Trump links Greenland dispute to not getting Nobel Peace Prize
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
No words
It's just so ridiculous as "your Country" doesn't decide who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is evident.. Barack Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize not because he was the doyen of peace (no, he was the harbinger of wars), but because he was the first Black President in the history of the United States of America.
And there are other examples where the genuineness and sincerity of the Nobel Committee can be questioned.
Ironically, Donald Trump has directly or indirectly dismantled or paused more wars than Obama started (and continued). However, to think of him as a soothsayer of peace is foolhardiness. He is deep in the pockets of the wealthy elites, and does whatever's best for them and him. He doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize either.
And its Oslo, not Geneva.
But let's hear it from the horse's mouth..
The secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, wrote in his memoir that the decision “did not achieve what the committee had hoped for”, and that “in hindsight the argument … was only partially correct.”
However, you are incorrect on your first point.
Nobel Peace Prize is decided by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a group of five members appointed by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting).
This is different from the other Nobel Prizes, which are decided by Swedish institutions and awarded in Stockholm.
(I am fully aware of the setup of the committee, hell, Norway is a small country so i've even met a couple of the members.)
Obama was a stupid choice, you'll get no argument from me there.
However I am interested to hear your plan for Obama ending the wars that Cheney dumped on him.
Or do Americans have wool on their eyes when it comes to their politicians' wrongdoings?
It is my bad that I wrote Geneva instead of Oslo. But that typo/errata doesn't change the facts about Obama or Trump.
How can you claim it to be zero relevance when the discussion is about incumbent US President not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize, when it is a fact that the US President he replaced earlier certainly didn't deserve either (for doing wars through 2 consecutive tenures)?
Or are you accustomed to making excuses for the most powerful men in the world, using their privilege to get or expect Nobel Peace Prize like it is some cotton candy?
Although, cotton candy might have more relevance than the Nobel Peace Prize, IMHO.
Considering that some of the previous recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are of dubious distinction:
** By your "Cheney did wars that Obama didn't stop" yardstick, Henry Kissinger should also be squarely blamed, though he himself got the Nobel Peace Prize. (Hmmm, what's up with such warmongers getting Nobel Peace Prize?!) Of course, Kissinger didn’t start the Vietnam war, but he played a major role in how it was conducted and ended. He helped design the policy of “Vietnamization” (gradual U.S. withdrawal while training South Vietnamese forces). He was involved in secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos, which are among the most controversial aspects of U.S. policy. ** Aung Sang Suu Kyu supported military genocides on some communities, though she spent most of her life in jail or house-arrest and was a crusader for democracy (unfortunately she appears to have died, as her son and others claim she's missing from last few years after her government was overthrown by a military junta coup and she was jailed).
** Mahatma Gandhi was a wife-beating paedophile, he was responsible for Partition of India and genocides on Hindus (due to his open support for Jinnah who unleashed those genocides), his actions caused millions of Indians to suffer for years under brutal British enslavement.
But I see you are making excuses for the US Presidents not being able to stop wars their country started or involved in.
So you think Bush Jr. and Obama were puppets of Dick Cheney? So is your vice president running your country, not the President? Then why have that seemingly irrelevant position of President at the White House?
Is that your excuse now to ignore Trump's wrongdoings? (He won't get the Nobel Peace Prize, for sure, but he'll try to buy it or coerce it, he doesn't seem to care what the world thinks of him, because he knows Americans think highly of him, because they elected him twice (the second time he took oath for the highest office, was AFTER he was convicted of felony))!
Even I am finding this all ridiculous to type out, it is even more frustrating that this is all real history, and (like it is wont to do) history seems to be repeating itself: The most powerful men in the world doing wars/invasions, while chasing after Nobel Peace Prize.
If I wrote "Argentina didn't deserve to win the 2022 World Cup" would you reply with an unhinged rant about France not deserving their 1998 win?
> Henry Kissinger should also be squarely blamed, though he himself got the Nobel Peace Prize.
Finally I was afraid we weren't going to get to Italy's '82 title!
> But I see you are making excuses for the US Presidents not being able to stop wars their country started or involved in.
Are you going to answer my question or just put words in my mouth?
> Is that your excuse now to ignore Trump's wrongdoings?
My what? My guy, you need to take a deep breath and not pretend people are saying things they aren't.
