Obama is worthy of Nobel, he has changed the world

'I profoundly disagree with M. V. that Israel or America should bomb anything in Iran. It is enough to sweetly explain to the clerics what will happen if...' S, you're being quite optimistic - you are essentially saying that the mullahs are rational enough to avoid war, based on a threat of reprisal. I do not believe we should leave such matters to optimism or mere chance. If Baldwin or Chamberlain had recognised the pre-eminent threat of their own time and had the courage to counter it, history might have had a much happier turn.

Labhras, Roo, Persian Kitty et. co, If I am not mistaken, Iran STARTED IT with denials of the Holocaust and declarations such as: "Israel must be wiped off the map" "Israel is an "illegal state" and a "parasite," "Israel is a "cancerous tumor" that should be removed from the region." At the same time Iran was declaring proudly and openly the speeding of uranium enrichment, etc, and a mullah happilly said that Iran can easily absorb 5 million dead from an Israeli nuclear attack while Iran can wipe out all of Israel in just one shot. The reaction of Israel's idiots was to threaten the bombing of the uranium enrichment installations...instead of keeping their stupid mouths shot. Yet, the aggressor was, and continues to be, always Iran. Not to speak of the assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas. Furthermore, I profoundly disagree with M. V. that Israel or America should bomb anything in Iran. It is enough to sweetly explain to the clerics what will happen if...

more dangerous as extremism has grabbed hold of the world and legitimized hatred of Israel, terrorists and rogue nation have been encouraged to acquire nuclear weapons, allies have been abandoned and dictators have been supported, the Iranian people are being killed and have been thrown to the wolves by a second American president.US influence and dollar has been reduced to garbage.China, Iran, Syria, Chavez dictatorship, russia and every country that abuses human rights have gained influence. the list goes on and on. Obama has made the world much more dangerous and has given nothing but empty rhetoric. the American people who voted for him we are all starting to wake up

What exactly has this man done so deserving? He has made some nice speeches to the arabs He has tried to hurt Israel and not even achieved anything with the peace process. With Iran he has been trying diplomacy just like Bush becayse he doesn't have the guts to use force and just like with the peace process he has achieved vert little on the Iranian front. He did watch the violence in Iran after the elections and said nothing America is at war in Afghanistan & Iraq. WHAT DID HE DO SO WORTHY? Immy the Penut Carter had to wait 33 years after the Israel/Egypt treaty before he got his prize in 2002. Bill Clinton went all out to try make peace and he did manage to broker a deal with Israel & Jordan, he tried to make oslo work. He left office 9 years ago & is still waiting but Obama who hasn't done anythng deserves one after 9 months. Obama would have also been nominated around Febuary 1 month in office. He got this prize becase he wasn't Bush and the fact he was black.

I think something's missing in the translation. Benn's thesis, that Obama has changed the world, is left unsubstantiated.

Bama props up the despicable antisemitic dictatorship Iran with their nuclear rhetoric with his overtures. He then pushes the U.S.A's only ally in the region in a corner over housing. Ok Haartz give Aluf Benn a raise in pay. Award that piece of crap for his journalistic musings about a black president who is not only intolerant of others and his embracing a socialistic agenda he also believes himself to be the messiah.

If you look at early winners of the Nobel Peace prize, you will find that many were awarded to groups and individuals who founded groups that had nothing to show but good intentions. So it's not at all unusual to award the prize to someone like Obama who has not yet produced any impressive result.

There is some truth in your claim. Pacificts seldom win wars. But neither do they lose unnecessary ones. Only warmongers do, and when they accept peace they do it reluctantly, when they have no other option. Usually far too late, only after they get painful enough kicks in the butt. Think France and Algeria, France and Dien Bien Phu, U.S and Vietnam, or Kippur 1973 and Camp David I. Ps: "Fighting for peace" sounds like raping for virginity.

barak plays a complex hand. what he says is not necessarily what he thinks.

Nest year Bibi's with Ahmadinejad!

'Think Israel did not know Morris--bush hid it from them ---hmmm.' Labhras, even close allies do not 'tell all', nor do they always agree. Bush at one time told Olmert point-blank there would be no American support for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear programme. So yes, what you doubt is entirely plausible. Now, I think if Dick Cheney had been president, you'd have been correct; no such restraint would have been applied - to the contrary, I think a President Cheney would have been keen to work with Israel on attacking the Iranian nuclear sites. BTW, congrats on the Lisbon Treaty vote. Getting the EU and UK taxpayers to fix the Irish economy - what a stroke of genius on your part! And all you had to do is sign away your hard-one sovereignty. Me thinks Eamon deValera must be spinning in his grave ... MV

