Hantu Laut
The question is what has Barack Obama actually done for world peace to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Don't get me wrong, I like Barack Obama but I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, not just yet.
I have all this while questioned the credibility and criteria used by the Nobel Prize Committee that oversees the award of the Nobel Prize. Many a time, less deserving and less prominent figures have been given the award for so-called accomplishment.Will get back to that subject later.Let's deal with Mr Obama first.
Obama has been President for less than a year and is still fighting wars on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is sending more American troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, the Palestinian conflict is still unresolved, the relationship with Iran is still tense and North Korea is still a pain in the ass.
Tell me what world peace has he achieved since taking office as President of the most warring nation on earth.
The Nobel Peace Prize are for achievements in bringing peace to the world, a region or an area of conflicts.Obama has achieved nothing of that sort to deserve such an honour.
The Nobel Prize committee should clarify whether the Peace Prize is for a person's past and current achievements, or for foreseen future achievements. Obama has no track record and qualifications for such an award.
How do they gauge and determine what's likely to happen say two to five years from now. Can Obama achieve lasting world peace during his term of office?
The answer is a big NO!
The world will continue to have conflicts where one conflict is resolved new ones will emerge.
The present conflict that would probably end up like Vietnam is Afghanistan. The Soviet learned an expensive and humiliating lesson in that country.
Death in jihad is the greatest honour for an Afghan fighter. No where death is more revered than in that godforsaken country. Like the Russians, the Americans will leave Afghanistan with the tails in between their legs. They would have lost the war as in Vietnam and in Iraq.
Many idiots think the American won the war in Iraq. No, they didn't.They won the battles but lost the war. Iraq is still as restive and as dangerous as during the war.
Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to widen the area of conflicts rather than trying to find peaceful solutions. How can a belligerent be awarded such honour?
The Nobel Prize has always been mired in controversies, not only in the Peace Prize, but also in its other disciplines. I will only confine my area of interest to the Peace Prize.
The biggest hypocritical achievement ever made by the committee, an unforgivable blunder was Mahatma Gandhi. Nominated 5 times and the most qualified during his time, he was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. More shameful, they refused a posthumous award to Gandhi due to what they claimed prohibition of such award, but in 1948 the year Gandhi died the hypocrites in the Committee awarded a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize to their fellow Scandinavian Dag Hammarskjold who was nominated but died in a plane crash. If any of you ever heard of his name than you should be awarded a doctorate in History and World Politics.
Is the Dalai Lama more deserving than Gandhi? To me, he is the world's biggest conman. Tibet is still under Chinese rule and the Dalai Lama lived in sheer opulence and conned the whole world to gain sympathy for him and a country that he dared not set foot on. Has he freed his people of Chinese rule like what Gandhi did to India or Nelson Mandela to South Africa.
Mandela spent half his life in prison because of his conviction that all men are created equal irrespective of colour. He, through non-violence broke down apartheid, brought independence to his people and became president of the country?
Without any doubt, Mandela was much more deserving than the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, of both whom I think do not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yesterday, the American government awarded the Dalai Lama with the inaugural Lantos Human Rights Prize that angered the Chinese government.
After so many decades Myanmar is still under dictatorial military rule, its door half- closed to the outside world and she under house arrest and her people living in fear of a ruthless regime. Has Aung San Suu Kyi brought peace to her country?
In 1994, hypocrites bade hypocrites, Nobel Peace Prizes given to three personalities, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for their efforts to peace in the Middle East.
Peace in the Middle East?
That probably stood as the biggest joke of the century.
The three have done more to conflicts and violence than peace. It goes to show the politics in this so-called prestigious body.
Those highly glorified awards would be as highly explosive as the dynamites of Alfred Nobel, who is probably kicking in his grave listening to the "Who" list of his not so esteemed award anymore.
Barack Obama? Hiya!
Watch out! Anwar Ibrahim may be next.
The question is what has Barack Obama actually done for world peace to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Don't get me wrong, I like Barack Obama but I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, not just yet.
I have all this while questioned the credibility and criteria used by the Nobel Prize Committee that oversees the award of the Nobel Prize. Many a time, less deserving and less prominent figures have been given the award for so-called accomplishment.Will get back to that subject later.Let's deal with Mr Obama first.
Obama has been President for less than a year and is still fighting wars on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is sending more American troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, the Palestinian conflict is still unresolved, the relationship with Iran is still tense and North Korea is still a pain in the ass.
Tell me what world peace has he achieved since taking office as President of the most warring nation on earth.
The Nobel Peace Prize are for achievements in bringing peace to the world, a region or an area of conflicts.Obama has achieved nothing of that sort to deserve such an honour.
The Nobel Prize committee should clarify whether the Peace Prize is for a person's past and current achievements, or for foreseen future achievements. Obama has no track record and qualifications for such an award.
How do they gauge and determine what's likely to happen say two to five years from now. Can Obama achieve lasting world peace during his term of office?
The answer is a big NO!
The world will continue to have conflicts where one conflict is resolved new ones will emerge.
The present conflict that would probably end up like Vietnam is Afghanistan. The Soviet learned an expensive and humiliating lesson in that country.
Death in jihad is the greatest honour for an Afghan fighter. No where death is more revered than in that godforsaken country. Like the Russians, the Americans will leave Afghanistan with the tails in between their legs. They would have lost the war as in Vietnam and in Iraq.
Many idiots think the American won the war in Iraq. No, they didn't.They won the battles but lost the war. Iraq is still as restive and as dangerous as during the war.
Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to widen the area of conflicts rather than trying to find peaceful solutions. How can a belligerent be awarded such honour?
The Nobel Prize has always been mired in controversies, not only in the Peace Prize, but also in its other disciplines. I will only confine my area of interest to the Peace Prize.
The biggest hypocritical achievement ever made by the committee, an unforgivable blunder was Mahatma Gandhi. Nominated 5 times and the most qualified during his time, he was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. More shameful, they refused a posthumous award to Gandhi due to what they claimed prohibition of such award, but in 1948 the year Gandhi died the hypocrites in the Committee awarded a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize to their fellow Scandinavian Dag Hammarskjold who was nominated but died in a plane crash. If any of you ever heard of his name than you should be awarded a doctorate in History and World Politics.
Is the Dalai Lama more deserving than Gandhi? To me, he is the world's biggest conman. Tibet is still under Chinese rule and the Dalai Lama lived in sheer opulence and conned the whole world to gain sympathy for him and a country that he dared not set foot on. Has he freed his people of Chinese rule like what Gandhi did to India or Nelson Mandela to South Africa.
Mandela spent half his life in prison because of his conviction that all men are created equal irrespective of colour. He, through non-violence broke down apartheid, brought independence to his people and became president of the country?
Without any doubt, Mandela was much more deserving than the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, of both whom I think do not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yesterday, the American government awarded the Dalai Lama with the inaugural Lantos Human Rights Prize that angered the Chinese government.
After so many decades Myanmar is still under dictatorial military rule, its door half- closed to the outside world and she under house arrest and her people living in fear of a ruthless regime. Has Aung San Suu Kyi brought peace to her country?
In 1994, hypocrites bade hypocrites, Nobel Peace Prizes given to three personalities, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for their efforts to peace in the Middle East.
Peace in the Middle East?
That probably stood as the biggest joke of the century.
The three have done more to conflicts and violence than peace. It goes to show the politics in this so-called prestigious body.
Those highly glorified awards would be as highly explosive as the dynamites of Alfred Nobel, who is probably kicking in his grave listening to the "Who" list of his not so esteemed award anymore.
Barack Obama? Hiya!
Watch out! Anwar Ibrahim may be next.
