From the description of the prizes according to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to someone who "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 of peace congresses." [my emphasis]
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, or Orwellian NewSpeak has now gained normal currency. Nobel’s description is reasonably open, yet quite specific: I would have thought that someone who engaged in the opposite of the ‘abolition or reduction of standing armies’ would be ineligible.
apart from the announced US troop increase of 30 000, another 56 000 ‘private contractors’ (jobs that were previously done by the military, including ‘security’ armed personnel), as well as other NATO forces, are expected!!!
Of more concern still is Obama’s speech. I cannot but read it with something of the descriptions of Arhiman’s incarnation in mind. Surely this is the type of presentation that will ensue: lull and promise; do the opposite and justify it in terms of peace, truth, etc.
It’s also quite interesting to put his speech in accepting the PEACE prize into wordle.net and see what emerges. Here are the top 12 words (apart from common English words such as ‘that’ etc.):
I’m also amazed at how this has unfolded given my much earlier comment on Ahriman on fourhares – which I wrote prior to Obama being nominated (and not, of course, assuming nor implying Obama to be Arhiman incarnate… I could, of course, be entirely misjudging the entire situation…
Anyhow, here are a few brief excerpts from his speech:
Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed.
‘Some will kill, and some will be killed’, and he mentions, in the middle of the acceptance of a PEACE prize, his responsibility in this!
And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Is this Orwellian, or what? the ‘difficult questions’ about the relationship between peace and war (this latter mentioned first!) is that one is NOT the other… and what of the effort to replace one with the other? should this be understoon in the context of increased war?
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.
Is the implied subtext that war is inevitable and part and parcel of being a real man?
At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned;
My recollection of the dawn of history is that its morality WAS questioned… and has been throughout. Is this a subtle manner of implying that war’s morality ought not to be questioned?
it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
War is a different kind of ‘fact’ to either drought and disease as these latter are not (at least intentionally) the direct involvement of people with people, whereas in war there is the intentional killing of a person by another.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups,
The emergence of laws was not to control violence, but rather to reflect ideals of Justice.
so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.
Interesting use of ‘cleric’ in that sentence, especially in light of what occurs later which seeks to paint Christianity as aggressor against islam! Of course, I realise that the term ‘cleric’ is far more generic in meaning that its common usage – it remains, nonetheless, full of religious implications. On a general note, to claim that philosophers and statesmen sought to ‘regulate’ the power of war is non-sensical… though again there is here a hidden suggestion that war’s regularity has the implied blessing of ‘cleric’, philosopher and statesman!
The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Here is a double implication: the first is that the concept of a just war meeting those stated conditions is bunk; yet just wars are Just… even if… let’s get to the next point
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.
Let’s take a brief few second pause and call to mind that this is a speech in acceptance of the Nobel PEACE prize! And here humanity’s capacity described as inexhaustible – not towards that which is good or peaceful, but in the context of justifying ways to kill people.
Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
the implication is that we now live in a world in which war is between all, not simply combatants.
In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent.
Sure he’s talking about the past… the ensuing sentence points clearly to this. Yet as either heard or read, the sentence has been given its attention without the mind able to ascertain if what is presented is prophecy or a period of past history.
And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
A strange sequence of words – virtually putting into doubt that the defeat of the Nazis was for the best.
I’ll leave it here for now – but to my reading, the entirety of his ‘Peace’ acceptance speech sounds closer to what one would expect from a recipient of a shadow ‘War’ Nobel prize!