I'm glad the Hitler comparison, posted in passing, hasn't caused the stir it might have on other days, because frankly, it's completely vacuous and throwaway. To even try and engage with or refute it would be as idiotic as saying it in the first place.

I'm sorry, though: Obama is the commander-in-chief of - proud of it in a patriotic sense or not, which should have no bearing on the objective situation - a country currently active in an escalating illegal imperialist war. Bombing Afghan civilian populations in the manner in which this administration is currently and actively endorsing is by definition a war crime. Being the head of a democracy or "the land of freedom" doesn't change that.

But the prize itself has always been a bit farcical, a representative 'prize' to show international relations and interests. It's been used in the past as a (banal) critique of US foreign policy, and now it's being used as the very opposite. It's been noted in this thread that Obama is popular in Europe, and it's largely true but we should limit his appeal in general to the ruling circles.

What this year's prize shows is a sharp and typically fickle (re)turn towards multilateralism; it's actually the very opposite of a peace prize. Yes: it's a conscious endorsement of further militarism, further serving the interests of various nations' ruling stratums. If Obama is willing to let them, everyone in bourgeois Europe wants to get in bed with him.

It's an absolute fucking travesty.

Yeah blame it all on me, why dont ya! you just needed your 15 minutes of fame, and I gave it to you.

now dont be a smartass and read it as a pun

I wouldn't call armed Taliban "Afghan civilians." And they should be dealt with, there's no question about that, or they WOULD hurt Afghan civilians. You cant sit back and blame what other administrations have left Obama on him. I namely blame Reagan for arming these dangerous extremist to stop USSR invading Afghanistan.

I don't argue that this prize is in fact a travesty for the most part, but the purpose behind it is quite agreeable to me. I don't really see among all the famous people everyone knew last year, anyone more worthy than Obama to get it.

Yes, ends justifying means, always. Read this.

I haven't and don't, hence why I said "escalating illegal war". Sending yet more troops over "in the name of peace" (!!!!) is a continuation of imperialism as a means of serving the political self-interests of those in power. And all vague blanket terms such as "peace" and "freedom" do is maintain enough domestic support for this war - and in doing so, the ruling elite tame any would-be opposition from within. It happens time and time again. Republican, Democrat, Autocrat, Bureaucrat. They're all the fucking same.

The System is bigger than the man, always. Thus: the system must change. Don't be under any illusions that it cannot.

I don't think awards should ever be given out on the grounds of potential or promise. I much prefer concrete evidence of achievement.

This is going to be a humiliation for the Obama regime, in long-term retrospect. Perhaps short-term, too, if people start raising their consciousnesses.

Also, what purpose lies behind the prize that you find "quite agreeable"?

The prize committee comprises five members of the Norwegian parliament. They range from the far-right to the social democrats. Giving Obama the prize just reflects what is emanating politically within Europe at present. It serves to endorse 'him' and the US in general in their further military advancements in the Middle East. "War for peace"?!

This isn't the question, though. I don't even know or care who else was up for the prize, because it's irrelevant. And it's revealing that your answer suggests a stance that is translatable to: "Well, Obama was the best candidate, thus deserved to win it on these grounds." I remind you that he was inaugurated as President just over a week before the nominations deadline. What, in those 11 days, had he done to merit even a suggestion of "peace"? His electoral campaign? Come on; all he needed to do with that was suggest a shift away from Bush, with any vague policies presented strong enough to seem convincing, while remaining strictly and nauseatingly jingoist. ("God bless America!!!!")

This is as much to do with Bush as it is with Obama; anybody of the US Democratic party could have been inaugurated and they would have been a potential candidate and possible/probable winner of the prize, just by not being George Bush.

Which is why the award is farcical and shouldn't be taken seriously. But sadly, whether or not it's taken seriously by us lot doesn't figure, because the prize is a political one made by and for the ruling elites of the bourgeois powers of the world, all wanting their share of the world's energy resources and its money (at the expense of their own populations' welfare, may I add), and seeing in Obama and the US someone who can now lead them all to "prosperity".

Capo, you know the voting was done over the summer, right?

Then again, what do I know? Much of Europe is horribly regressive regarding minority ethnic groups* compared to the United States. Probably one of the reasons why that Nobel Board gave him the prize. On the flip side, they're rather progressive with gay rights. Which begs the question: In Europe, would a North African homosexual cancel oneself out?