YOU SAID>This is run of the mill copypasta about Obama's Nobel Prize and has zero relevance to whether or not Trump not getting the award is casus belli against a completely different country.
It is indeed relevant, and I have already given you solid examples to show that US Presidents need no excuse to wage wars. Two US Presidents (Obama and Trump) have both been shameless about the Nobel Peace Prize (Obama went and accepted AFTER signing off on wars. Trump has started wars AFTER he didn't get Nobel Peace Price despite his attempts at playing peacemaker).
YOU SAID>However I am interested to hear your plan for Obama ending the wars that Cheney dumped on him.
If you want to illogically claim that a Vice President of USA is responsible for wars, rather than its President, I will take it as your obvious athempt to deviate the attention away from the wars "signed off" by the President, and I would like to remind you that the President of the United States holds the title of Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.
The buck stops there... With the President of the USA. Irrespective of who is the Vice President and what has been done prior to the person taking up the role as the President.
He (or she, if that ever happens) as the President of USA, has the unassailable right and power to stop the country's involvement in any war where the nation's military may be involved, and certainly so, if it is already leading a war.
And even if we take your argument that Cheney dumped wars on Obama, then Obama knew about it on the first day of taking oath as President of the United States of America! So why did Obama go and personally collect the Nobel Peace Prize the next year, when he knew he has not shut down any wars, and when he had in fact, already signed off on further escalations of the existing wars and started more conflicts?
------------
Let my little assistant help you out with the homework you ought to have done on this topic.
Below is a timeline cross-reference of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (2009) and U.S. wars / major military actions.
Summary: It is overwhelmingly likely (and effectively certain) that Obama knew he was overseeing active wars and new military escalations before he went to collect the Nobel Peace Prize.
> I am interested to hear your plan for Obama ending the wars that Cheney dumped on him.
Are you just trying to run out this clock with trying to relitigate who was ultimately responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan? I am guessing you have no answer because you can just barf copypasta about warmongering US presidents.
Good, we can close this thread then.
> I am interested to hear your plan for Obama ending the wars that Cheney dumped on him.
I think all you have is hamfisted critcisms of western leaders.
The facts I've cited are all historic and can be verified online easily.
If you are so touchy about some "western leaders", maybe you shouldn't condone their wrongdoings with illogical excuses.
And if they do evil, they least they can do is handle some criticism from the world.
That seems to have hit a sore spot in you. A black man, who could have thought?
Did you read the motivation?
"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
As I recall it (somewhat vividly), the world took a sigh of relief after the tensions had been rising for many years between USA and the muslim world. After years of what GWB himself called "crusades" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Obama took action to soothe the tension.
That said. I do agree the prize was premature and a mistake in hindsight. (Obama himself was very surprised and humbled). But at the time, I too felt a big relief because people were actually talking to each other like human beings.
So Obama is a hypocrite, who shamelessly accepted Peace Prize after starting wars and conflicts.
History tells us: * Obama inherited the Iraq War and Afghanistan war, started during Bush Jr. regime. But to his credit, Obama ended them. * However, Obama (USA) and NATO intervened in the Libya civil war and escalated it. * Obama did the full scale war in Syria (but one can argue it was to combat terrorism). * But under Obama regime, there was major increase in drone strikes in: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. These were highly controversial due to civilian casualties.
In a nutshell, Obama ended one war, he didn't initiate traditional large-scale wars, but he certainly expanded air, drone, and proxy conflicts.
That's why I said Obama is the only 2-term US President who kept his country at war during both tenures.
Now that is a dubious honor for any politician, whether he be black or white or any color in between.
Now Trump Sr. is following the bloodsoaked footsteps of Bush Jr. and Obama (in terms of warfare, I mean).
Trump has invaded and seized Venezuela, and he's threatening to do the same to Greenland. And he won't stop there. But bullies never do.
FYI, I am brown. But irrespective of skin color, I do not condone a warmonger getting or coveting a peace prize (a highly prestigious and huge amount involved at that: $1+ million dollars prize money).
Perhaps Americans and their NATO allies do not see such perspective, maybe because they think that blind patriotism and war-for-oils are greater than pragmatism and world peace.
Or maybe they think their country being a warmonger bully is justified, to "soothe the tensions".
