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.
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.
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!!!!")
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.
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.
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.