"I have been advocating a strike against the Iranian government`s nuclear programme - NOT against the Iranian people," If Israel wants to take out all facilities capable of developing and processing nuclear material it has to cause massive civilian casualties. Judging by Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008, this will not deter Israel, even if Morris gets mildly concerned. Perhaps Morris might avail himself of some of the best analysis on this subject available rather than invent impossible scenarios before tea time of Israel being able to halt the Iranian nuclear prog' whilst avoiding large civilian casualties. According to Cordesman [world renowned military strategist]and Pedatzur, [Reuven Pedatzur, a lecturer in political science at Tel Aviv University and Director of the Galili Center for Strategy and National Security and also an IAF pilot in the reserves]the chance of success [defined as destroying or delaying by 1-3 years Irans securing a nuclear weapon] is not high enough to warrant the risk in pursuing an attack. Try elevating yourself from armchair general and you might understand why Israel is making pains to downplay the military option of late. http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/09/30/haaretz-analyst-on-folly-of-israeli-attack-on-iran/ http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf Now, on your belated efforts to deal with the obvious reality that Barak knew full well of the Qom facility well before September 2009 you come up with a Times article which incidentally supports the point I and every major news outlet has been making this last week or so: 2nd paragraph in your Times story reads: "Yesterday?s revelations about Irans secret uranium enrichment facility at Qom came after three years of intensive investigation and surveillance by the most trusted of America?s intelligence allies: Britain, France and ISRAEL" Get that? ISRAEL. Of whom Barak is the defence minister. Here is a further example from the CIAs own director, OK? "The CIA was aware of Iran's 'secret' nuclear plant in Qom already in 2006, and European and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the facility to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the US intelligence agency's director, Leon Panetta, revealed in an interview with Time magazine published overnight Wednesday. " http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861896251&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Now you should do yourself a favour and read the Cordesman study and Podatzurs comments on the same.

Mark - you just saved me quite a bit of trouble and time your post. I endorse it verbatim. Could not have put it better - ! David

"Funny, no-one, including Barak, now seem to think the Iranians were hiding Chanukkah presents at Qum. The `challenge` is most certainly a `threat`." MV From Haartez a few days ago???. Israeli intelligence was involved in editing and creating the sanitized version of information about Iran's recently revealed secret uranium enrichment facility near Qom. The revelation comes in an interview given by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta to TIME magazine. Panetta said that the CIA had known about the facility for at least three years. The CIA chief said he was preparing a dossier which was formulated in concert with British, Israeli, and French intelligence agencies. Think Israel did not know Morris--bush hid it from them ---hmmm.

Roo, there really are three possibilities here which I see: 1. Barak has known, literally for years, about the Qum facility and its purpose, but sees no threat in it. 2. Barak knew bubkis about it, until the US, UK, and France went public and briefed the IAEA (and Israel) about its existence and location. He may have, in mid-September, felt the Iranian programme was more a 'challenge' than a 'threat' (his original remark was 'Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat.'), but almost certainly no longer does. 3. Barak has known about Qum for years, but his 'see no evil' shtick has been a ploy to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency. ('They don't know that we know.') The evidence I've seen points to 2, as example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850325.ece. What do you have to share which would indicate otherwise, please? MV

But now as then, I am self-administering. No `they` involved." MV They Morris are those purveyors of fairy tales. It seems they must have used copious doses of subliminal suggestions on you. I mean of course the people of the bible---you know the ones that adhere to that religious real estate god in the sky. Those they---Morris. "Do you really think Israelis should believe the Iranian threat of `burning out the heart of Israel` is just for fun?"MV If I recall correctly that remark was made by one of the not so mad mullahs in response to Israel,s endless tirade of threats to attack them first. Try some perspective Morris.No one believes that Iran is going to kill those 7 million Israelis when 20% are Arabs and also the US will promptly immolate Iran. Iran has no WMD,S--Israel does.Cart before the horse Morris. Did you receive a debriefing on your escape from "Them". Might be worth a try.Might be the help you need.

'Let me get this straight: so by throwing in a few arabs (sunni, shia, christian) you are legitimizing the mass killing of innocent civilians in Iran - something you have been adamentally vocal and clear about?' For God's sake, **NO**, PK! I have been advocating a strike against the Iranian government's nuclear programme - NOT against the Iranian people, for whom, through their sacrifice and struggle for a little democracy and freedom, I have the greatest admiration and sympathy. Do NOT - repeat, do NOT - confound the two. Your people should not be made the object of any military action against the brutes who rule them. Kind regards. MV

you will be disappointed in your bloodlust. israel is a superior military power. i predict that unless iran gives up its nuclear and ballistic missile weapons program voluntarily, there will be a coalition of nations that will make iran do by force that which it will not do voluntarily. it would be an unwise decision to force israel to confront iran on her own. but if she need do it, she will. israel has always defended herself and always will do so.

Don't be confused. Testosterone as you said yourself =big balls! *Gingko's* for memory.LOL. Let's leave that at that shall we? Recap: You said in #55 "You left out two points, laddie: Barak said immediately afterward that `Iran poses a challenge to Israel and the rest of the world.`" MV I didn't leave it out but quoted it! :) I suppose you must have missed it. Care to acknowledge? You then qualified Baraks comments about Iran NOT being an existential threat by stating: "Barak made his remarks *before* the discovery of the Iranian facility near Qum" M.V So you think it is 'new evidence'for Barak and Israel! As well as a sign that I am not applying the scientific method. Now, everyone bar 'you' knows full well that the US and Israel were fully aware of the Qum plant for several years. So, care to retract or explain how Barak did not know about Qum on September 2009? Barak has been defence minister for over 2 years. Do you think that Israeli intelligence forgot to inform him about Qum. Or are you just a little tired? I fear logic is a field you should not broach Morris, and Persian Kitty seems to think so too.

the greatest threat to world peace is radical islam, be it sunni or shia. the u.s. president so acknowledges.

we did so while fighting many wars for our survival. my desire is not for "bloodletting," but for survival of israel and generally of the western democratic way of life. the greatest threat to our civilisation at this point in history is radical islam. general jim jones considers the acquisition by islamic extremists of nuclear weapons to be the greatest threat facing the united states. iran, if not stopped soon, will be able and willing to produce and provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.

"nor do pacificts ever win wars" "israel cannot be hostage to obama`s lack of decision. iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear" Cippy Mahatma Gandi was non-violent. The British were defeated. President Obama, unlike the Jews, is not an arrogant man. Nor violent either. Cippy, if you must have your way, attack Iran. Hopefully Iran will respond in like manner. America will watch the light show from the sidelines. The world is better off with less war-mongers. Salaam/Shalom

I have no particular interest in showing Obama in a good light. My friend, I made clear and you pasted my opinion that Obama will play to the crowd. As in healthcare with the republicans, blue dog democrats and health insurance companies so with global warming and yes Palestine Israel too! That said the Nobel remit is as I stated and NOT as I would prefer. Good day sir.

Pacifism denotes a desire, a belief in peace. 'Pacifict' is a remarkable new word that could imply "pacifiction", a sort of negation of peace... a remarkable philological play-on-words...

"As for Obama changing path, he has shown himself quite adept at backtracking or compromising ... So, if he sees the path of least resistance, you can fully expect him to follow that!" Yeees??? You proud that Obama will follow paths of least resistance? In other words, like marrying only the woman who will not resist him at all ... or robbing only the bank that leaves the door open at night for robbers...and warm coffee; to offer little resistance.

Your logic is warped. Let me get this straight: so by throwing in a few arabs (sunni, shia, christian) you are legitimizing the mass killing of innocent civilians in Iran - something you have been adamentally vocal and clear about? Maybe instead of non-stop call to kill iranians you should go there and see for yourself that they are no monsters and that people are people around the world. The issue of the government of Iran, on the other hand, is something that the iranians are taking care of themselves. PS-Your hatred of iranians makes me spontaneously think of Iranian oil nationalization......and perhaps its effect on your personal life. The curse of british grudge...

'[Testosterone's] supposed to aid memory.' Then you're obviously not getting enough of it, Roo. You criticise me for changing my views; but you consistently forget that when new evidence comes to light, one's premises should be questioned. It's part of the scientific method, and despite your knowledge of hormones and herbal remedies, I dare say you'd make a poor scientist. No-one in the Israeli government, of any party, is running around, post-Qum, saying Iran is anything other than a very grave threat. Obviously the Israelis are a bit more scientific than are you, and without resorting to Ginko biloba. MV

An addendum. Just to reinforce what I said about dabbling in quick shot remedies on your keyboard, you emphasise that Barak "made his remarks *before* the discovery of the Iranian facility near Qum". Apparently oblivious to the reports emanating from Washington all week long that US intelligence aided by Israeli intelligence, knew of the facility at Qum for 3 YEARS! I guess that means Barak actually did know about the facility at Qum when he made his comments. Shock horror! No, on reflection your problem definitely seems like a short term memory issue. Gingko it is then!

'What did they do to you Morris---it certainly was not testosterone they feed you. More like a mind altering substance---in the negative sense.' 'They'? Of whom do you speak? Now, Labhras, I will be the first to admit to a little - ah, shall we call it, 'experimentation'? - when I was a much younger man. But now as then, I am self-administering. No 'they' involved. It appears you could use some ministration, however - certainly in the form of a little psychiatric help - expecting seven million Israelis to permit Iran to immolate them. Do you really think Israelis should believe the Iranian threat of 'burning out the heart of Israel' is just for fun? Read 'Mein Kampf' some day (if it's not already in your pocket). Hitler gave ample warning. Thankfully, so has Ahmadinejad. Don't expect the Jews to go quietly this time. MV

He's not made any peace anywhere. The whole thing is a farce.

