The way she, and her team, managed to convince venezuelans that the election mattered, and to prepare to gather the evidence of the elections under constant threats from the government, that we all knew they were going to steal, and do it entirely peacefully, was an extremely impressive achievement on its own.
What an impressive act of coordination from MCM
:standing-ovation:
For a lot of horrific events in the world, you will find a bias exposed by the use of active vs passive voice. Compare:
- "100 children died". How?
- "100 children killed". By whom? Why? How?
- "100 children killed in conflict". Between who? How? Why?
' "100 children killed in air strike on refugee camp by X". Oh...
The point is that a lot of people treat what is happening in Venezuela like it's some kind of unavoidable natural disaster like an earthquake. This reinforces the idea that nobody is responsible and, more improtantly, there's nothing we can do.
Venezuelans are being intentionally starved to death by economic sanctions (that's what sactions are). Why? Because Maduro is bad. Sound familiar? It should. Castro was bad. Saddam Hussein was bad (despite being a US puppet for decades).
The actual issue is that these people threaten the interests of Western companies. That's it. That's the only thing that matters.
Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.
Do you see a pattern here? Like at all?
The key point is that Saddam could drop nerve gas on Iraqi citizens and it still didn't change him being a US ally (and puppet). We don't care about someone being "bad". We never have. Saddam only ceased to become an ally when he invaded Kuwait and threatened our truly regional ally, Saudi Arabia.
All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets.
Hungary is a member of NATO and a US ally despite Viktor Orban essentially overthrowing democracy and genuinely being bad.
We helped overthrow Basher Al-Asaad. The al-asaads were former US allies too by the way. Why? Because now they were bad. Who is the new Syrian president? A man by the name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Who is that you might ask? A former al-Qaeda leader, you know the guys were the Big Bad [tm] for 9/11. But that's OK, he (allegedly) cut ties with al-Aqeda in 2016 so all is forgiven. Let's not look too deeply into 15 or the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi.
Here's the lesson: whenever the US says someone is being punished, bombed, sanctioned, invaded or whatever because they're "bad" know that it's a lie. I mean they might be bad. But that's never the reason for whatever the latest punitive action is. Always, always, always the reason is become the interests of US foreign policy or Western companies is being threatened.
And to claim Assad was a US ally is even more outrageous, where to even start. He was a Russian ally and a Hezbollah ally, not a US ally. All of his military equipment came from Russia. All of his air support came from Russia. He allowed Iranian arms to flow to Hezbollah and was supported on the ground in Syria by Hezbollah. And he is now hiding in Russia playing video games after killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. He and the US had a common foe in ISIS for a period, but they were otherwise antagonistic over the duration of the civil war.
Saddam was a de facto US ally till 1988. The relationship ended with the end of their mutual interests.
US sent terrorism suspects to Bashar regime to be tortured after 9/11.
Yeah eventually both relationships fell out but all the vile things both did happened under US watch, and US only stepped in when political/economic clash happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...
That doesn't make Maduro a good guy, though. Nor Castro. Nor Batista, for that matter. And Orban is widely seen as Putin's ally in the EU. Most Europeans would rather be rid of him, but you can't just kick a country out of the EU, unfortunately.
Or Trump. He's as bad as the others. He'd certainly like to be. He wants to turn the US into the same kind of dictatorship.
That's not all. Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime, nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. He replaced a brutal dictatorship with another brutal dictatorship, a communist one, and ran the Cuban economy into the ground.
...so naturally, the solution is to make the life of the people under that regime even worse by sanctioning the country?
> nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis.
in other words, did things that threatened American interests.
The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis didn't begin on October 16, 1962. Nor did it begin when the Soviet Union put missiles on Cuban territory. It began when the US put nuclear missiles (Jupiter MRBMs) in Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. Those were quietly removed months after the crisis because of a secret agreement between JFK and Khrushchev.
And yes, Cuba nationalized assets. As I said. You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is the US doing colonialism and imperialism a good thing that needs to be defended exactly?
And let's say Batista and Castro were both brutal dictatorships (which is what you said), why is one bad and one good? Why is one an ally and another a mortal enemy? You're making my point: the US does not and never has cared about people being bad or doing bad things. It's purely about economic interests. That's it.
Oh and Castro's involvement in Latin America? I'm sorry, what? From overthrowing the government in Guatemala in 1954 at the behest of a US fruit company to propping up Pinochet in Chile to Noriega in Nicaragua to El Salvador to Columbia and so on, let's compare Castro's impact and legacy to that of the US and see who has done the most harm, shall we?
The Cuban economy suffered because the US starved it. But of course Castro gets the blame for that too.
