Maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t get it. Maybe I’ve misinterpreted what the concept of peace, or of war, or both. Maybe all the troops are doing is going to have a cup of tea and stretch their legs and help with the washing.
Maybe pigs fly.
There will be those that say war is a route to peace. Peace on whose terms? The winner? If so why not re-name it the Nobel Prize for the country or person with the knockout punch or the Nobel Prize for the person with the most power.
And if it is said that the prize was given for the potential to reduce the threat of nuclear war how does that stack up if so-called conventional wars are engaged in?
So what they seem to be saying is peace can be through both reducing conflict and increasing conflict in order to win.
Ah, now this is clearer – it is the Nobel Prize for the Winner, however you win, unless of course you should’ve been the loser, because everyone knows no-one from the Taliban will get the prize.
Aded to which, Mr Obama gratefully accepted said prize even whilst humbly(?) stating that no doubt there are others more worthy. Why not show some real steel, be magnanimous, decline and nominate one of them.
Or perhaps the world has so little in the way of peace that Mrs Miggins at number 42 might not be seen to be worthy even if she’s brought peace to a little neighbourhood through engagement, reconciliation, vision and non-violence [go figure - peace without violence or threat! You know that might be a novel concept given the Nobel committees take on it].
All the very best, remember that to get a peaceful neighbourhood or peace at work, tell them you’ll not be blowing the place up, but you will be getting the boys round!
Yours,
Finn