October 12, 2009

"Suppose this year's Nobel Peace Prize had gone to the scores of Iranians now on trial for having protested the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last June."

"For the three defendants who were sentenced to death over the weekend, a Nobel might have made all the difference in the nick of time. At a minimum, it could have validated their struggle."

42 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Imagine that: That would be a powerful award.

But it is much more fun playing U.S. politics than seriously dealing with extremists in Iran.

Fred4Pres said...

And of course, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, it would be foolish and intervening for states or organizations to interfere in Iranian politics. Might make things worse, those Iranians scheduled to be hung might have been hung twice or something worse.

Dogwood said...

Provoking Islamic radicals in such a fashion can be bad for your health.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Are people starting to see why he should have refused the award?

Rialby said...

The Western Left does not believe in the Democracy project. They never have. If it means standing up to a totalitarian government, the Left would rather look the other way. Obama's human rights watch funding cuts were cited in this op-ed; here are some more details from the Boston Globe (!):

But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer's disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed - its federal funding request had been denied.

Freder Frederson said...

Suppose it had--Well then it would be just like 2003. And that Nobel Peace Prize had a huge effect on the human rights situation in Iran.

Or how about this? They should award it to Aung San Suu Kyi. I bet if she had a Nobel Peace Prize the Burmese Generals wouldn't dare treat her the way they do.

Oops . . .never mind.

Lockestep said...

They have learned the lesson of Theo Van Gogh quite well, thank you.

Jason (the commenter) said...

What does it say about someone that they'd rather take a chance with someone else's life than their own reputation for manners?

Kev said...

(the other kev)

Anytime a subjective award is given, it is inevitable that someone will argue that a more deserving party was slighted. That comes with the territory.

The fact that so many more deserving recipients can be thought of so quickly just shows what a joke this year's award was.

v/f nardy - why, thank you.

Freder Frederson said...

The WSJ should do a little basic research before they write such stupid editorials (or you make such stupid comments)

Rialby said...

Freder... blah stupid blah


That's what I love about you Lefty trolls. NUANCE!

Paddy O. said...

It still could.

Obama could accept his award on behalf of someone else, or a group of people. He could donate the money to such a cause.

He could find a very hard-working, maybe hidden, worker at peace who whose life might be positively changed with a little more notice.

That's the only way he can deflect the mocking. His poll numbers would jump up if he used his honor to honor another, more worthy, candidate. He could turn this bit of silliness into a great moment, gently rebuffing the Norwegians while doing a genuinely good work for the global community.

AllenS said...

Dear Nitwit,

Or how about this? They should award it to Aung San Suu Kyi. I bet if she had a Nobel Peace Prize the Burmese Generals wouldn't dare treat her the way they do.

Oops . . .never mind.


Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for--

“ during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Doesn't say thing about how you'll be treated.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It will be interesting to see how a regime that sentences protesters to death will will be persuaded to give up its nuclear weapon development.

I think that's a tall order even for President Barrack Hussein Obama (Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!)

garage mahal said...

Might as well have just given the Nobel to Michael Vick or Kanye West.

/winger

Freder Frederson said...

That's what I love about you Lefty trolls. NUANCE!

Well, since you don't do "nuance", I'll lay out for you.

The WSJ put out a hypothetical. "Suppose this year's Nobel Peace Prize . . ." Well, we can look at past performance as a pretty good indicator of what would happen since an Iranian won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. They would ignore the Norwegians. Much like the Burmese do.

Question answered.

Salamandyr said...

Freder,

Even if it had no more than a salutary effect, and these protesters had gone to their hangman regardless, would it not have been a better use of the prize than to give it to one entitled aristocrat?

Denizens of the gulags and labor camps of the former Soviet Union have spoken about how the words and actions of Ronald Reagan helped them keep hope alive in their duress. Would not the Peace Prize offer similar comfort to those unjustly imprisoned by the Government of Iran...a government by the way that is recognized by the US, and one which we are eager to open relations with?

Freder Frederson said...

Doesn't say thing about how you'll be treated.

You obviously don't understand sarcasm or the point of the WSJ editorial (or maybe you don't realize that Aung San Suu Kyi did win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 but has still spent most of the last 28 years under house arrest)

Lockestep said...

Nothing like a good set of preconceived notion blinders to keep one from recognizing the difference between Iran 2003 and Iran 2009.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You obviously don't understand sarcasm or the point of the WSJ editorial (or maybe you don't realize that Aung San Suu Kyi did win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 but has still spent most of the last 28 years under house arrest)


I am forced to agree with Freder in this case. Islamofascist thugs aren't easily swayed by awards like the Nobel Peace Prize.

Rialby said...

I never indicated the Nobel Peace Prize would, in and of itself, force of the world's worst regimes to turn back. That said, I also hold the belief that awarding the NPP to Obama was an attempt to STOP him from taking any serious action towards Iran. So, would awarding the NPP to those doomed Iranians be better or worse than awarding it to Obama? For my money, it would have been better.

EDH said...

Maybe no one on the NPP Committee can say anything obvious?

Freder Frederson said...

Nothing like a good set of preconceived notion blinders to keep one from recognizing the difference between Iran 2003 and Iran 2009.

Point taken, Iran is actually more hardline now than it was in 2003 (Ahmadimejad was first elected in 2005).

So your point would be?

miller said...

No one disputes this NPP is an award for Not Being George Bush.

The question is, who still thinks the NPP has any value now?

