected. That would have been a significant contribution to peace.
I'm over stating it only somewhat with respect to the Republicans but you have to realize that you lose a lot of trust in the world if you start a phony war.
October 9, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a whole other debate on whether Bush was justified or not. But simply replacing him as President doesn't qualify you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I guess using your logic you would also give the Nobel Prize to President Nixon or Ford since they succeeded LBJ, who put us into another phony war (Vietnam)
October 10, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next is Obama's not much more surprising selection as Miss America.
Random honors accrue...
October 9, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The awarding of the Peace Prize was a surprise to me too. Perhaps it's an acknowledgment of "He ain't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/neo-con." Or perhaps it's a recognition of just how challenging the road to peace is that confronts this President as he assumes the absolute disasters that have been left to him by the previous Administration.
Given the situation Bush/Cheney and the neo-cons have gotten us into with their dreams of a New American Century Empire, perhaps the Nobel Committee understands that Obama is going to need to be as accomplished as anyone on the list you mention here, or there will perhaps never be any more Peace Awards. No hyperbole here, folks. This neo-con mess is challenging this country to its core, requiring the continuing rise in the number of deaths of our soldiers and the loss of treasure we simply cannot afford.
There are nothing but painful options confronting Obama in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Iraq. And it's disgusting to see the same chickenhawks who got us into the mess and stumbled around without so much as a coherent and consistent policy for eight years are now bold enough to criticize Obama for not having fixed their problems within the first year in office.
Obama has now gotten the Nobel Peace Award. It really makes no difference whatsoever what we think of this. Instead, we should all pray that historians look back on this period and never questions its legitimacy, but instead marvel at the leader who who brought peace to the maelstrom that now threatens to overwhelm any peace in this world.
October 9, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree.
I think Obama's prize is compromised by widespread incredulity, and what was apparently wishful thinking by the Nobel committee is probably misplaced, if they intended to inspire Obama with a real commitment to peace.
Getting elected President obviously didn't inspire that clown with any principles whatsoever, and likewise all the rest of the phenomenally good luck in his charmed life.
Giving Obama the Peace Prize and hoping he turns into Nelson Mandela is as hopeless as giving a Grammy to Paris Hilton, and hoping she turns into Aretha Franklin.
It ain't gonna happen.
October 9, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You ignore the rest of the paragraph to make as cynical a point as possible.
I am a long way from being an Obama cheerleader for many of the same reasons as you. A rather clever spaniel could outperform Bush in the Office of the Presidency, and so it is easy to get all excited that Obama has brought "change" to the Office, and it is this we find reflected in his most glowing "reviews" thus far.
But it really makes no difference what we think at present. This Award was given, I believe, to inspire the way toward peace which Obama has outlined in his rhetoric when it is so critically needed. It is vital that history judge this award to be legitimate, because the stakes are simply too high.
October 9, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A rather clever spaniel could outperform Bush in the Office of the Presidency"
Even a clever bulldog, maybe.
October 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo hoo about ignoring some details of your comment.
Meanwhile, you ignored my cosmic analogy!
Harharharhar!!!
October 9, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is true that opinions are like assholes because everyone has one, then I suppose it is right and proper to also afford your opinions extra weight as being "perfect" and yes, even "total" given their origin.
Nuanced? Maybe not so much!
October 9, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rigoberta Menchu. 1992.
October 9, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Henry Kissinger.
October 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an interesting example of a Peace Prize recipient to ponder relative to the selection of Obama. Let's hope history finds this one to be more satisfying.
October 9, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the shining example of Henry Kissinger.
October 9, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "big outside world" in which I currently am residing is pretty confused about this too.
October 9, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arkansas?
October 9, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. I'm happy about it. I tend to agree with it.
I've traveled outside the US... I'm married to a Brazilian and have lots of friends abroad. My personal view may be narrow by some standards, but believe me, I do understand there's a Biiig world out there... There will be a tomorrow... and we all need to endeavor to live together.
Given all that... I'm not sure where you're coming from...
For me, this story came as a surprise... I'm still digesting it.
Compared to previous winners like Kissinger (for example)... this one seems perfectly fine.
October 9, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ewww. Ruta has a problem. Bet he criticized Obama for drawing all those crowds in Europe too (even before he was elected). Those folks over there were so proud we appeared to be on the road to peace, refuting the warmongering we all have had to live through. Ha! To make us SAFER????
October 9, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I am bit stunned (understatement) and think this is a cart before the horse moment. Jacob your diary has solidified you into the same class of punditry of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.
October 9, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comparison to Beck Hansen, Hamlet, and Charles Lindbergh, although your spelling hasn't improved since the primaries, when you posted "Obeemie is yog gerbil" over and over.
"Yog gerbil!"
You must be hopelessly insane.
October 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The award seems to be wishful thinking. I share their wishes, at least.
October 9, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Nobel Committee! What am I, chopped liver?
October 9, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got my vote, gasket!
