India-US News and Discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Oct 2009 09:41

The FOX News smackdown continues...

The Norwegians have made themselves into a laughingstock.

This from a country that can't even stop massacring whales.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Oct 2009 10:02

beeb

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Oct 2009 10:23

Emboldened by Nobel Peace Prize, Obama is set for disturbing world peace.

IMO the worst punishment one can give Obama, whose only expertise if one can say is giving lectures, is to quickly take a moral position and then watch him squirm. That is/was the position of India on disarmament.

We need to continually remind him that US still have thosands of nukes what is he going to do about them. His worlds are shallow and let him be a role model in reduce US nukes down to zero. We can all build a temple for him and pray.

Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons programme

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Oct 2009 10:27

India's point of view doesn't have any great traction in the Western-dominated world.

They will claim their position is about universal disarmament - when obviously it isn't.

If we try to present our views, they will simply refuse to hear them.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2009 11:14

Obama is going to hit India hard in many ways. The nuclear deal woul be the first. His opening comments yesterday in accepting the unfortunate award were about nuclear weapons and how new nations must not be allowed to possess them. The remarks about elimination of all nuclear weapons are what they are, purely perfunctory, because he says in the same breath that the weapons may not be eliminated in his lifetime. This means that the P-5 will continue to possess them. The only country that is a major stumbling block is India. Pakistan will fall in line quickly or made to fall in line and Israel is out-of-bounds for any US President anyway. As it happened with the London Group and later the NSG, the efforts will be solely directed against India.

The other area where we will be hit hard will be on terrorism front. The comprehensive Indian goal of denying Pakistan the luxury of Strategic Depth and the support of Taliban, towards which India has sacrificed greatly, is now under severe threat as the US once again sees merit in Pakistan and Taliban. Obama has made it very clear that his policy in Afghanistan is to prevent terrorist attacks against the US even as he takes the UN support and the support of all nations in the region and beyond. The corollary to this is that terrorism directed against India does not matter in the overall scheme of things. This will embolden Pakistan to be more aggressive against India now.

The Nobel Peace Prize so hurriedly awarded by narrow thinking of the Norwegians, will encourage Obama to more vigorously purse the policies detrimental to India. The references to Mahatma Gandhi he made were done to soften the impact.

Nothing will be more disastrous to India than going ahead with military deals like MRCA with that country. They will strangle us from all directions, as they have proven time and again.

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 10 Oct 2009 14:37

Obama’s Nobel Prize will Exacerbate His Narcissistic Tendencies

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/09/ ... endencies/

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 10 Oct 2009 15:32

Ssridhar saar,

Nothing will be more disastrous to India than going ahead with military deals like MRCA with that country. They will strangle us from all directions, as they have proven time and again.

Amen.

I maintain the Dems taking power was good in some ways for Dilli at least. Would force us to keep some healthy distance from the hyperpower embrace and stand on our own 2 legs, wobbly hi sahi.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Oct 2009 16:41

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 00589.html

Rupert Cornwell: The real world has little time for prizes

Was this an attempt to boost Obama’s prestige as he takes on global problems?

If Henry Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 was said to signify the death of satire, the one that's been awarded to Barack Obama may go down as the triumph of naivety. Henry the Great had indeed cosied up to vile regimes in Latin America and ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. But he was also the arch exponent of realpolitik, who extricated the US from a futile war. That is why he was awarded the prize.

This one has gone to an American president in office for less than nine months. Yes, Obama, perhaps more than any president in history, has roused hopes of a new beginning. But nothing leaves a more bitter taste than hope unfulfilled, and therein lies the danger of this premature award.

Related articles
Nobel honour stuns Obama – and the world
Ian Birrell: This award is premature – and potentially very foolish

Leading article: It is enough that Obama has given us hope for the future
Yes, he's made those fancy speeches – in Berlin in summer 2008 during his pre-election European victory lap, his inaugural address in January, the ones to the Muslim world in April, to the UN General Assembly last month. Not only can Obama dissect and explain a complicated problem as few others, but he's inspirational as well. But, as they say in American politics, where's the beef?

To be sure, George W Bush's misbegotten war in Iraq is being wound down. But in the Middle East, Obama's exhortations and strictures to Israelis and Palestinians have this far achieved precisely nothing. Even as he lays out a stirring vision of a nuclear-free world, Iran accelerates its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity that might easily ignite a new war in the region. It's all but certain that Obama will miss his deadline of next January for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Nor will honeyed presidential words, the White House already concedes, persuade Congress to arm US delegates to December's climate change conference in Copenhagen with a piece of legislation to prove their good intentions.