In the annals of history, Obama and Trump will both be judged, on the same pedestal of warfare. And it won't paint them in a good picture.
The most powerful man in the world, must have a responsibility to help heal the world, not hurt it willy nilly.
The name, gender, skin color, race, religion - all these factors can pale to insignificance under the scrunity and expectations of the world.
Why do you think he got the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place? That's right: the expectations from the world, from what they thought is a pivotal positive change in history, due to unexpected (and hitherto considered impossible) ascension of a person of color to the highest position of authority in the world. They expected great things from him, because they knew he had the authority to do great things, and possibly, help heal a broken world.
He failed though, and proved to the world that he was just one more warmonger, in a long line of warmongers who have held that position of utmost power, to further break and wreak havoc on the struggling world.
Anyone in a supreme position of authority must be held to such idealistic yardsticks of expectations. Otherwise they will continue with such wrongdoings and continue to get away with it.
As the old saying goes: A man is judged by his deeds. Or misdeeds.
To put it into perspective: the world is running out of time. Climate change, pandemics, etc., are going to bring misery to humanity. Now more than ever, we need the greatest most-idealistic leaders, who can work together to help the world and try to save humanity and this world before it is too late. That's what's at stake - the future of humanity and this beautiful bountiful world.
I can understand your disappointment, but at least from my perspective, Obama was the least bad compared to both his successor and predecessor most of those resepects, for example climate change.
And the wars you listed in GP - at least they were not out of greed. And he also got a lot of blame for not intervening in Syria.
Now "you are sane, and not under the control of anyone insane" is, granted, a fairly weak justification for a Nobel prize, but given the anxiety at the time...
> During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".[12][18] Although it had a claim on northern Greenland based on explorations by Charles Francis Hall[19] and Robert Peary, the United States decided that the purchase was more important, especially because of the nearby Panama Canal.[20] Historian Bo Lidegaard questions the utility of such a declaration, as the country had never disputed Danish sovereignty.[12]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
See:
> In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.
* https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917/d881
"""
NEW: @potus letter to @jonasgahrstore links @NobelPrize to Greenland, reiterates threats, and is forwarded by the NSC staff to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. I obtained the text from multiple officials:
Dear Ambassador:
President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state]
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
"""
* https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/2013107018081489006#...
* https://xcancel.com/nickschifrin/status/2013107018081489006#...
And, how would Denmark protect that land from Russia or China? By being part of NATO.
And, he thinks the Prime Minister of Norway decides who gets the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, it's chosen by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, so the Prime Minister probably has some influence, but I presume it is not a direct decision.
This is the most arrogant, out-of-touch thing I have seen from Trump yet. Appalling.
This parallels how, if your fellow countryman Schmidhuber was right about how he'd invented Transformers (although in the exact opposite way, whether that work ought to have gotten any attention, at all, from Americans :)
The world would not be in this (emotive, viz economic) pickle right about now --or indeed quite soon, in technological "reality"
U after circling back here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JloHHqV5tWQ&lc=Ugxbt5tyiSVxFGK_x...
See, eg, newest comments.
(Only timestamping the gender issue here because both of you seemed to have flinched upon that.. note how both yt interlocutors seem to have been _making intermittent side glances_ at this same elephant in the room)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46483761
Compare the trad separation of 商 from 官* tell me I'm wrong for singling out Stanford :)
Poor BruceLittleBoy TT
*Money made by those who value loyalty+decisions made by those who value nothing what! Peace, Thucydides, over!
I'd say "Systems of Survival" certainly called this US administration.
Aside: IIRC a few members of the House of Berndadotte have reliquished 官-dom in order to better pursue 商-dom. (end of aside)
(is part of the brouhaha over Netflix that it can show that parts of the world outside the US are not just NPCs?)
(Wolf in fox body?)
Commenter says Padre Lauro but I haven't looked that up yet
> “They tried to put me on the cover of [Vogue]. But my legs were toooooo long.”
A Karen that commands the most potentially destructive military force on the planet with his tiny fingers...
If Biden had sent such a memo, everyone would've talked about how his IQ must have gone as low as the temperature in Oslo...
Sir, you win the internet today.
Makes me appreciate that it's not a Wendy's ;)
The latest conflict he claims to have ended was two years of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The other seven are Israel and Iran, Pakistan and India, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Egypt and Ethiopia and Serbia and Kosovo.
