Saturday, 10 October 2009

Ignoble Nobel

It is hard to think of a much more peaceful man than Mahatma Gandhi and it's probably hard to think of a much more unpeaceful man than Adolf Hitler but no prizes for guessing which of these two was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Common thinking is that it was the war he started that killed millions that did it for him in 1939. So close Adolf.
The choice of Nobel Peace Prize winners has always been a source of delight and this years winner, for 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples', is Barack Obama who of course is fully deserving of his prize for all he has done for World peace.
He's...erm...well he it wasn't for him...huh...and that time he...hmmm.
Truth is the deadline for nominations for the peace prize was February 1, so the President won it for his achievements in the first 11 days of his presidency.
A suitable embarrassed Obama has admitted that he does not feel he deserves to be in the company of other Nobel Peace Prize winners, a notion that almost everyone except the Nobel Prize committee agrees with.
They seem to have awarded it to him for talking peace, while continuing to wage war. Those Afghan villages won't just explode by themselves you know, someone has to order those drones overhead.
Best thing he could do is politely decline the prize, humbly pointing out that he is unworthy and has much yet to accomplish. He gets all the credit, but shows that this is a joke of an award.
I would just like to take a moment to say that i want to see world peace, an end to war, no more famine and wealth for all in every nation.
There, and if that doesn't see me in Stockholm for next years presentation, plan b is to invade Poland.


Anonymous said...


we knew the UN and olympic committee was corrupt, now we know that the nobel committee is also corrupt...


Nog said...

I completely agree with you on this one. First, he doesn't in any sense deserve it. And I would even agree that he seems so far to be loyal to the "guns and butter" Bush Doctrine. Second, there are far too many terrorists and war criminals in the elite "peace" prize club for anyone of learning and honor to take it seriously.

At best, it is an idiotic choice; at worst it is an awful attempt by some Europeans to influence American domestic politics. With Gore in 07 and Carter in 02, it's starting to look pretty blatant.

And even Le Duc Tho, the scummy tyrant of North Vietnam had the dignity and character to decline the prize in 1973.

At this point, I view the Nobel Prizes, especially the Peace Prize, as anything but an honor.

Cheezy said...

The award seems to have been given more for perceived good intentions rather than any actual achievements yet. Or, reading into it slightly more, Obama should probably just take it as an expression of the world's relief that the world's largest military is no longer controlled by a god-bothering maniac and his chicken-hawk cohorts.

It's nothing to be annoyed at though. Nobel Peace Prizes are a bit like wealth, knighthoods and TIME's Man of the Year awards i.e. I'm fairly accustomed to all of the above regularly making their way to people who don't really deserve them.

Lucy said...

I have heard a few people trying to say that he got it for his scrapping the Euro missile shield, his anti nukes stance and his work in bringing Israel and Palestine to negotiations. Problem with this theory is the 1st Feb deadline, i'm pretty certain he had not done any of these things by then.

I have also heard, much like Nogs view, it is to try and force his hand in dealings with Iran. Makes it much harder for a peace award winner to then go bomb Iran.

Another one is that it is a well aimed poke in the eye for George W Bush and his policies. It's like that Mark Steel comment about how the doctor who took over from Harold Shipman would always be considered better regardless of actually how good he was.

Annie said...

I see it as a "Thank goddess you're not George Bush" award, more than anything else. An official high five.