Then there's Afghanistan. The man praised yesterday for giving the world "the hope of a better future" is considering escalating a conflict in which America's involvement has now lasted as long as in Vietnam – and whose parallels with that failed war grow with every passing day. The difference is that Obama's America has even less chance of imposing its will on Afghanistan – and if it is to succeed there, on the larger, more treacherous stage of nuclear-armed Pakistan next door – than presidents Johnson and Nixon had of victory in South-east Asia.

He may have sown the seeds of hope. But then again, so in his time did Jimmy Carter, a president to whom people these days are starting to liken Obama: another good and extremely intelligent man, who promised much when he came to office in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, but whose single term ended in failure and disappointment. Seven years ago, Carter did win the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was a lifetime achievement award, more in recognition of 20 years of post-presidential toil in the world's most thankless hot spots than for anything he achieved in office.

So why did the Norwegian committee act as it did yesterday? Perhaps, you might frivolously say, to show even-handedness. Only last Friday, after all, Obama was returning from Copenhagen with his tail between his legs. He had just suffered the biggest rejection of his presidency as his adopted city of Chicago, for which he had lobbied in person, saw its 2016 Olympics bid tossed out in the very first round of voting. The collective gasp of surprise at Obama's victory yesterday was as audible as at his failure seven days earlier. Scandinavia, the Norwegians were keen to prove, not only taketh away. It also giveth.

You could also argue that this was a political move by the committee – a calculated attempt to boost Obama's prestige as he tries to resolve those global problems listed above. And maybe it will. But it's hard, for instance, to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turning all sweet and reasonable, forswearing Iran's nuclear ambitions just because the fellow across the table has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Most likely, though, it was a very human mixture of idealism and spite to which even right-thinking Scandinavians also are not immune. The idealism reflects a perception of Obama as a new embodiment of America at its best, the last hope of humanity, guided by high and universal ideals, determined and decisive, using its immense power in concert with others to build a better world. As such, Obama's prize is also a final, gratuitous shot at George W Bush (remember him?), who for Scandinavia and far beyond was embodiment of America at its worst.

But the real world has little time either for comforting myth, or pointless score settling. Obama's Nobel Prize will not weigh heavily in the deliberations over Afghanistan, the first acid test of his presidential mettle. The basic choice is simple: either to throw in more troops, spending more American blood and treasure on a war in which in any politically realistic time frame the US cannot succeed; or to wind things down, and focus on the terrorists, not the Taliban. Most probably, though, he will split the difference, sending more troops. They won't be enough to win, but they'll delay the inevitable final failure. But for the moment, we do not even know what America's goal is in the war. And to have a goal you must have a strategy. All the rest is tactics, which at best buy time.

Which brings us back to Henry Kissinger, nothing if not a strategist. He and Nixon came to recognise that America's power was not infinite, and decided their strategy would be to extricate the US from the war. It was messy, and took four years to achieve. Then the process was called "Vietnamisation". Call it "Afghanistanisation" or whatever, but that is the path Obama should take now. If he did, he would really earn this premature Nobel Peace Prize.

[email protected]

More from Rupert Cornwell

KrishnaMu · Post by **KrishnaMu** » 10 Oct 2009 17:09

Sanjay M wrote:Bill O'Reilly comments:

Haha - some good zingers in there.

Not a bad commentary - he pulled his punches at the end, though.

For me Bill O'Reilly & Fox news channel is same as Taliban & Propagonda. Just Bill is white,suit wearing and blue eyes, Taliban is Brown, turban wearing & Brown eyes. His view of world same as third reich in 1940. For 8 yrs in his pathatic commentary not one column about US un-regulated economy & Property bubble. You can't be serious about, Bill O'Reilly is far right extremist christian wing white supramist in my book. Any other commentators and cynisism is fine with me.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Oct 2009 18:34

KrishnaMu wrote:For me Bill O'Reilly & Fox news channel is same as Taliban & Propagonda. Just Bill is white,suit wearing and blue eyes, Taliban is Brown, turban wearing & Brown eyes. His view of world same as third reich in 1940. For 8 yrs in his pathatic commentary not one column about US un-regulated economy & Property bubble. You can't be serious about, Bill O'Reilly is far right extremist christian wing white supramist in my book. Any other commentators and cynisism is fine with me.