They were over 1200 miles away from Moscow, near Izmir, Turkey.
That's a couple hundred miles closer to Moscow than the Thor missiles that were in England.
At the end of the day the purpose of sanctions is to deliberately worsen the quality of life of the population in the sanctioned country. That can't be a tool for good.
This “dictator” meme, played out for the last 100 plus years is tired and tiring especially in a place that has a higher incarceration rate than USSR in the 1930s ( or Cuba ) and is currently snatching up folk for the crime of speaking Spanish, while US Southern Command blows up Venezuelan fisherman for the crime of feeding their families.
The collapse started way earlier than the sanctions. It’s funny, but it’s even insulting that some people cannot comprehend that there is evil beyond their own frontiers. Not everything wrong that happens in the world is because an empire is meddling, we are also capable of being useless by ourselves!
A petrostate kleptocracy can still trickle down enough scraps for it's people. An empire that controls global markets that sanctions an petrostate kleptocracy into just a kleptocracy, can't. The reality is no amount of competent governance is going to enable a petrostate like VZ to not be a shitshow if it's sanctioned from maintaining extractive infra (techstack controlled by empire) or sell in global markets. It's not about just being useless, but the inability to be useful no matter what you do. Yes, VZ got fucked from oil $100->$40 pre sanctions, but that's still a survivable/pivotable scenario than oil production going from 3 mbd to 400k mbd due to sanctions that prevents reconstitution of production. There's a reason economic freefall stabilized when Cheveron got license in 2022 that brought production back up to 1mbd.
Now you can argue a "competent" government would have conceded to Monroe (like Machado) in the first place, or not pissed off US in backyard. Like, I get it, you're living through the shit, but don't be economically/geopolitically naive, US didn't sanction VZ because muh democracy decline under Muduro when US props up other petro authoritarian MENA states. The only difference is US meddle with those that align with US interests and not, and US meddling is what makes or breaks petro states.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Seems he lost the anti imperialist mojo.
Did you not even read the article, like it's 2025, posting NYT article regarding US adversary like VZ and analyzing it naively is useful idiot behavior. That said, Trump is not a LIO woketard and someone Maduro thinks can be negotiated with, the fact is Maduro is fine with operating under US umbrella, provided US didn't do retarded shit like try a muh democracy regime change like under past US admins. Of course US establishment would still prefer a tool like Machado, but there's a chance under Trump that they'll accept Maduro. That's why the article talks about both Machado an and Maduro parallel barginning. This just 101 signalling, dangling Machado for more Maduro concessions - Machado isn't actually an option, because you know, she'll get disappeared if Maduro thinks US can actuall regime change with her. Hence Machado and this sus (granted marginally deserved) Nobel peace prize is good pressure to get Maduro to concede more. The fact that Maduro is making offer is because he knows there's framework for him staying in power, unlike past US admin zero-sum/maximum pressure play with Guaido. He know's a non-democratic VZ like non-democratic MENA petrostate that aligns with US interests is workable under Trump who is moving away from democracy promotion to realist foreign policy especially with recent strategic shift in focusing on South America.
Most recent examples being "climate change is caused by 100 companies" and "housing prices are caused by BlackRock" which are both entirely fictional.
(There is an obvious rightist equivalent of this which has historically caused a lot more problems.)
> It was primarily because of that hope that the United States Government during the last two years has made earnest efforts to assist in eliminating certain differences between Iran and the United Kingdom which have arisen as a result of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. It has been the belief of the United States that the reaching of an agreement in the matter of compensation would strengthen confidence throughout the world in the determination of Iran fully to adhere to the principles which render possible a harmonious community of free nations; that it would contribute to the strengthening of the international credit standing of Iran; and that it would lead to the solution of some of the financial and economic problems at present facing Iran.
Effect on National Security Interests in Latin America of Possible Anti-Trust Proceedings, June 1, 1953 [2]:
> Elsewhere in Central America, institution of the action would greatly stimulate movements to nationalize the properties of the Company. Such nationalization is now threatened to some degree in all countries in which the Company operates, particularly in Costa Rica through the possible accession to the presidency of Jose Figueres, who is not a Communist but is openly speaking of nationalization. To the extent such nationalization is achieved, it would not only affect a private company, but would have direct and far-reaching repercussions on our strategic position.
National Intelligent Estimate: CHILE: THE ALTERNATIVES FACING THE ALLENDE REGIME, June 29, 1972 [3]:
> n the basis of the record so far, Chile’s future course remains to a large extent an open issue. To be sure, the regime carried out a substantial part of its program during its first year, particularly in the economic area. With little effective opposition—indeed, in many cases with a broad consensus—Allende nationalized key economic sectors, redistributed income in favor of the poorer classes, and accelerated land expropriation.