*=Translation: They're racist.

Yes. I'm also aware of the fact that Obama was nominated in the first place having only been in office for 11 days.

So all of my previous post stands, and as for the rest of yours, it's the usual proverbial gibberish that belongs in either another thread or another bed. Stop trying to wank me off.

Dr. Sima Samar


Having been in office for only eleven days, I do not see the justification in nominating President Obama based on what he said, at the time, that he would set out to do.

To me that's like some rookie ball player coming up at the start of the baseball season and saying the he is going to lead his team to the world series and then immediately being nominated for the MVP based on what he said that he would set out do.

He's the President of the country that I am proud to live in, but his being nominated only 11 days into office and then winning is purely political as far as I am concerned.

Dr. Sima Simar had done a whole lot more for humanity at that point and therefore, in my opinon, she was more deserving of that prize than my President was.

And would you happen to have any data on how many people were killed by Taliban? Or how were women generally treated? Or what was the standard of living back then? And shouldn't all of us, let alone the US who is directly responsible for what is going on today do something about it? And how exactly are you going to concur bunch of fucking militants? With fucking flowers and butterflies?

I would be the last one to suggest a military solution anywhere in the world. I did not and will not sanction what US did in Iraq. Afghanistan on the other hand is beyond any other sort of peaceful measure to save.



Isn't his getting elected by promoting peace, hope and dedication to dialogue rather than maintaining iron fist toward other countries in the midst of the atmosphere neoconservatives were promoting, by relying on poking the voodoo doll of ENEMY non-stop in the eyes of public a great accomplishment? I would've nominated him for only that and think him worthy of the prize for nothing more.

And how is it irrelevant? This is exactly how any process of that sort works. It is like you complain about the election where you knew nothing about the candidates, or who is up for it! Then what you'd be saying is what is irrelevant!

Behind this prize to Obama, lies hope, at least for me. And that's quite enough to make it agreeable as well.



I strongly disagree with you on that. I couldn't believe Bush got another four years with promoting fear to get elected. Kerry would remain a great example as to how not being Bush was never enough. Again I believe Obama made a great achievement and world was not the same after he managed victory in the '08 US election.

And that's why I said famous people. You could read my opinion in my response to Capo. For me, Mousavi, Karoobi or Khatami had done more than Sima Simar, whom I don't even confess to know well. If the choice was between Obama and her, I'm happy with Obama winning the prize.

Sorry if my words offended you. Really.

Before I answer all of these, I note that none of them falsify what I originally wrote:

"I haven't and don't [blame previous doctrines on Obama], hence why I said "escalating illegal war". Sending yet more troops over "in the name of peace" (!!!!) is a continuation of imperialism as a means of serving the political self-interests of those in power. And all vague blanket terms such as "peace" and "freedom" do is maintain enough domestic support for this war - and in doing so, the ruling elite tame any would-be opposition from within. It happens time and time again. Republican, Democrat, Autocrat, Bureaucrat. They're all the fucking same."

I don't know how many people were killed under the Taliban. Women were treated disgracefully and still are. The Karzai regime, endorsed by the coalition, is a shambles. I'd need to do an extensive amount of research to get the full extent of living standards, but it's fair to say they were atrocious.

So all of this amounts to, at the very most, at the most hopeful: "The imperialist war in Afghanistan is the lesser of two evils."

And what real progress has been made, or is being made, by this war? You can say "But how else do you want to go about it", but that's just a vague apology with no real weight.

So what can we take from any of this? His use of language?

US foreign policy does little to promote "peace" or "hope". It does the very opposite, for me. It continues to be an aggressive, imperialist, jingoist superpower.

How can an imperialist war fought "in peace" suddenly become a thing of "hope"?

It's irrelevant who else was nominated because Obama won it. I don't need to know who else was nominated because whether or not I could or would argue for somebody else winning it more than Obama does not change the symbolic shift it represents in international relations between the bougeois nations of Europe and the US. "Who should have won" might make for an interesting debate, but my issue isn't that Obama beat anybody else, or whether he was a more deserving winner than candidate A or B, it's that he won it all, that he was even considered for it on such wanting evidence of objective achievement.