October 9, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Rootie. If it needs to be said, you got my vote too, for your tireless efforts to bring a reality check to American political blogs. When I spoke to Thorbjørn Jagland about this controversial final decision, he said, "Maybe next year."
Meanwhile, from Reuters:
The prize is certainly a lot to live up to. I can only hope it makes a difference.
October 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now you're quoting the leader of the Taliban approvingly?
"Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to ban a wide variety of activities hitherto lawful in Afghanistan: employment, education and sports for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and beard trimming...
...rules were issued by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice (PVSV) and enforced by its "religious police," a concept thought to be borrowed from the Wahhabis. In newly conquered towns hundreds of religious police beat offenders (typically men without beards and women who were not wearing their burqas properly) with long sticks...
...Theft was punished by the amputation of a hand, rape and murder by public execution. Married adulterers were stoned to death. In Kabul, punishments were carried out in front of crowds in the city's former soccer stadium."
But, they hate Obama too, so I guess it's OK.
October 9, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I quoted the Taliban "approvingly."
You know what, brewmn61? You're a fucking idiot. Congratulations.
October 9, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can live without the vege's "reality," as it isn't, really.* Certainly not in the larger world he tends to ignore. You do too, especially when surprises occur. I prefer to reassess MY reality in the face of world opinion. Try it. America isn't the whole world as much as we've been bred to believe it is.
*Unless one is in need of heavy-duty anti-depressants.
October 10, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Guardian reported that reaction to Obama's prize was a mixed bag all around the world, except in Iraq, where...
More of the same! Hurrah!
Harharharhar!!!
October 10, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I nominate Gasket for a Nobel Peace Prize for achievements in TPM unity.
October 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Thanks, dijamo. ;-)
That was a fleeting moment, kinda like the idea of peace in the Middle East. But unlike peace in the Middle East, that post is forever etched in cyberspace!
October 9, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.
There is a certain irony in there being a Nobel peace Prize at all.
October 9, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama should endow a "Truth and Commitment Prize."
October 9, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not ironic at all. Nobel set up the fund and awards precisely because he became aware of his inventions' darker sides.
October 9, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also owned an armaments maker, Bofors.
He may not have been initially aware of his inventions' darker sides (which presupposes a high degree of stupidity on his part), but he was keen enough to profit from said uses.
October 9, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dynamite was invented to make mining and other similar work safer. Bofors was 1894, but I do not know - and am too lazy to look just now - whether they already manufactured arms at that point.
October 9, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dynamite and nuclear technology alike make the world safer and more dangerous.
The dichotomy isn't a simple one.
October 9, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what your argument is?
October 9, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, bega, tell me the value of one man bringing hopefulness of a better tomorrow to the majority of a planet? The GOP canonized Reagan for his bringing such hopefulness merely to the majority of Americans. Also, tell me any other person in the world has had anywhere near such an uplifting world-wide effect these past 12-months.
October 9, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for "uplift," as in "A vacuum at the top lifts all ballons!"
But how can I miss Obama, if he won't go away?
October 9, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked out Le Monde (centrist for France) and the comments are pretty negative.
http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/reactions/2009/10/09/barack-obama-prix-nobel-de-la-paix_1251573_3222.html#opened
The remarks are pretty good:
"Un Prix Nobel de la Paix ( Obama ) qui refuse de recevoir un autre Prix Nobel de la Paix ( Dalaï Lama ) pour ne pas déplaire à une dictature (chinoise), voilà qui en dit plus long qu'un discours à Stockholm.."
The more right-wing Figaro has a poll going on whether he deserves it and it's running 65%-35% against the choice (I voted no).
October 9, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Figaro vote is now 70-30% qu'il ne le méritait pas. I'm not saying how I voted.
As a tot, the only section of Figaro I read was the feuilleton, and wasn't I ever so much better off then than now!
October 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Rootie, being the wonderman you are, who - if anyone - should have gotten this? Tsvangirai? Some Chinese dissident? Any thoughts?
Seriously, who's doing some good and could use the money and prestige to bump up his or her cause?
I'm personally too clueless, but this all seems a terrible waste of dynamite money/air time...
October 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this moment, if I nominated anyone for the Peace Prize, it would be Robert W. Fuller, founder of the Hunger Project and life-long crusader for human dignity.
October 9, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would nominate the hugging saint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Amritanandamayi
October 9, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering Fuller just put a blog entitled "Obama’s Nobel Honors His Dignitarian Politics"... and I'm worn out just thinking about the hugging thing, I'd like to nominate... Mega Shark.
Or, ummmm, Greenpeace. I mean, the IPCC and Al Gore, Pugwash Conference and Landmines work, the ILO and IEA, Grameen Bank and Doctors without Borders - all won. And not these people. Is this a joke??
So my vote, (1) Greenpeace, or (2) Mega Shark.
Otherwise, they need a new name for this award. Like...