The Nobel Appeasement Prize

yes indeed, many of our brave heroes were hung by an oppressor much the same as the Israel of today. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make the connection. Next time post under your normal non de plume???.

It's supposed to aid memory. "You left out two points, laddie: Barak said immediately afterward that `Iran poses a challenge to Israel and the rest of the world." M.V 'who added that he did view Iran as a challenge to the whole world' In my post #50 Guess you missed that? Could still be a testosterone issue me thinks. Maybe your balls got so big they drew the oxygen from your brain? Barak obviously might enjoy some bloodletting in Iran. Like I said, he's not one to avoid a conflict. However it endorses my point in that Barak DOES NOT believe Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. This would only surprise an old blogger like yourself who dabbles in quick shot from the keyboard remedies to world problems [another reason you change your views so rapidly]. That is my view, and It is also the view of Barak. "Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel". Unequivocal, old man, with or without big balls.

Your talk about rope and hanging is your first relevant post ever,being Irish and having the experience of gallows more than anyone else.

There is one billion Muslims and maybe one billion Christians,and half of the Jewish population on earth that are against attacking Iran.There is as many that wish that there was no nuclear weapons on earth,and wishes for world peace,and less or no polution. Non of them got the prize.True they have done nothing but talk,but neither did Obama,just talk

by his vocabulary, in your case calling the President "The Fuehrer". Disgusting!

Israel is the greatest power on earth,they can force the US to go to war,they could do it twice or maybe more(?Vietnam?)and now they want to do it again,how pathetic. I reckon that you mean that over half of the Americans are insane,they share the opinion of half of the Israelis.Use of a primitive accusetions will get you nowhere.If you'r looking for demented lunatics,or insanity,just read your daily papers,it is full of that on the local news.Israel is the threat to world peace you say,yet it is the Americans that are at war with somebody since WW1.and before that. It is your soldiers that went to Korea,Vietnam, Serbia,Kosovo,Iraq,Afghanistan,even mini Grenada

enough rope to hang itself. Some people have small necks---Israel will need a lot of rope--so let them procrastinate and whinge and increasingly rediculous demands from an already prepared list. We saw all this same bs in Northern Ireland--the daily ups and downs--the Unionist intranisgence after 300 years of supremacy. The Nationalists who understodd the ubermenschen mindset of their oppressors and therefore had to make demands to secure their rights. Tony Blair---who sadly would later turn into a War criminal and the politicians on both sides were berated by their own supporters for 30 years before common sense prevailed. It will take years before this is resolved. There is however one set of events which may speed things up. If Isreal continues the Illegal Settlement expansion then the Palestinians may drop their demand for a two state solution and bingo---end of the "Lebenstraum. Hey you guys voted in the most right wing gov in Israel to date.Your descision.

In the last 9 months the Americans have killed over a thousand civilians(not on purpose)and he is the chief of command.Detainees are still imprison without a trial,and he didn't have the time to meet the Dalai-Lama,not when in needs China to help with NK,Iran. Is that is more worthy than Tsvangirai's efforts and deeds for example?.

Morris here is Baraks claim--compliments of Roo in his post #50 to you. ""I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel." He was responding to a question about Iran`s nuclear program. "Israel is strong, I don`t see anyone who could pose an existential threat," said Barak, who added that he did view Iran as a challenge to the whole world." Barak. you then respond-- "You left out two points, laddie: Barak said immediately afterward that `Iran poses a challenge to Israel and the rest of the world." MV Existential? 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with existence. Challenge? 1. To make or give voice to a challenge. 2. To begin barking upon picking up the scent. Used of hunting dogs. Take your choice Morris---but the latter does not suggest the annihilation of the Jews---just the Zionist entity. What did they do to you Morris---it certainly was not testosterone they feed you. More like a mind altering substance---in the negative sense.

I have a problem with the Obama peace prize. I think it was presumptious and inappropriate for the Norwegians to give it to a sitting president, and it was clearly a political gesture. The prize should go to people who have devoted their lives to improving the human rights situation in their area. I have all the admiration in the world for Barak Obama, but after only nine months as president, he is not a candidate for this kind of prize.

Obama worthy or not.... what a trivial debate. In today's conflicted universe.... who among us are truly worthy. What does that mean anyway and by whose criteria. Of course Obama is worthy. Did Mandela or Rabin achieve peace.... are they also not worthy. Talk about a juvenile argument. Basically this whole controversy boils down to which side of the fence you sit. By all appearances bloggers, journalists and other light weight objects chime in en mass... as if they have some unspeakable enlightenment.

'Easy to say that for u, sitting in your safe USA and knowing war only from the media. Lots of people in Israel may see that differently, as its them who will have to deal with Irans answer..' I lived in Israel for years (I'm a British ex-pat, and an Anglican), still visit often even at my advanced age (76 years), and have many friends there, both Jew and Arab. Trust me, there are any number of Israelis who would agree with my views - and even a few Arabs (Sunni, Shia, and Christian), who have told me quietly that Iran would be a far worse enemy than the Jews ever could be. I'm not sure how things look to you from Berlin, but my own perspective isn't based on being an armchair warrior. So don't be an armchair pacifist, Sarah - get to Israel, and learn the facts. MV

'... perhaps you should consider the views of ... Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak ... [who] just a few weeks ago ... in an interview with ... Yediot Ahronoth ... was quoted as saying that "Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel"'. You left out two points, laddie: Barak said immediately afterward that 'Iran poses a challenge to Israel and the rest of the world.' That's hardly an endorsement of your viewpoint, that those dear old mullahs, with their twinkling eyes and snow-white beards, are just the sort we should all feel good about. And Barak made his remarks *before* the discovery of the Iranian facility near Qum. Funny, no-one, including Barak, now seem to think the Iranians were hiding Chanukkah presents at Qum. The 'challenge' is most certainly a 'threat'. BTW, testosterone isn't always a bad thing. It helps deal with threats to one's safety. Grow some balls and try it sometime. MV

Aluf Benn extols Obama because both are Ultra Leftists. Both are on Chamberlain pathway. The fact is the Nobel has become a joke. They have terrorists on the list too like Arafat.

I was sitting in the kitchen when I heard the news about Obama's Nobel Prize. I frowned, said something to myself like 'Why should the Nobel committee be wiser than other Obama-maniacs?' and returned to my stew. But then I thought that the spontaneous reaction is not always the wisest either. The decision to stop the plans for the US missile basis in Poland, and the Cairo speech and came quickly to my mind and so I thought: maybe it's ok. What's worth mentioning though: There may be millions of Americans who have similar ideas as him. But through his POWER his words are more performative, they have a much stronger impact, than those of the other millions. Maybe that effect is particularly strong about the Peace Nobel Prize, the only one given to a topic pertaining to "humanities". In contrast to this, chemistry NPs have already been given to people with a nazi past: Butenandt (NSDAP), Wittig (SA). Obama is a mighty human being, no God, and from my point of view no devil either.

The US State Department Spokesperson, did have a point when he said that, it is better to be awarded medals than having shoes thrown at you. Nevertheless, President Obama must keep in the back of his mind, that the latter option may well be just a matter of time, unless he has tangible answers.

Changed how? By revising history to suit his needs? By lying to the world about the reason why Israel was established? By lying about how important the religio/political farse of a religion, Islam is in America? By lying about how many Muslims reside in the USA? By lying about being Israel's "friend" while all the time setting Israel up to be destroyed? By threatening deep distance between the the USA and Israel if Israel doesn't do what the USA wants? By taking Jewish votes and Jewish money and Jewish support based upon mostly one issue, the security of Israel (the big money anyway). Just why was he given this prize?

Sometimes. Though this is not one of them. The US is hardly under threat from Iran, except in the narrow sense that the US prefers to completely control the worlds oil supplies regardless of where that oil is going to or from, hence all their policy focus in the Mid East since WW2. As for Israel. Rather than act like a first prize fool perhaps you should consider the views of war loving Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak [widely considered to be anything but a fool and generally presumed to be in possession of the most up to date intelligence on Iran] just a few weeks ago: In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth, the Israeli defense minister was quoted as saying that "Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel" and that "I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel." He was responding to a question about Iran's nuclear program. "Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat," said Barak, who added that he did view Iran as a challenge to the whole world. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/17/1007966/barak-iran-not-existential-threat Morris. Those anti aging testosterone jabs are having unfortunate side effects. Perhaps you might want consider to reducing the dosage, just a tad?

Nobel Prize for what its worth is meant to signal encouragement in a direction the judges approve of. What they would regard as a peaceful path. Part of their remit, regardless of what 'we' think is to choose someone whom they wish to reward for good intentions. So Desmund Tutu got his prize before Apartheid was abolished to help bring about that end. As for Obama changing path, he has shown himself quite adept at backtracking or compromising or even about turning on a number of issues. the more contentious the more likely an about turn. So, if he sees the path of least resistance, you can fully expect him to follow that!

..the world all right, but who says it's for the better..that remains to be seen. He got the price, but didn't deliver anything positive yet to deserve it! Besides of pushing Israel in a corner..which the author of this piece perhaps consider as an achievement and a major break through! Remember that Oslo deceit, the laureates just got off the podium and the Arab partner started a low intensity terror-war of attrition against Israel. The left always lack correct insight and right proportions.