But you're talking about four years ago when Bush still had enough social sway to remain in office; Obama wouldn't have beat him four years ago. Which goes to show how severely little US politics actually change from party to party; one gets voted in only on the others' failures, and all the old crap accumulates from afresh.

Might we read this international gesture as "A Prize for Not Being Bush"? Yes indeed. It shows the other nations of Europe showing their support for Obama and thus sparking further hope in him on an international scale - "look, even Europe loves him!" But what it really is is a cynical endorsement of further US militarism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear22-2009oct22,0,2676789.story

Hey Capo, suck it.

First of all, this war is not unilateral. There are many countries involved. So I wouldn't call it exactly an imperialist war. Secondly, doesn't all the choices come down to the lesser of the two evils? So when there's no good options you wouldn't choose if you want to die by being hanged or being shot to death? I'd take what little difference there's between the two evil options, but that's just me.



Well, let's say that's just you. From where I stand, it has already spread hope for change throughout the Middle East. The movements started with each election in the countries here, goes to show how simple words and gestures have affected people of the Middle East.



Okay, that doesn't make any sense. There are candidates X, Y and Z are up for the award. Y won the ward. Show me how X and Z were more deserving candidates to win it. It is as simple as that.



I disagree. Kerry lost in a very close race. Had it been a more charismatic candidate, like Obama, Bush couldn't stand a chance.




I'm not here to change your mind about this. It is your view and you could insist on it all you want. I trust my views must be very clear with all these responses and I have nothing further to say.

Defintiely a very educated and insightful observation on your part Afs! I sincerely mean that! Very well said!

I agree. In 2000 Bush narrowly won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote. Against Kerry the election was only decided late in the night when Bush won in a very close election in Ohio. He never had the mandate that he wanted.

Eh. Thats because he's not their President. lol. But Im just speaking for myself. Im not too fond of him. Give air support to our guys in Afghanistan and then we can talk.
Dont get me wrong though, I dont want to see him fail. Nobody wants to see their President fail.

I have no problem with his taking his time to make a decision on Afghanistan. Too bad we did not take time to make the right decisions about going into Iraq ("Bring 'em on") and the panicked bail out last September (Both parties responsible) because some Wall Street firms were "too big to fail." Unfortunately IMHO there is no good choice in Afghanistan. We can't stay forever and "nation-build," nor can we leave. This will be a defining moment for this administration and to say he is "dithering," as one former official put it, is nonsense.

I have every problem when it comes to Afghanistan. The longer he waits, the worse it is for our troops. I hate to see our guys die out there due to lack of decision making. And trust me, its bad over there. I talk to a few of my Marine friends at least once a week who are deployed in Afghanistan. I agree that we cant leave right away. Theres still plenty of insurgents and whatnot.
Iraq is a different story, its not a hot zone anymore. One of my friends is actually bored over there because theres nothing to do. Just stabilizing the place.

I don't see how any analysis of the situation in Afghanistan legitimately refutes any argument to pull our troops out. The one unanswerable trump card seems to be, "it is our responsibility", which though holding some weight, doesn't really have much rationality, because many people are dying in the misnomer of "freedom", when it's anything but that. No real "progress" is being made. This is a war dictated from the top; it is not in the interests of those at the bottom.

It's absolutely fucking atrocious.

This is a good perspective.

The regime in Kabul is not “seen by the Afghan people as working in their interests” not merely because of its pervasive corruption, brutality and incompetence. It is a regime that has been imposed upon them by foreign occupation. It was created to serve not the interests of the Afghans, but those of US imperialism, which is pursuing the strategic goal of asserting its hegemony over Central Asia and the region’s vast energy resources.

It is in pursuit of these same interests that the Obama administration is preparing to escalate the killing in Afghanistan.

Capo, who was the last foreign power to successfully occupy Afghanistan?

Good question.

The answer: Alexander the Great

I say bring the troops home now.

If wishing only made it so...

Amen. Let them all kill each other. Their animals anyway, let them lose their souls.
I mean, how stupid does it get? We have Karzai's brother, a drug lord and on the CIA payroll, while we lose three DEA agents yesterday in some helicopter crash? Explain that to their families.

So I guess when the US went to Afghanistan for the "War on Terror" there was a big spike in opium production?