The Prize Given To This Year's Leading American Whom We Pray To God Will Slow The Almighty Fucking Torrent Of Insanity Issuing From The Rest Of America's God & Greed-Befuddled Political-Corporate-Media Leadership, And Yes Yes, We KNOW There's Not A Hope Regular Americans Will Listen To Us, But What The Hell, We're Scandinavian, And Winter's Coming.
October 9, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
salaha suggested Jan Egeland in a comment way down this thread, and I agreed that he would have been a very good choice.
October 9, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be both a hazard and an opportunity for Obama. I don't believe he should simply decline the Prize, as some have suggested, because that would seem ungracious. Rather, he should probably say something to the effect that he is grateful to the Nobel Committee for their faith in his efforts, while at the same time acknowledging that nothing he has done yet justifies that faith, and that he therefore sees the Prize not as an award for past accomplishments but as an obligation to complete the work he has begun to bring adversaries to the bargaining table in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Regardless of what he says or does, someone will criticize, but an acknoweldgement that he sees the prize as an obligation rather than a reward would probably sit well with open-minded people.
Regarding previous recipients, Albert Einstein, whose work laid the foundation for nuclear weapons, won a Physics Prize but never the Peace Prize, although he was indeed a fervent advocate for peace.
October 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sir,
Continuing on from your post of yesterday. I would note his holiness, the Dalai Lama won the Noble Peace Prize in 1989.
When I first heard of this award I was angry, but after my 'fur balls' took me for a walk, and I had a huge cup of tea , I began to mull over an idea which I would like to share with you.
I tried to understand why the Noble committee made this award. Clearly it was not for what President Obama has done for world peace. Perhaps it was for what he might be able to do. By awarding Obama the Noble Peace Prize, was the committee asking the United States, through Obama, to once more take up the mantle as a champion for world peace, for the oppressed, for human rights.
Was the committee saying to Obama the time to leave Iraq is now. To not escalate the war in Afghanistan, but to end it. To end nuclear proliferation, and to go beyond said action and actively participate in nuclear disengagement. To seriously engage in, and with unbiased, clean hands deal with the Middle East. To engage with North Korea and Iran through diplomatic means, and not through the threat of aggression. To come to the aid of the forgotten in Dafur. To take up the cause of the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Tamils, the Hmong, the victims of oppression. To demand change from China, Burma, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel etc., on the issue of human rights abuses. To honor the treaties/protocols of the Geneva conventions
To take on the greatest war we all face, the war on poverty.
Was the Noble committee saying to Obama, that he rode into the office of the Presidency of the United States on the Wings of Hope. At a time when the world collectively faces a global economic crisis, global climate change, and global security issues, were they telling him his time to act is now. Was the committee, in awarding this honor saying, we believed in your campaign promises because they inspired us to think our world could be a safer place. We now want you to help fulfill the dreams you awoke in all of us.
In the next few days and weeks, the Noble Peace Prize committee will find out if they awarded this great honor to the right person.
In the coming days, the UN Security Council with debate the Goldstone report which identified War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity committed by Hamas and the Israeli military. Obama and the US must not use their veto power to protect Israel. They must abide by the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
In the next few weeks, Obama must conclude that to escalate the war in Afghanistan is not the way forward to peace.
Dr. M. L. King Jr., once said “...the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy...” I wait anxiously to see what my President will do.
October 9, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comments today and yesterday, salaha.
I would be more impressed, to say the least, by massive humanitarian assistance to Gaza than any number of resolutions at the UN, and maybe it would even be easier politically to assist the people of Gaza than condemn the Israelis. But is such assistance even proposed or debated in Washington?
Although it doesn't make headlines, I can't imagine how people will live in Gaza if the aquifer collapses and almost all fresh water has to be imported, and that's the prospect now. In this instance, deeper wells won't help, and there's a limit beyond which elimination of deep pollution is virtually impossible, except after very long-term abandonment of wells, and even then... nobody really knows what the time-line would be.
October 9, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. The situation in the Gaza is a humanitarian crisis. It is on the top of my list for immediate action.
I have always thought Jan Egeland (United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator from August 2003 - December 2006), who was one of the first to actually go into the Gaza and declare the situation a humanitarian crisis, and who called for an investigation into the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli military, would have been an honorable recipient of the Noble Peace Prize.
October 9, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Jan Egeland would be a worthy laureate, and not only for his work at the UN.
Combined with his work as Under-Secretary-General at the UN, it's really the sort of résumé you might expect for the Nobel Peace Prize.
October 9, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now he has it. Can he earn it? Can we help him?
October 9, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhh. Just drink the Kool Aid, everything will be fine.
October 9, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4p6tfoankk
October 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for his back-to-back holes-in-one and 300 score in bowling.
But it's not really a slam on him, it's just a very discouraging sign that the Europeans are more out of touch than I'd imagined.
October 9, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The upper-crust Europeans on these committees", that is. But the Nobel Peace prize has long been a tool for dispensing irony.
October 9, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink