<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: more on the nobel peace prize</title>
	<atom:link href="http://piscesinpurple.com/2009/12/more-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://piscesinpurple.com/2009/12/more-on-the-nobel-peace-prize</link>
	<description>confessions of a reformed tourist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 May 2011 23:24:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terri</title>
		<link>http://piscesinpurple.com/2009/12/more-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/comment-page-1#comment-4447</link>
		<dc:creator>Terri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://piscesinpurple.com/?p=1524#comment-4447</guid>
		<description>The deadline for Nobel considerations/nominees was February 1, 2009. That said, I find little argument that would support him as worthy of this esteemed honor. That is, beneath the surface of his skin. The prize should not be awarded based upon good intentions, rabble rousing speeches and &quot;hope for change&quot;. It should be based upon accomplishment. It&#039;s a shame, for him, the United States and the world, that perhaps the committee should have thought deeper. He may, hopefully will, be worthy of this distinction at a future date. But this year? No, not in my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The deadline for Nobel considerations/nominees was February 1, 2009. That said, I find little argument that would support him as worthy of this esteemed honor. That is, beneath the surface of his skin. The prize should not be awarded based upon good intentions, rabble rousing speeches and &#8220;hope for change&#8221;. It should be based upon accomplishment. It&#8217;s a shame, for him, the United States and the world, that perhaps the committee should have thought deeper. He may, hopefully will, be worthy of this distinction at a future date. But this year? No, not in my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Finola Prescott</title>
		<link>http://piscesinpurple.com/2009/12/more-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/comment-page-1#comment-4445</link>
		<dc:creator>Finola Prescott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://piscesinpurple.com/?p=1524#comment-4445</guid>
		<description>I was one of the people who&#039;s initial reaction was &quot;Did I miss something?&quot; because I couldn&#039;t see where the proof of the pudding was. Unfortunately, I still can&#039;t find justification for Obama having received the Nobel Peace Prize and I think overall, it will do more damage than good - to Nobel&#039;s image and to that of Obama and the US.

I was very happy that Obama won the election, but I was never one who thought it would be any miracle &#039;cure&#039; for America&#039;s ills (as seen by the rest of the world, or internally) so I feel I had a fairly level-headed view of the momentous event, ie I&#039;m, I think, a realist, non-American supporter.

Just war, well in theory I guess for some people war can be just, maybe against a despot who is beyond a shadow of a doubt, living high at the expense of his people? But I can&#039;t think of one country or government who I could clearly say has a moral right to take such an action. Not the USA, even under Obama. Not the UK under any of their leaders. Not Israel. Not Iran...

I am just hoping that Obama&#039;s speech about a call to action, I assume peaceful action, is what comes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was one of the people who&#8217;s initial reaction was &#8220;Did I miss something?&#8221; because I couldn&#8217;t see where the proof of the pudding was. Unfortunately, I still can&#8217;t find justification for Obama having received the Nobel Peace Prize and I think overall, it will do more damage than good &#8211; to Nobel&#8217;s image and to that of Obama and the US.</p>
<p>I was very happy that Obama won the election, but I was never one who thought it would be any miracle &#8216;cure&#8217; for America&#8217;s ills (as seen by the rest of the world, or internally) so I feel I had a fairly level-headed view of the momentous event, ie I&#8217;m, I think, a realist, non-American supporter.</p>
<p>Just war, well in theory I guess for some people war can be just, maybe against a despot who is beyond a shadow of a doubt, living high at the expense of his people? But I can&#8217;t think of one country or government who I could clearly say has a moral right to take such an action. Not the USA, even under Obama. Not the UK under any of their leaders. Not Israel. Not Iran&#8230;</p>
<p>I am just hoping that Obama&#8217;s speech about a call to action, I assume peaceful action, is what comes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared</title>
		<link>http://piscesinpurple.com/2009/12/more-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/comment-page-1#comment-4439</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://piscesinpurple.com/?p=1524#comment-4439</guid>
		<description>Hello! Second comment from me in one day, after only visiting sporadically.  

Don&#039;t bite my head off for asking this, but where are you getting this &quot;no such thing as just war&quot; thing?  I&#039;ve heard it before, is it some kind of meme?  I mean, I understand the impulse to be firm when condemning war, but Just War Theory has been around for centuries, and its purpose is clearly to LIMIT the use of war rather than JUSTIFY it.  Sure, lots of people have cynically distorted it for their own purposes (*cough* George Bush, but also Urban II) but that only means we need to pay MORE attention to it.  

I&#039;m mostly with you on Obama, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello! Second comment from me in one day, after only visiting sporadically.  </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t bite my head off for asking this, but where are you getting this &#8220;no such thing as just war&#8221; thing?  I&#8217;ve heard it before, is it some kind of meme?  I mean, I understand the impulse to be firm when condemning war, but Just War Theory has been around for centuries, and its purpose is clearly to LIMIT the use of war rather than JUSTIFY it.  Sure, lots of people have cynically distorted it for their own purposes (*cough* George Bush, but also Urban II) but that only means we need to pay MORE attention to it.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m mostly with you on Obama, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