Well, for those belonging to Barack-Rakshak.com, perhaps O'Reilly's comments are seen as illegitimate, but as far as I'm concerned, what he said about Obama's Nobel award was right on the mark. I'm talking specifically about Obama's Nobel Prize, and not about anything else. I haven't seen O'Reilly picking on India over its nuclear program, but I do see Obama looking to do that. Bush was also labeled a Christian right-wingnut too, but he was very supportive of India compared to past presidents.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 10 Oct 2009 21:05

Leave Obama alone, he is not "a culprit" here, as many are accusing him of. His status as an icon is being cynically used to provide relevance to a hypocritical award given out by a self-important country. Yes, he could have declined it, but then which politician declines anything that comes free and without effort? Fox News and Bill O'Rielly are arguing from an american political opponent's view point. A viewpoint that hardly matters to an Indian (or any other Third Worlder).

Something I posted in Nukkad:

In the past, everytime the pricks in Stockholm hand out the blood-money of Alfred Nobel as a "premature ejac" to people who hardly deserve (or sought, as in the case of Obama) the label "Peace", I used to believe they "jumped the shark", to use a popular American entertainment industry term. Boy am I wrong! The third-world is so enamored by the word Nobel that no questions are asked or any calls for a change in behavior by these committees.

Case in point are terror loving Arafat and robber-baron businessman Al Gore (wtf? make a scare movie on environment and rake in moolah from "wise investments" in green tech? isnt that what Dick Cheney does with provoking wars and getting contracts to Haliburtons and Bechtels?). Why do these deserve Peace prize, along with convenient tampons like Aung San Suu Kyi, Lech Walesa(added later) and Shirin Ebadi ? Why should they attach an insignificant white-man to a towering black icon for award (de Klerk along with President Mandela) ? Why should a Sakharov be feted, when an Oppenheimer is not, for believing in similar things? Why should anything related with an insignificant area for 90% of the humanity(Middle-east) be an instant shoulder-up for a "Peace Nobel"?

Even talking about americans, why is Bill Clinton not given the award, because by Nobel committee criterion, he did more than most by intervening in disputes etc? Or did his cigar play and polarizing image in american politics make him PR unfriendly for the award? Lot of questions on this

But a non-gora ranting against this pompous insult to world humanity by rich countries will appear churlish and will fall into "you farted" (copyright of Doc Shiv) territory. Best is to start an alternative award, that is either BENIS like (eg: one year give the award to Ahamedinejad for reducing tensions and another year to some insignificant oiropean like prime minister of Monaco and then to xyz POTUS) mockery or give it out to people who genuinely believed in the dictum "dont be evil".

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Oct 2009 23:04

SSridhar wrote:The only country that is a major stumbling block is India. Pakistan will fall in line quickly or made to fall in line and Israel is out-of-bounds for any US President anyway. As it happened with the London Group and later the NSG, the efforts will be solely directed against India.

Add Iran, North Korea to that list. India will be bracketed with them. TSP will be chciken feed as you say, once India is castrated. Who says the hyphenation is history?

The corollary to this is that terrorism directed against India does not matter in the overall scheme of things. This will embolden Pakistan to be more aggressive against India now.

The condescending approach to this will be breathtaking. Obama, as formulated by his white liberal masters will say, US has defaeted terrorism, and the only thing reemaining is to bring peace between India and Paaakistaaan. This call will be signed on gleefuly by TSP. SDRE vocie or its viepoint won't even create a radar blip on Obama's radar screen.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Oct 2009 23:08

Sanjay M wrote:
Well, for those belonging to Barack-Rakshak.com, perhaps O'Reilly's comments are seen as illegitimate, but as far as I'm concerned, what he said about Obama's Nobel award was right on the mark. I'm talking specifically about Obama's Nobel Prize, and not about anything else. I haven't seen O'Reilly picking on India over its nuclear program, but I do see Obama looking to do that. Bush was also labeled a Christian right-wingnut too, but he was very supportive of India compared to past presidents.

I am sure that if you were to wade through the reams and reams of terrorist propaganda by chairman and CEO of Lashkar-e-Toiba, the honorable Hafeez Saeed, you can find a few tit bits worth paying attention to.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Oct 2009 23:08

Let's see if Obama can keep his economy from going down the tubes, first.

There are plenty of other shoes that have yet to drop in the sub-prime fallout.
(eg. commercial real estate market)
The unemployment numbers keep mounting, and the dollar keeps dropping.

India can and should diversify its markets beyond the US anyway.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 10 Oct 2009 23:32

hnair wrote:Even talking about americans, why is Bill Clinton not given the award, because by Nobel committee criterion, he did more than most by intervening in disputes etc? Or did his cigar play and polarizing image in american politics make him PR unfriendly for the award? Lot of questions on this

He will get it sooner rather than later now. All Democratic presidents are supposed to get the Nobel Peace Prize

.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Oct 2009 23:35

India needs a big game changer, either extrenally or internally. Current world order does not take into account its strengths, weaknesses, and aspirations. Extrapolating from the current scheme of things, the best India can hope for is a billion plus limping along aimlessly, the worst is disintegretaion along its relgious/class/caste lines.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Oct 2009 23:52

I think what is quite interesting is that despite the skepticism of Americans who aren't sure that Obama has actually ended any conflicts, or toiled away for human rights at great personal risk, etc, this prize has only enhanced Americans own sense of self-importance, at least temporarily.

It practically proclaims America's continued position as the leader of the global system. I think it comes as a huge relief to many who feared the baton had passed, while reinforcing the idea that their own internal ideological battles determine the world's fate.

While comments on this thread have focused on Afghanistan, I would point out that while it is probably a component, the decision to award Obama has at least as much, if not more to do with Iraq, Iran and the Israel-Arab conflict.

At its most fundamental level it is meant to reward Obama for his consistent rhetoric against the Iraq war from 2002 onwards, and his abandonment of 'War on Terror' ideology and rhetoric- the invasion and its ideological justifications in Europe, as in many other places was seen as an attack on the norms of world order potentially more dangerous than 9/11 itself. I cant stress how deeply both elites as well ordinary people saw this as the greatest threat to world peace.

As far as the future goes the Swedes in most certainly want Obama to continue pressure to keep Iran accountable on the nuclear front, but they also want him to avoid force, public threats of force, and they want America to restrain Israel from conducting any overt military strikes on Iran. This is in part not just pacifism, but the Swedes long standing and close ties to the democracy movement in Iran, which will suffer in any attack on Iran.

Connected to this the Swedes are also excited by Obama's personal interest in comprehensive nuclear disarmament (supported by older US foreign policy realists), and want him to move on it.

Lastly they want the US to press Israel in to a negotiated settlement with Syria over the Golan, as well as Fatah and Hamas on the two-state solution.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Oct 2009 00:03

If Sweden/Norway hoped to accomplish something by tossing Obama their Nobel Peace Prize, they've actually done nothing but make him look like their recruit.

The American right are justifiably incensed by this cap-feathering quackery, which only confirms to them that external actors are seeking to prop up Obama as their Manchurian Candidate.

Hopefully these nosy nordics will receive some payback for their unwanted interference in the internal affairs of others.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 Oct 2009 00:14

Johann wrote: Lastly they want the US to press Israel in to a negotiated settlement with Syria over the Golan, as well as Fatah and Hamas on the two-state solution.

Oh yeah, this makes sense only at the level of toothless pedantism. I have a shot at owning the San Francisco Bay Brideg before any US presdient putting pressure on Israel to give back something meaningful to Palestinains that was stolen from them.

No, as many others have been speculating, Obama can't touch any big ticket item ithout being roasted to ashes on the Washinton Mall, he is more likely to pummel us helpless SDREs (and other weaklings around the world) to live up to his Nobel mission. And that should be a cake walk. Recall, millions in India were esctatic after slum dog Oscars were confered on them.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 11 Oct 2009 00:19

hnair wrote:
Case in point are terror loving Arafat and robber-baron businessman Al Gore (wtf? make a scare movie on environment and rake in moolah from "wise investments" in green tech? isnt that what Dick Cheney does with provoking wars and getting contracts to Haliburtons and Bechtels?).

Gore shared with UN (Pachauri was the rep). However, it is not just a scare movie... it does talk about real issues. Whether he should have received it for that is questionable but the issues are real.

By the way, MJ Akbar has an interesting take:

http://dailypioneer.com/208105/Nobel-Pr ... ility.html

The big ticket hope is non-proliferation. If you think about it coolly — very coolly — one chap who has done far more than Mr Obama for non-proliferation in the recent past is Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He actually dismantled a nuclear weapons facility. He may have done so under pressure, but he has done something. Mr Obama has given a few pretty speeches and knocked on the table at the United Nations. Mr Obama has made no effort to rein in the most powerful nuclear weapons power in history, a nation that refused to accept any international control or convention and continues to develop the most sophisticated nuclear weapons technology. That country is, of course, the United States of America. I suppose Oslo did not think of a Peace Prize for Col Gaddafi for fear of ridicule. Col Gaddafi does not belong, as it were, to the right sort of country, plus his acceptance speech might have taken a full day. But does anyone have any idea when the ridicule for the Obama decision will begin to ebb?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 Oct 2009 00:53

prad wrote:CRamS: watch the language. "burning to ashes" is the kind of language that might bring the Secret Service knocking on your door, if you live in US.

Come on, don't make a mountain out of a mole. I was saying it figuratively. Have you ever watched Fox news? I mean don't they reduce anything Obama says or does to ashes? Thats what I meant. Don't look for controversy where none exists.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Oct 2009 00:56

CRamS wrote:No, as many others have been speculating, Obama can't touch any big ticket item ithout being roasted to ashes on the Washinton Mall

CRS,

- Obama's renunciation of the Bush doctrines of preemptive and unilateral war, his abandonment of 'War on Terror' rhetoric and the draw-down in Iraq are in and of themselves enormous accomplishments as far as much of the global liberal left are concerned.

- Obama can and probably will deliver what that constituency wants on Iran. Access to known Iranian nuclear facilities, and institution of some safeguards without war.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 11 Oct 2009 00:59

Gore shared with UN (Pachauri was the rep).

Does any American know, let alone acknowledge, that?

If a tree falls in the forest, is it a cow?
Does the gore man share?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 11 Oct 2009 01:02

viv wrote:
hnair wrote:
Case in point are terror loving Arafat and robber-baron businessman Al Gore (wtf? make a scare movie on environment and rake in moolah from "wise investments" in green tech? isnt that what Dick Cheney does with provoking wars and getting contracts to Haliburtons and Bechtels?).

Gore shared with UN (Pachauri was the rep). However, it is not just a scare movie... it does talk about real issues. Whether he should have received it for that is questionable but the issues are real.

So did those sexed up "Dossiers on Saddam's weapons" - they talked about missing "yellow cake" and other real things

Let me say I am a fan of Michael Moore but not of Al Gore. And I truly believe conservatives are idiots about Global warmign issues and environment is f**ked up. Also that Americans share the major blame for their per capita consumption pattern. But a chap who co-founded Generation Investment Management in 2004, then makes a docu-movie in 2006 that directly impacts his investments is a rober-baron in my books. Doesnt matter if he is liberal or conservative. I get people like, say, Woody Harrelson (100% for his redwood protests

and no-comments on his pot efforts

), who to me, are far more honest in their activism than these pompous silver-spooned band wagoners. Boone Pickens is a more mainstream example of such characters as Al Gore, whom we will have to pay to get IP for a lot of the green tech

However, liberals of US loves him as much as conservatives love the likes of Dick Cheney or DeLay. But why should I, an Indian like both sides? I mean, we are going to see a new form of NPT: "you burn cowdung to boil rice for your pitiful family and it causes 'brown cloud of asia'. Not good for the world and not acceptable! Here, buy my cow-dung treatment plant for $$$$$ or face sanctions" and they drive off in a stretch limo, puffing Cohiba smoke in my face.

But we digress. Let us stick to Nobel peace prize and its irrelevance to a third-worlder. O"Rielly and co are not considering that aspect, they are assured that Nobel winner == Award for Lord's Righteous One. A typically western view of humanity. That I disagree.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Oct 2009 01:15

Johann wrote:CRS,

- Obama's renunciation of the Bush doctrines of preemptive and unilateral war, his abandonment of 'War on Terror' rhetoric and the draw-down in Iraq are in and of themselves enormous accomplishments as far as much of the global liberal left are concerned.

- Obama can and probably will deliver what that constituency wants on Iran. Access to known Iranian nuclear facilities, and institution of some safeguards without war.

Oh good grief.

And Al Gore had nothing to do with pre-emptive war, during the bombing of Belgrade?
Perhaps he was on vacation during that period?
Oh, but as long as he had something like environmentalism that the Nobel Committee could opportunistically grab onto as a pretext, then they could quickly come rushing to his door.
It didn't even matter how much smog his international private jet-hopping produced - he was suddenly credited as the inventor of environmentalism.

You advertise your own credibility loudly when you make your hollow arguments.

The Norwegians could care less about Iran's nuclearization. They seem to care more about keeping America in the European orbit as a vassal state.

Their prize has always been a political stunt - but now they've provided incontrovertible proof to convince everyone of it.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Oct 2009 01:51

Sanjay,

- These arent 'my' arguments - I am hardly an Obama fan, or a fan of left. However, it is important to understand clearly what they want, and how they think, however annoying you find it.