It is an encouregement to stick to his words and plans for a fair peace.

Obama won the Nobel speech prize, not peace prize -- mostly for not being George Bush. The Swedes kid themselves if they think that Obama needs this prize to promote his vision. If anything, awarding Obama the peace prize at this premature stage reduces its significance in the eyes of the people that Obama wants to influence -- those who don't already worship him as "President of the World Obama".

My understanding is that nominations for the Nobel Prize closed at the beginning of February. This would have been shortly after Obama was inaugurated. What did he accomplish in his first month as president? Did someone jump the gun on nominating him?

Regardless of your lecture on the said subject. Pacifism is not generally defined by sponsoring of a war in Pakistan nor by fulfilling a pledge to expand the war in Afghanistan having already escalated the same war by some margin. What you are seemingly so upset about is Obamas's 'hesitance' in yet 'further' expansion in Afghanistan beyond already elevated levels despite numerous American concerns about unlearned lessons from Vietnam. Your lack of comprehension on 'pacifism' is matched by your desire for bloodletting on yet greater scales. People like you should be made to fight in the wars they crave. You might fare better with a gun than a keyboard at any rate. Your idea of peace through arms is best summed up by Tacitus. 'They Made a Desert and Called it Peace'.

They've worshiped Arafat ,another Nobel Prize winner . Why shouldn't they worship Obama and hail Norway?

When and where?

Thank G-d he stop destroying all international cooperation, all agreements, all international institutions etc. And the incredibly destructive and dark force Dick Cheney has gone. Obama has gone back to normal, mainstream thinking has been re-introduced, that takes little effort really, so for that a Nobel Prize is a bit much!

Wrong. What the Nobel Prize Committee has done is to focus the world's attention on Israel's refusal to work for peace.

Their involvement in the Middle East is a disaster, time and time again. Now this committee set out to do what exactly, by awarding this most important of Awards to encourage, to indicate.... what? The next Nobel Prize for physics to a 12 year old to encourage? Literature to a beginning journalist who writes intriguing stories about 100-year olds? I can't follow this.

You are an idiot. Hope is not what the Nobel Prize is based on, it is based on actual resuls. Secondly, der Fuhrer (Messiah) is going to start suffering defeats in his homeland based on his actual actions. Which makes his actions more laughable. Bush did more for Africa thatn this numbskull has.

I want peace on earth, goodwill towards all persons. I think I deserve the Nobel Peace prize as much as Obama.

Oops, I forgot. War-mongers don't win peace prizes.

Well said, tata. I might add: "As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap."

Iran to continue building the nuclear bomb!!

?So far, in his less than nine months in office, he has not achieved even one peace agreement ?..?. You are wrong Sir. The fact is that after GWB, any American President who does not bomb an oil rich country, one that does not sink his fangs into the flesh of children from an oil rich region and suck their blood dry for continuous 10 months needs and should be awarded not one Peace Prize but as many different ones that are awarded by different institution and countries. GWB, history, world and America has already decided about you and your administration, and you still go on living in denial.

"...In granting him the prize, the Norwegians are signaling to Obama that he should continue along his current path, that he should avoid an escalation in Afghanistan and a war against Iran; and that he should take serious steps to advance peace in the Middle East and to reign in nuclear weapons,..." Since when should the Nobel Prize be a "signal" by Norwegians??? Particularly when what "they signal" is "Obama's current path" as preferred by Aluf Benn.... What about if the future may require changes to a path? Any path?

You called the wolf on Saddam, and bushy bought in. Now the real wolf cometh in Iran and your old buddy the people of the USA are in no mood for any more wars. This one you might have to go it alone, but I think you will chicken out as Iran is a formidable foe. Iran can pay China and Russia with oil, what do you have to offer? .. oh and I forgot, you could not take out that rag tag militia Hezbollah in 34 days. You know on the other side you always have the choice to make real peace instead of building new settlements in other people's land. Last I checked that will make people hate you.

The result of this 'award' will be : either Obama is stuck as a Peace lover at any cost including devaluing and possibly ruining his country or give him the power , as a 'Peace lover' would be entitled, to do the right things, namely deal with the Islamist terrorists worldwide SERIOUSLY. And that has NOTHING to do with Israel, because even if Israel did nor exist, the Islamists would !

Usually those calling others 'insane' ARE the insane ones. Spend more time with true and serious history and political books before calling anyone pro-Israel a fool. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror for once. I, for one, am fed up with your regular bashing of anything the Israelis do to defend their lives and country. You and your fellows would rather be overrun by Islamists in your countries than see Israel defend itself. Sickening. Enough !

