[Peace-discuss] Nobel Committee, Strategic As Ever, Taps Obama for Peace Prize

[Robert Naiman]

Tutu praised the award to Obama - another piece of objective data for
you to ignore.

I doubt you can produce any objective evidence for the statement that
Al Jazeera reflects more conservative views in the region - certainly
not with respect to U.S. policy, where they have been quite critical.

My position on Afghanistan is quite clear, and has been for some time:
withdraw according to a public, negotiated timetable:

Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public, Negotiated Timetable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk2aapaywk

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> I continue to believe that the U.S. has no right to be in Afghanistan (or
> Iraq, Columbia, Africa, …) except to give economic/humanitarian aid and to
> provide and manage reparations for the destruction they've caused.
> And you, Bob? Do you think that Obama is doing good in Afghanistan and for
> the Afghan people with his escalation of the conflict there? Or is he doing
> it for narrow American self/national/corporate interest? It seems clear to
> me that he's knows that he's in trouble there, so he's trying to triage
> among more or less belligerent positions. He's being strategic, in your
> words.
> With Obama, do you favor a continuing American military presence there, …so
> as to defeat Al Qaeda?
> Al Jazeera tends to reflect the more conservative Arab views of the ME in my
> opinion, so the fact that they liked your piece neither surprises nor
> informs me.
> The juxtaposition/comparison of Desmond Tutu with Obama is ludicrous, except
> for the shade of their skins. I could elaborate, but not here.
> I recommend the article by Glenn Greenwald: He argues with the "peace prize"
> in more detail than have I:
> [http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/09-7]
> …Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state
> that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends
> combined.  The U.S.accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales.  We're
> currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and
> making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third.  Someone who made
> meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace.  It's
> unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in
> nine months, and he certainly hasn't.  Instead, he presides over it and is
> continuing much of it.  One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits
> for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment
> in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite.
> That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.
> You are being overly strategic in your analysis and your judgement (in my
> opinion)
> --mkb
> .
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> Well, as someone who travels and reads internationally, I would hope,
> Mort, that you would consider a more thoughtful, less knee-jerk
> response.
>
> The Nobel Committee is chosen by the Norwegian parliament. Do you
> really think their goal in life is to whitewash U.S. imperialism?
>
> P.S. Al Jazeera called. They saw my piece, and they really liked it.
> That tells you something about where the debate that matters is.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
> All you're saying is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a farce.
>
> "Works in progress" include building up the military, bombing innocents,
>
> excusing Israel's atrocities, and repression, etc.. You seem to be excusing
>
> the Committee, and thereby Obama, for the latter's scurrilous acts (not
>
> words). So far his nice words have have been belied by both his actions and
>
> non-actions. Perhaps he's a wee bit "better", certainly more clever than
>
> Bush, but all this award does is put the label "peace" in an Orwellian
>
> context.
>
> Such a "strategy" be damned! Hope remains eternal and evanescent with Obama
>
> it seems.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> Some initial commentary has called the award unprecedented and
>
> wondered why the committee would give President Obama the award when
>
> he "hasn't done anything yet." But anyone who thinks this award is
>
> unprecedented hasn't been paying attention. The Nobel Committee has a
>
> long history of praising "works in progress" that it wants to assist,
>
> like the downfall of apartheid. The Committee likes Obama's diplomatic
>
> moves on Iran and Afghanistan and wants to help shield Obama from his
>
> domestic adversaries.
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/nobel-committee-strategic_b_314980.html
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/82426/1566
>
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/366
>
> --
>
> Robert Naiman
>
> Just Foreign Policy
>
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public, Negotiated Timetable
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk2aapaywk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public, Negotiated Timetable
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk2aapaywk
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public, Negotiated Timetable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk2aapaywk