- The global liberal left if you forgot, is on the whole uneasily OK with military intervention to prevent genocide in progress as the only exception to the norm of opposing non-UN sanctioned wars. That is what separates them from the radical left.

It is why they are OK with a Syrian intervention in Lebanon, but not an Israeli one.

What they fear is the clash of civilisations as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a constant, escalating state of war with ever more countries. What's more they held it responsible for encouraging copycat behaviour in other states.

In any case Gore was not awarded while in office, or for humanitarian interventions. In fact Bill Clinton's decision to fight the Kosovo war is one of the black marks on his record as far as the left is concerned, and probably played a role in his exclusion.

- If you dont think nuclear proliferation or the potential for nuclear war matters to them, then you should look up who won the 1959, 1962, 1974, 1982, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2005 Nobel Peace Prizes. I'll give you a hint - its nuclear related

- If you dont think they care about Iran or its democracy movement, why is that the first and only Nobel prize for an Iranian citizen went to Shireen Ebadi in 2003?

- The Nobel committee is not Norwegian. It is Swedish.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Oct 2009 02:02

The fact is that each year the US president is nominated for this by his supporters. Just like each country's leader gets nominated by theirs.
Its just that the US has such a hold over the lives of most ouiropeans that a US president is way ahead of the rest of the pack.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Oct 2009 02:05

The Nobel organization is both Norwegian and Swedish. Yes, the whale-killing nation is part of the Nobel process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Ceremony

Certainly the European Left were the prime supporters of the US invasion of the former Yugoslavia. It definitely wasn't the American right who wanted the invasion. Clinton was a left-supported president, and his war was a left-supported war. Atlanticism in action.

Gore was nevertheless part of Clinton's administration, and his selection by the committee had nothing to do with his environmental "work". His family got rich on oil, remember? Daddy was a top exec with Occidental Petroleum. Now he's suddenly the environmental darling. They should have found a less ludicrous pretext - like awarding him for "inventing the internet".

Note that the awards to Gore and Carter both occurred during Dubya's term in office. Certainly no coincidence there.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 11 Oct 2009 02:06

The Nobel committee is not Norwegian. It is Swedish.

I was really confused when experts were dishing out ready made openions and explanations on CNN and bibi................................it was all norwegian

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 11 Oct 2009 02:14

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/obama ... el/527525/

Comments below mention that the mail was sent out to everyone who was registered on barackobama.com

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Oct 2009 02:19

It seems that the Nobel Peace committee is actually appointed by the Norwegian parliament, usually from MPs or ex-MPs.

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomina ... e/members/

All of the other Nobel prize winners are selected by Swedish academies. No wonder I was confused.

KrishnaMu · Post by **KrishnaMu** » 11 Oct 2009 02:21

Sriman wrote:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/obama ... el/527525/

Comments below mention that the mail was sent out to everyone who was registered on barackobama.com

What a Blunder?

Sanjay M wrote: Well, for those belonging to Barack-Rakshak.com, perhaps O'Reilly's comments are seen as illegitimate, but as far as I'm concerned, what he said about Obama's Nobel award was right on the mark. I'm talking specifically about Obama's Nobel Prize, and not about anything else. I haven't seen O'Reilly picking on India over its nuclear program, but I do see Obama looking to do that. Bush was also labeled a Christian right-wingnut too, but he was very supportive of India compared to past presidents.

15 yrs back India didn't open its foriegn investments until Rao/Singh administration so its obvious India is not big trading partner of US later become stable trading partner. So Bush administration shown slight big of love to India. As the saying goes "Its Economy Stupid". Paranoa about Indian Nuclear proogram is not good argument over here. Indian nuclear is sustained developed under intense international pressure it will goes on Obama's Nobel peace prize doesn't stop it. Al gore won nobel peace prize on the basis of environment doesn't make whole of america shun their ugly 4x4's, did they?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 11 Oct 2009 02:25

Sanjay M wrote:The American right are justifiably incensed by this cap-feathering quackery, which only confirms to them that external actors are seeking to prop up Obama as their Manchurian Candidate.

I think many people regardless of political affiliation see the Prize for the ploy it is. Note this poll on MSNBC which is not a right wing channel.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Oct 2009 03:37

Sanjay M wrote:If Sweden/Norway hoped to accomplish something by tossing Obama their Nobel Peace Prize, they've actually done nothing but make him look like their recruit.
The American right are justifiably incensed by this cap-feathering quackery, which only confirms to them that external actors are seeking to prop up Obama as their Manchurian Candidate.
Hopefully these nosy nordics will receive some payback for their unwanted interference in the internal affairs of others.