Easy to say that for u, sitting in your safe USA and knowing war only from the media. Lots of people in Israel may see that differently, as its them who will have to deal with Irans answer..

... it could just as well be a form of condoning any action or inaction that is wisely required, according to the imminent situation...

That if is not peace in Middle East is not because US doesn't want it how the rightist in Israel used to say,but it is because Israel always (except Rabin's government) sabotaged every peace initiative.Yes ,Obama have to struggle with Israeli's lobby to get peace for ME .

The prize is probably the last thing that Obama wanted at this time, and definitely the last thing he needed, and it was probably just his ego that prevented him from refusing it. His opponents in the Senate and Congress will attack him because of it, and say that every decision that he makes was colored by the prize, and the award will be viewed like a mark of Cain. The award will be like and albatross around his neck. http://tinyurl.com/obamalbatross Jane

Mark usually backs up his statements with lots of relatively indisputable facts. One might argue with his conclusions, but his stated facts are fairly on target. Unfortunately in his above post Mark is quite lean on facts and full of overly broad generalizations as well as unsupported opinion. This is especially true of his second to last sentence in which he states that Israel is more of a threat to world peace than any other country. Well, maybe Mark really thinks this, but those whose job it is to place boots on the ground, pilots in the air and warships at sea (at least of the most powerful armies in world) don't seem to feel the urgent need to amass armadas around Israel as they do in other theaters. I guess they have other worries that are more pressing! So much for Israel being the "primary threat to world peace."

by the way you live is how people treat you.....what if the zionist state actually did something for the neighborhood they live in? you know show us what great people you are beyound the brutal occupation and threats? you know something that would make you wanted instead of depised? i know this is way over your head but perhaps someone will get a clue

Obama needed no such signals. He would never go to war with Iran and he, like the EU and "the Nobel Norwegians", would prefer evil to prosper while "hoping for the best"

...He coukd win a prize too. Chutchill was called a war-monger.... We know the consequences. The Hitler-Ahnadinejad should be stopped. If Iraneans unable to replace him, then other foeces have to do it. Appeasement is not an option.

In the last paragraph the author writes that the Norwegians are using the Nobel Prize to signal Obama to continue his current path of efforts. True or not, the Nobel Prize shouldn't be a polotical tool to perpetuate any agenda, regardless.

nor do pacificts ever win wars. pacificsts are in love with peace, but they are are never willing to fight for peace. pacifism is an ideal, not an idea. the nobel committee awarded obama for his ideals, not for any of his ideas. diplommacy is a crucial tool in advancing international relations and in maintaining peace and stability. diplomacy without credible military power to back it up is a useless exercise in endless talks. obama is a man of ideals, not of ideas. his arrogance is only matched by his dithering hesitance. this is apparent in his lack of resolution on afghan strategy. israel cannot be hostage to obama's lack of decision. iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear.

Nine months along and Obama hasn't started a new war, and he hasn't even managed to engineer a coup and replace anybody's government. That is at odds with 20th century Presidents of the US, from Truman to Bush. Maybe he's trying to start a new trend? And Morris, maybe he doesn't like the idea of gratuitously killing a bunch of Iranians or getting a bunch more US GIs killed. Preemptive war is an Israeli and Bush the younger thing, not America's style. After one in Iraq, one is enough for the US. Besides, Israel hasn't finished it's last preemptive war, the one it launched in 67. The Palestinians don't seem to want to stay conquered.

nor do pacificts ever win wars. pacificsts are in love with peace, but they are are never willing to fight for peace. pacifism is an ideal, not an idea. the nobel committee awarded obama for his ideals, not for any of his ideas. diplommacy is a crucial tool in advancing international relations and in maintaining peace and stability. diplomacy without credible military power to back it up is a useless exercise in endless talks. obama is a man of ideals, not of ideas. his arrogance is only matched by his dithering hesitance. this is apparent in his lack of resolution on afghan strategy. israel cannot be hostage to obama's lack of decision. iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear.

it is not obama's place to "avoid a war in iran" obama can not dictate to two sides that have been waring for thousands of years. since obama possibly has sympathy for the muslin cause, Israel better not trust the USA in it's effort to rid irans nuclear threat. Israel, it is my thoughts that a preemptive strike on iran is not offensive rather it is defensive. Allow iran to get the nuke and they WILL use it. Israel must decide if they want millions of jews wiped out or is it better for millions of iranians to be wiped out? That's the only question Israel should contemplate.

As if Obama is going to make decisions based on signals from Norway. Who cares what Norway thinks? Maybe the Norwegians do, but that's about it. If all of Norway decided to end all communication with the outside world, would anyone even notice?