Clint said...

That's impossible, because as we have heard ad nauseum from the right in an attempt to show how "ridiculous" it was to award the president the Nobel Prize, the deadline to nominate was in February. The Iranian elections obviously had not yet happened.

former law student said...

a Nobel might have made all the difference in the nick of time. At a minimum, it could have validated their struggle."

To Iran? I doubt it.

After receiving the 2003 Peace Prize, the life of 2003 Nobelist Shirin Ebadi was threatened, along with that of her family. Ebadi, honored for her work for democracy and human rights in Iran, was out of the country during the election, and was advised not to return.

Freder Frederson said...

After receiving the 2003 Peace Prize, the life of 2003 Nobelist Shirin Ebadi was threatened, along with that of her family. Ebadi, honored for her work for democracy and human rights in Iran, was out of the country during the election, and was advised not to return.

FLS! shhh! Don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Point taken, Iran is actually more hardline now than it was in 2003 (Ahmadimejad was first elected in 2005).

Really? Was the regime hanging fewer homosexuals before Ahmadimejad?

Robert Cook said...

"It will be interesting to see how a regime that sentences protesters to death will will be persuaded to give up its nuclear weapon development."

Well,completely aside from their reprehensible treatment of those who protested the elections, we have no evidence that Iran even is pursuing nuclear weapons development. So far as is known, they have been in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which they are signatories...unlike Israel, a much more belligerent nation in the region, and who have committed war crimes against Palestinian citizens.

Robert Cook said...

"The question is, who still thinks the NPP has any value now?"

Who thought it ever had "value?" It's a purely symbolic award, and cannot be shown to have advanced the cause of peace in the world.

Lockestep said...

The point - which you obviously are taking great pains to ignore, as it scuttles your entire thesis - is Iran 2009 features millions in the streets, and members of the ruling mullahs divided over leadership of the nation.

traditionalguy said...

For the last one hundred years of service the True Peace Prize for lifetime achievement goes to The USMC members living and dead.

Bob From Ohio said...

Aung San Suu Kyi would be dead without the Noble.

So, I think it helped her.

Its the value of Western publicity that keeps named dissidents alive (Walesa, Mandela) not prizes. Getting a Nobel does guaranty that publicity.

Cedarford said...

The Nobels in past recent years given to Iranian dissidents and a "breath taking!!" Nobel for a woman in Literature meant not a fucking iota of difference in the minds of the Rulers and Mullahs.

As if they, or the world that needs oil or to recognize Iran's critical geostrategic position - care one whit about a female journalist writer being annointed by Swedes as a "Vessel of Hopey-Change!".

Saying "dissidents" deserve a Prize just for being dissidents means favoring one political philosophy over another in matters completely outside "Peace" - does nothing for "Peace".

Even when the "noble dissidents" are expressly concerned with dissent for "ending war for any reason and bringing peace" - people like Jane Fonda and John Forbes Kerry of Vietnam Vets Against War - how does their bitching make them morally superior to the forces in the military and diplomacy that actually DO bring peace?

Does Medea Benjamin of Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan, tool extraordinaire...deserve a peace prize because they favor "human rights", plant fake cemeteries, and oppose any action by the USA anywhere for it's vital interests unless it is part of a UN-sanctioned "peacekeeper" outfit that comes in and stays 40 years to keep various "Noble Dissident factions" from each other's throats???

Cedarford said...

Lockestep said...
The point - which you obviously are taking great pains to ignore, as it scuttles your entire thesis - is Iran 2009 features millions in the streets, and members of the ruling mullahs divided over leadership of the nation.


If you look at the footage of the mass demonstrations of "noble dissidents" out in Iranian streets in summer 2009, they are impressive.
Until you look at the number of "noble dissidents" out on the streets 30 years before that, in 1979. When 10s of millions arose and marched, demanding the end of the Shah and a new Islamist Hopey-Changely government spiritually guided by the Great Ayatollah be installed in Power. And for releasing the thousands of prisoners the Shah's secret police (SAVAK) had in prison, and the thousands of brave, noble dissidents arrested in their brave protest marches days earlier.

If being a "noble dissident" and marching for Peace and Against Repression deserves a Nobel....well, then the marchers of 1979, based on their numbers, were 15 to 20 times more worthy than the 2009 marchers.

Cedarford said...

There were so many brave noble dissidents marching in Tehran in 1979 that dozens were killed when they collapsed an overpass bridge by the weight of their numbers on just one, of the 6 fucking main streets they were marching on yelling Death to America, the Shah, Israel (America's Puppeteer).
As shooting of birdshot, rubber bullets, tear gas was all happening along with mass arrests...

Hoosier Daddy said...

So far as is known, they have been in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which they are signatories...

Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

LarsPorsena said...

C4:

..As shooting of birdshot, rubber bullets, tear gas was all happening along with mass arrests..."

They skipped the birdshot in the latest iteration and went straight to double ought.

amba said...

Paddy: someone should send him your suggestion.

Not that he'd get it.

amba said...

Bob from Ohio: will the Nobel Peace Prize keep Obama alive?

amba said...

Miller: then it's an NPP for NBGB.

That has a certain poetry to it.

Robert Cook said...

"'So far as is known, they have been in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which they are signatories...'

Thanks, I needed a good laugh today."


Oh? You have proof to the contrary? I'm sure the White House would like to see it, given how hungry they are to fabricate an excuse to start a war with Iran.