This is a tongue in cheek moves by the Euros on Americans about their responsibility as the leading nation of the "west".
The main goal is to keep the right wing under control

James B · Post by **James B** » 11 Oct 2009 05:31

Johann wrote:It seems that the Nobel Peace committee is actually appointed by the Norwegian parliament, usually from MPs or ex-MPs.

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomina ... e/members/

All of the other Nobel prize winners are selected by Swedish academies. No wonder I was confused.

There is an allegation doing rounds on the web that the present committee members are left-leaning MPs or ex-MPs. No wonder Obama got the Peace prize.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 11 Oct 2009 05:51

raghunath wrote: There is an allegation doing rounds on the web that the present committee members are left-leaning MPs or ex-MPs. No wonder Obama got the Peace prize.

Only the present??

Just check its history - it has been/is/will be a mouth piece of white supremist, christianist, atlantist mouth piece. The left, right and centre are our interpretations.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Oct 2009 10:39

Don't forget their lust for slaughtering whales, the gentle giants of the sea. I don't think they're quite as humane as they'd like everyone to believe.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Oct 2009 11:10

norway is the nordic saudi arabia. if not for oil, gas and other mineral/forest wealth, they'd only have salted cod and bread to chew on.

btw I think pakistanis are the major strong and growing minority there, apart from the usual small nos of british, danes and finns(laplanders) who dont matter

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 11 Oct 2009 11:26

This takes the cake.

2010 Nobel winner will be Lashkar-e-Toiba

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 11 Oct 2009 21:26

This is a reply i sent to a friend of mine who protested that Indians are making poor comments on 'Her commander-in -chief' She she is an American now.

Off course you have every right to be in Love with your country and So do I . I have to take care of my country's self interest and Obama is no different than other Democrat Presidents(With the exception of Kennedy) who have always been bad for India.

I have never understood this love affair of the current generation of Americans of Indian ethnicity with Democrats. I have far more respect for Bush for his forthright ways and keeping things simple. He had the courage to take on radical islam and also saw the future of the world more clearly. Whether Iraq or afghanistan, I have written a lot on both in separate articles, were necessary and the coverts aims were..
1. Get out of the clutches of Saudi oil supply, this will lead to drying up the sources of funds that are funding the growth of mosques in US / America and Asia. This would have led to demise of Saud family influence ( they captured a country and got it named after themsleves).

2. Secure the supplies through Afghanistan from Central Asia and stop the rise of Islam in Central Asia / Russia and Europe.

Overtures to India were largely due to recognition of few facts and purely in American self interest..

1. America needs a market to sell. India is a consuming nation unlike china(Exports)

2. India is a Status Quo civilisation. There is no chance of India/ US ever fighting each other. India Owes a lot to America in terms of Constitution and applied pressure from Roosevelt on Churchil for Independence.

3. India is a civilisation nation not a nation state. we were here 10,000 years back and will be there for another 10,000 and currently on the rise. The importance we pay to educating ourselves have fed the labs / Companies in America. With India rising, ppl like me don't run to America to live inspite of a H1/Green card, want to make this country work

4. America needs allies to share responsibilities (Security/protecting human rights/ Values), europe is dead in 20 years and will be overtaken by Islam and aged population. Only India & Pakistan along with Saudi Arabia will have a growing Young population.

Bush Chose India and BARAK 'HUSSEIN' OBAMA has chosen his former religionists - Pakistan and Saudi arabia, The heart of radical Islam thereby forgetting the benign and soft islam practiced in India for that matter .

"On Obama winning the piss prize, India better watch out. He can't do didy squat to the mighty Israelis to make any concessions to Palestinians except endorse whatever they want to do. Otherwise, he will be eaten up alive in broad daylihgt by even so called liberals in US. He can't even hint at cutting back US nukes; Fox news will villify him, and some nut case could even go to the extreme. But India is chicken feed, as has always been the case for western liberals to pick as prime target for their fantasies; and Obama has enough ammunition: caste/Dalits, "Hindu extermism", Indian nukes, "Kashmir dispute", man you name it; all he has to do is pick one, and he will have the entire western world behind him, and millions annd millions of RNIs will follow suit." Tough days ahead for India.

God bless America! The land of the brave! The land of free thought! India, as always had to pay the price but not now.