I never was the type to believe that we acknowledge one way or another, only those who achieve results. We should award those that are on the right course. It's ridiculous to assume that given only 9 months as President of United States, that Mr. Obama would deliver any mission accomplished, especially within the Middle East. Don't blame the U.S. for the impasse, blame Netanyahu's government - and what an interesting coalition! They don't even want a two-state solution from their obvious stalling tactics - otherwise we'd be on deciphering the last details of the borders of the two states by now. I wouldn't bet on this government delivering anything to global peace - we'll have to probably wait for the next elections. Even if Obama uses the U.N. - this government won't budge!

So much for Israel's craving for a war with Iran. This award to Obama will serve to ensure that those jingoistic rants from Tel-A- Viv are tuned out, and if it helps to achieve even this much then the award would have served its purpose.

Kitty, by hope you mean the hope of Iran to eliminate Israel?

Analysis - only a moron would start a war with Iran while still losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But still we must recognize that israel is a nation ruled by such demented lunatics that it believes that if it starts a war America will save it. Which is an example of just how insane and deluded Israel has become. Israel believes that if starts a war, American must follow it into a hopeless pit of failure., George W. Bush, seen in Israel as the ultimate genius of world politics, has already plunged the United States into two losing wars. Israel believes it can force Obama into a third. Israel needs a psychiatrist.. ?t also needs to put it's government into an insane asylum to protect the nation from their mental illness. Israel is a nation which has gone insane. Until sanity is restored, it remains the primary threat to world peace. Get a grip upon reality Israel, before the world has to deal with you.

He doesn't deserve any type of prize or award. He has dont NOTHING to help the USA, he's only out for his own self. Whomever nominated him needs to have their head examined.

Oh big H... Does not want to be blown up so these are the headlines.... what a joke! Nuff said.... spin... spin... spin, must be for survival purpose only.. what a joke....... The man is trying to speak to the ideologist regimes that hate everything that isn't islamic in believes... but he is finding out that deplomacy will not work with radically inclined groups, good try for an early try at peace, but not in this catagourie, soon he'll find out the true meaning of what they really desire, which is Israel all encompassing.... he'll tire soon of these games, rest assured Israel..

'In granting him the prize, the Norwegians are signaling to Obama that he should ... avoid a war against Iran.' What the bloody Norwegians can't seem to get through their heads is that sometimes war is simply unavoidable, and that it has to be waged to avoid an even larger catastrophe. They think it's a 'choice' - but survival is not a choice; it's an imperative. And anyone who thinks the US, or Israel, should avoid choosing a pre-emptive strike against a threatening Iran and its nuclear programme, is a first-prize fool. MV

The right-wingers and war-mongers keep whining about "but obama hasn't achieved anything'...'only 9 months into the office without..".....just promises and not a single accomplishment..... You know what you idiots? A person can live for 8 days without food, 3 days without water, 8 minutes without ai, but not a single second without hope. What obama brought to our global table (in a time of tried and tired political rhetoric and confrontation) was HOPE. Something forgotten by most of our politicians and given up by most of our citizens. THAT'S what was THE BIG DEAL with his message. That, in the dark days of belligerence and political arrogance, there IS a way out. Don't get me wrong, Obama may not be the ONE actually finishing this path, but the fact that he put it on the map for the rest of us (the sane and pragmatists) that is, how do you say, PRICELESS!!! If you still don't get the magnitude of that, then you simply don't get it.

Obama does not need encouragement to avaoid conflict with Iran. The last thing a financialy stressed and militarily overstretched US needs is another war in the middle east. Iran is aware of this.

Obama does not need encouragement to avaoid conflict with Iran. The last thing a financialy stressed and militarily overstretched US needs is another war in the middle east. Iran is aware of this.

Benn is right about one thing. The world certainly has changed since prezident Obama Hussein Barack came to power. For the first time in their history, the official foreign policy of the US is appeasement. The Iranians and North Koreans thumb their noses at the world with impunity. The Taliban are whipping US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Dictators Assad and Chavez openly laugh at the US while the prezidential envoys Mitchell and Clinton brown nose with them. The only country to which the US lectures and threatens is their former ideological ally Israel. And finally who cares what the Norwegians feel is the correct way to resolve the problems in the Middle East. The last time that Jews were threatened with annihilation, the Norwegians gave up to Hitler without a fight. Since WWII the word Quisling is now common parlance for traitor. Quisling was the Nazi's puppet Prime Minister of Norway.

That comment just had to be slipped in didn't it! If Irans program was actually just for energy production you can be sure that it won't be after all of the talk of 'crippling sanctions', 'use of force', and 'bombing back to the stone age'. Talk like this from world leaders capable of carrying out such threats will have more than likely encouraged Iran to diversify thier program. A nuclear armed Iran is / will be a creation of the US and isreal - made from retoric and threats.