Nobel Peace Prize: Hope or Hoax?
By Dr. Eugene Stovall
Oakland, California March 4, 2014
In January 2013, Russia conducted its largest naval
maneuvers in the Mediterranean since the end of the Cold War. During his visit
to the Black Sea Fleet in February, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu
stressed that the “Mediterranean region was the core of all essential dangers
to Russia’s national interests” … Since then, Russia made sizable improvements
to its fleet’s size and readiness and stepped up patrols in the region, roughly
coinciding with the escalation of tensions in Syria.
U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org)
A Russian spy ship has slipped into Havana for an
unannounced visit, a day after the country's defense minister announced plans
to expand Russia’s worldwide military presence. The Viktor Leonov SSV-175, part
of the Vishnya class of intelligence ships, quietly entered Cuban waters this
week and docked at a cruise ship terminal on Thursday, February 27, 2014.
American neocons helped destabilize Ukraine and engineer the overthrow of its elected government, a “regime change” on Russia’s western border. But the coup – and the neo-Nazi militias at the forefront – also reveal divisions within the Obama administration …
Robert Parry Consortium News
With Russia’s response to regime change in the Ukraine crisis, Barack Obama might have used his CIA mercenaries to affect one regime change too many.
In 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee awarded the U.S. President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee said that they awarded Obama the coveted prize “… for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” In choosing Barack Obama as the world’s foremost advocate of peace, the Norwegian committee cited the president’s promotion of “nuclear nonproliferation” and his fostering of a "new climate" in international relations by his reaching out to the Muslim world. However when Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on December 10, 2009, he stressed that worldwide tensions required that he engage in what he termed “just wars”.
After winning the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration, Barack Obama became one of the most militarily aggressive United States presidents in decades. Immediately upon taking office, the president authorized a threefold surge of American troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership using a concerted campaign of terrorism and assassination. In this campaign, for every one Al Qaeda leader killed, Obama killed 100 civilians, primarily women and children. He overthrew and assassinated the legitimate president of Libya after bombing the civilian population and non-military targets such as schools and hospitals. Obama ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, a sovereign nation, killing hundreds of Pakistani civilians and wiping out entire villages. He has used CIA mercenaries to wage covert wars in Yemen and Somalia. Barack Obama became the first American president to ever authorize the assassination of American citizens without their being found guilty by any court for any crimes or wrongdoings. Obama’s proudest achievement as president is the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Midway through his first term, Barack Obama boasted that he was “really good at killing people.” Given this record of military activity, international violence and regime change, one might wonder whether the Nobel Committee awarded Obama the peace prize out of hope or was it just a hoax that the Norwegians perpetrated on the Muslim world.
“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” the president told the Nobel committee. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.” So even in accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama stated that he believed that international diplomacy should be conducted according to neo-con and neo-Nazi principles.
When he took office, Obama reframed the “war on terrorism” according to his neo-Nazi views. He could have waged his campaign against terrorism as an effort in global law enforcement, finding, arresting and bringing to justice international terrorists. Instead Obama chose to wage an all-out, unlimited “war” without regard for the destruction of property and loss of innocent life. Not only does Obama wage unlimited war, but also, in the main, Obama’s unlimited war is waged against defenseless civilians. His is a wonder patterned after Hitler’s V-1 and V-2 rocket blitz of London. Since 2009, Obama has ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan killing more than 1,300 people. During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike in Pakistan every four days. Obama signed off on a large increase in the number of C.I.A. officers to head up mercenary armies to supplement the use of drones in covert, unauthorized actions in places like Somalia and Yemen. Two years into his presidency, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president was engaged in conflicts in six Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. Was it the Nobel committee’s intention, after investigating this Manchurian candidate’s background, to use the peace prize in an effort to head off this unprecedented use of force and violence ___ or was it their purpose to mask it and deceive the Muslim world of Obama’s real intentions?
On Aug. 21, 2013, Obama blamed the Assad regime for the horrific chemical-weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 Syria civilians. According to the President, the Syrian chemical attack was a threat to American national security and he demanded a military response. “The purpose of an air strike,” Obama said, “would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons and to degrade his regime’s ability to use them.” Furthermore comparing the Assad government to Hitler’s Nazi regime, Obama promised that his military attack upon Syria would be significant. “Let me be clear,” Obama emphasized, “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.” However, we now know that everything Obama said about the source of the chemical attacks in Syria was a lie. According to independent fact finders, the Assad government was not responsible for the chemical attacks upon the Syrian population. In fact, the source of the chemical attacks on Syrian civilians was American-backed Syrian rebels. Yet, the Obama administration still uses the Sarin gas attack as an excuse to bomb Syria.
Last year, Obama gave Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, his timetable for an Iranian war. The Assad regime stood in the way of Obama’s war on Iran. So Obama initiated an attempt at regime change in Syria. Assad’s unexpected resistance to the CIA’s mercenary army first led Obama to replace Leon Panetta as head of the CIA with General David Petraeus. Possibly, Obama believed that with a general in charge, his CIA army would sweep Assad’s forces aside. But, possibly General Petraeus’ personal code of honor prevented him from engaging in a war of extermination against Syria. When Petraeus resigned his CIA position, Obama appointed John Kerry, a member of the Skull and Bones Secret Society and a committed Nazi, as his point person to accomplish regime change on Syria. Yet, Kerry failed to topple the Assad government. The delay on the American-Israeli timetable for a war on Iran was blamed on Russia’s material and military assistance to Syria. So Obama unleashed his CIA mercenary army on the Ukraine, creating the crisis that he hoped would distract Russia away from Syria and pave the way for his war on Iran.
In the wake of Obama’s Ukrainian initiative, Russia immediately mobilized. This Russian mobilization has made the president’s replacement of the democratically elected leaders of Ukraine with neo-Nazi thugs, convicted criminals and economic predators seem to be a grave miscalculation. Overthrowing the Libyan government and assassinating its president is far different than overthrowing the Ukrainian government. Both Napoleon and Hitler learned, at their peril, that attacking Russia was a very bad idea on many levels. Already Ukraine’s Navy has lost its flagship, the Hetman Sahaidachny, in the middle of a NATO operation in the Gulf of Aden. The warship ditched the Ukraine flag in favor of a Russian one. In addition, Rear Admiral Denys Berezovsky formally defected from Ukraine to Crimea, and the Crimean parliament announced the creation of a new autonomous Crimean Navy, with Berezovsky at the lead. The Crimean Peninsula took another step toward secession when the newly appointed Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov, the head of the Russian Unity Party, claimed full control of army and police forces. The Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian, and there appears to be massive support for secession from the Ukraine. The Crimean parliament has already authorized a referendum on the matter offering several options, including seeking a return to Russia, and Russia’s parliament is debating the possibility of re-annexing the Crimea if the referendum shows support for it. The Crimean referendum was initially set for May 25, but Aksyonov pushed it up to March 30. No one doubts that once Russia has the Crimea under control, it will deal with the neo-Nazis who have seized control of the rest of the Ukraine.
Barack Obama and his neo-con, neo-Nazi administration now faces a dilemma: renounce its plans for regime change in the Ukraine, Syria and Iran or prepare for an all out, possibly, nuclear war with Russia. So whatever its reason for giving Barack Obama the 2009 Peace Prize, whether the Norwegian Nobel committee hoped to prevent a world war or sought promote a hoax that hid Obama’s true intentions, the world has learned, once again, that nothing appeases a Nazi except war.