Jews,Gentiles,Moslems,Gays, EDITED,Liberals, Not so liberals, Chinese, Latinos, friends, Indians,Countrymen. I come here to bury the legacy of 'W' not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones, So let it be with George w bush junior. The noble clergy of the peaceful religion of islam that stands by our side along with the liberals, Intellectuals, commies have told you that he has been the worst president ever, thrusted the world into a tailspin, started 2 deeply unpopular and unnecessary wars. I just support them by saying, if it were so, it was a grievous fault and rightly he must pay for it.

Here, under the mighty shadows of Barak hussein obama, his so called legacy lies tattered. The new saviour has arrived, he will take the world to a glorious new path and in case 'W' has erred he has paid, shoes being thrown at him by an intellectual. These are all honourable men. European leaders included. I am writing this peace an obituary to the legacy of 'W' and not for any purpose praying him but there are few things that need to be said as his ills must come out before he dies.

Have you ever thought that at some level we need to sing a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that was been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. 'W' is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand.

He faced every ridicule , jeer,snub yet he held on to his moral conviction of taking the fight to the terrorists. Today , people may argue thet the war on Iraq was purely for satisfying american greed for oil. So what. That always had been long term american goal - to secure sources of energy. 'W' had been the only US president in recent history who made a determined attempt to get rid of Us dependence on saudi Oil. Saudi arabia has been using those petro dollars to

1- Buy out corporate America. as of today saudi investment in US economy is close to 1 trillion or 9% of American economy.
2- Fund the terror schools preaching wahabi islamic laws and curbing the deobandis/barielvis.

Unfortunately the Europeans( they are the best example of Pseudo-intellectuals cowards, appeasing radical islam the way they were appeasing Hitler before wwii) or even the Indians( who are worst sufferers of this wahabi onslaught due to massive saudi funding to Pukistan) lost ehir nerve and left the warrior alone. I am surprised what has happened to the old brahmanical minds(creators of vedas/Arthshastra etc) and the knowledge of the great Indic civilisation that we are standing by the sides of radical elements. Inspite of all this?

George bush had the courage to call the bluff of radical islam and he set out to contain them. Today Al Qaida is a virtual non entity while in clinton's time Osama was busy giving press interviews. Now he is afraid for his life and fears the predator drone with hellfire missiles and already shitting in his pants hiding in some mountains while the Pukis are being whored by the Pathans in FATA. saudi Money created these so called Taleban and Terrorist state of Pukistan provided them arms and training. Thanks to 'W' they are busy killing each other. Till the time they continue to kill each other we are relatively safer b'cos the intellectuals of this country are in a shameless race to be seen as liberals and in order to assert their 'SECULAR' credentials they need to shout more than the muslim radicals against 'W' and his policies. I feel secure little bit not b.cos of any other thing but in the notion that a lone ranger called America is ploughng along n the neighborhood plummeting pukis everyday.

Bush understood that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell. He has done exactly so and I am certain that Barak no-bama will continue the same policies, incase he is as intelligent as he is made out to be.

As far as India is concerned, 'W' had been the best president ever and that's what all matters- pure self interest. he gave unflinching support to India and created a never imagined hole in NPT to accommodate India along with the weapons and publicly rebuked TSP. He understood that there is no use fighting China as of now and discouraged Taiwan to declare independence 2 times. The more urgent threat is radical islam and it needs to be contained. Obama has already declared that he will continue to put more troops in Afghanistan. No doubt, American troops in our neighborhood is dangerous as it is our backyard as they are here only for their self interest but we must let it play on as it suits our purpose.

I have some questions though.Why is it then that all our leftists (Dhoti roy, Burkha dutt, pronoy roy, Prakash Karat, Nandita das types feel free to voice their opinions direct and that too at the top of their voices( Secular media publishes their articles easily) , whereas conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that safeguard our way of life,defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right can not find a platform to even put across our point.

'W' to a large extent stood for the qualities i just summarized and as it happens always, he is villified.Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous." Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified".Tell me who does not know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry and individual choice is a birthright. However, "The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love".

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve.

Even more 'bizarre' is the arguement that i hear on TV nowdays espoused by so called defence/strategy experts -"Stable pakistan is in our interest" . All right. so that they continue to send these marauders to kill us. People have not read any history, All the invaders to this land have come through Khyber pass for 2000 years and it is high time we must ensure that they are stopped right there. Another bizarre argument is that people of pakistan must be spared. have anyone ever been to Pukistan? if Porkis love us then how do Porki army find all these terrorists every time to blast bombs in india? Nations are made of people. The clarity of thought and vision of 'W' stands out as stark contrast to the timid Indian leadership and i repeat what Gandihji said, "Coward Hindu intellectuals"