But some of those conflicts lasted just days and one, Egypt-Ethiopia, had no fighting to end but rather involved long-standing issues of water sharing from the Nile River."
https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/19/trump-tells-norways-pm-h...
Also, it's pathetic how his envy of a particular younger, charismatic, well-loved Black man is so apparent. Obama has at least two things Trump is envious about, one is the Nobel Peace Prize, and the other is something Michelle Obama needs to compare notes with Stormy Daniels about.
And like a hypocrite, Obama went and personally collected the Nobel Peace Prize AFTER he had certainly signed off on new wars and conflicts.
But I think you already knew that.
However, Trump is following on the same warmongering course of his predecessors, so it is not a surprise to anyone outside USA and NATO nations.
The world is not fooled, by the Nobel Peace Prize mask.
Bullies will be bullies, warmongering bullies even more so.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/lecture/ :
> Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
> 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.
And in his book "Promised Land":
> Nine days [after announcing troop deployment to Iraq at West Point], I flew to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The image of those young cadets weighed on me. Rather than ignore the tension between getting a peace prize and expanding a war, I decided to make it the centerpiece of my acceptance address. With the help of Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, I wrote a first draft, drawing on the writings of thinkers like Reinhold Niebuhr and Gandhi to organize my argument: that war is both terrible and sometimes necessary; that reconciling these seemingly contradictory ideas requires the community of nations to evolve higher standards for both the justification and the conduct of war; and that avoidance of war requires a just peace, founded on a common commitment to political freedom, a respect for human rights, and concrete strategies to expand economic opportunity around the world. I finished writing the speech in the dead of night aboard Air Force One as Michelle slept in our cabin, my weary eyes drawn away from the page every so often by the sight of a spectral moon over the Atlantic.
Yeah yeah, maybe it's my fanboydom, maybe it's him trying to make himself look good in hindsight, but at least this guy was honest about what happened/was happening. Unlike Mr. "I solved 8 world wars, where's my peace prize or I'll invade Greenland!" (did I quote him right?), who probably does believe he solved those "wars"...
Below is a timeline cross-reference of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (2009) and U.S. wars / major military actions.
Summary: It is overwhelmingly likely (and effectively certain) that Obama knew he was overseeing active wars and new military escalations before he went to collect the Nobel Peace Prize.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_696eb7d8344c81918204cafb96b10f9a
As for Trump, I fear he is just getting started. His actions (and the repercussions on the nation and the world) are gonna get a lot worse, I'm afraid.
> Yes — it is overwhelmingly likely (and effectively certain) that Obama knew he was overseeing active wars and new military escalations before he went to collect the Nobel Peace Prize.
So your "assistant" supports my reply, he was fully aware of that and acknowledged this. And in the speech you didn't read, he went into how war came as naturally as the first man, and how some wars are necessary and "just".
Indeed Ukraine is at the moment shooting back at Russian conscripts...
And since we're allowing AI responses look at the answer of my second question: https://gemini.google.com/share/57839224db00
But I'm sure you would've been a better at politicking than Obama's team!
And by doing the opposite, despite all his idealistic "humanitarian" speeches, he simply proved himself as a warmongering hypocrite to the world.
In that aspect, Trump did try desperately to play "the Big Brother, the peacemaker" role in conflicts across the world, in an obvious (childish) attempt to outdo Obama's (dubious) legacy, but he failed.
So he's dropped his mask, the velvet gloves are off, and it is every man (country) for himself (itself) as the King of the Hill decides which hill to stake his next flag on.
Oily toy has been seemingly grabbed, and now the King has set his eyes Northwards. And that bodes ill for those who question his will. Because a troublemaker child may smash or throw some things when he has a temper tantrum.
Today I was listening to a podcast where the host said his internal monologue when a commenter on the Internet upsets him with a dumb comment is "you know what, they're probably 12 years old.". I think I'll adapt that idea. Because who else gets told A and immediately argues "Let me tell you, I'm sure Not A is correct/would've been the better move!", twice. Maybe someone who again didn't bother to read the links, because of course he's smarter than that, considering he's already smarter than Obama's team!
Yes, you are smart indeed. Here, have a cookie. You can call it the "Obama fan" cookie.