Nobellicose Prize

With the same logic, one wonders why the Nobel peace prize wasn't awarded to Neville Chamberlain for his foreign policy of appeasement as British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. Notably for his having obtained 'Peace in our Time' by signing the Munich agreement in 1938.

True that the 'time' became radically cut down to a year's grace, but maybe this would have been judged as better than nothing, and still time enough to have awarded him the Nobel appeasement prize.

That Russia and Cuba are the first to officially congratulate Obama is also a revealing factor.
All we need now are Iran, Syria, Libya, China and North Korea to join in the chorus to add to the hilarity.

Perhaps this would be the 'encouragement' Obama refers to, towards further international appeasement, compromise or cession..

Image with thanks to Wikipedia. Text © Mirino (PW) October, 2009


rob said...

Let's hope that Obama won't become a new Chamberlain. But, sadly, I agree with you.

Mirino said...

I'm not trying to parallel Obama with Chamberlain. I'm comparing the logic of awarding Obama with the Nobel, with that of the remission of not having awarded it to Chamberlain. For if those who give priority to international peace and appeasement above all other considerations merit this award, then certainly Chamberlain should have been awarded it as well.

For Obama, the Nobel round his neck could restrict him more than encourage him. Sooner or later he will be faced with having to make a crucial, international decision, and it has to be the right one. Only then will the world know who Obama really is and what he represents and defends.