[1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/exchange-messages-...
[2]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v04...
[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve1...
no companies listed. anyways, the beef has gone on longer than there were important south korean companied
They stay in power with the help of a paramilitary group of bullies that intimidates people: colectivos. The Venezuelan colectivos are based on the Cuban CDR (committee for the defense of the revolution). And there are other elements of the Cuban "model" of staying in power that has "worked" for 66 years, that Venezuelan regime has adopted. And the CDR resembles the Nazi Sturmabteilung in their modus operandi.
So in the end what's holding the regime together is all violence, all the way down.
The history lesson is that when the most of the GDP generation doesn't need without the help of the population, the result is a regime. Scalable and cost efficient AGI will do the same to countries that do not make most of their GDP from extracting natural resources because once the citizen is not needed for wealth generation, territorial control, etc., their political representation goes away.
That's a great insight
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=t...
I personally - as an American of Norwegian descent - am proud of how they’ve built much of their country…and I hope we can learn from it.
E.g. a welfare state doesn't make sense from a purely GDP-selfish perspective, beyond as a crime-prevention tool, since people on disability benefits don't work. But they still exist.
One might want lets say welfare to the youth/masses and the other wouldn't want it sometimes it feels like just to differentiate themselves from the first or to just contradict it.
We have sort of stopped coming to common agreements in republicans and democrats and heck some democrat bsky user pasted me an AI pic for something and when I said that it doesn't actively contribute to the thread they had the balls to say "Google things.Do your own research. Research." Like uh okay mate, we are on the same page but even then they came across as passive agressive :/
We just infight and never try to reach conclusion's man. And if we do and become tolerant, some intolerant freak hijacks the system, maybe the system's broken a little, I am not sure. but I know its the best hope
https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
The regional military powers have more population.
Read up on the US robber barons and they didn’t come from old money. The relatively recent (80’s to today) round of Tech billionaires don’t hail back to earlier great fortunes and most VC investors lost money compared to a simple index fund.
The first few rounds of AI investors are already getting screwed.
Counterexample: China. Or plenty of African countries. Being a petrocracy certainly makes authoritarianism easier, but it's not at all a requirement.
It means a particular combination of autocracy and oil-dependence. It results in especially toxic regimes, that can be kept stable for quite a long time.
Such countries already have not only smoke alarms but also building codes and layers of safety systems.
The analogy matches a person who goes to a place with high fire risk and no safety systems in place and through tireless effort introduces common sense measures to protect people.
den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och afskaffande
eller minskning af stående arméer samt bildande och spridande af
fredskongresser
shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and
promotion of peace congresses
From the quote it doesn't seem like Alfred Nobel had civil or political rights in mind with his prize. (Not that it bothers me to give it to civil rights activists though)
[1]: (emphasis mine)
Second: If, by the end of 2026, the Israel/Palestine ceasefire is still holding, if there is real progress towards lasting peace, if Trump's administration carries on acting as a mediating force in the conflict, then, by all means, maybe he should win the 2026 prize. As of today, he just got them to sign a piece of paper. To be clear, that is still an important milestone, it makes the world better than it was a week ago, and he should get credit for getting it done. It's just not the achievement he wants us to believe it is (yet?).
Third: The man thrives on conflict, he sows divisivenes at every step. He's literally deploying the military domestically. Whatever merit there is to his peace deals doesn't nearly amount to enough to make him a net positive force for peace in the world. And that should be a factor in choosing the winner.
Surely a prime candidate for a peace prize.
Nobel Peace Prize: to the "person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Or said another way - wouldn’t “TDS” be better used to describe those who spent the last decade insistent on free speech as a sacrosanct issue, the national debt as our primary concern, political targeting by Federal law enforcement as a universal sin, and states rights as the Foundation of our liberties while the Admin works contrary to each of those points in especially galling ways…
For raising the bar so high.
Mark, what you've described and what we're seeing unfold is genuinely an impressive feat by Trump. To be able to capitalize on what seemed like this giant setback. Israel literally bombed the negotiators and the mediators. To turn that around and get a deal that Biden couldn't get done, that no other leader in the world had managed despite trying for two years straight. It is significant achievement. He was able to bring these sides together that had shown no willingness to end the war. And now they've come to this agreement. And it should also be said that one of the biggest things here is that he was willing to put pressure on Netanyahu in a way that President Biden was unwilling to do. Why do you think that's the case?
I think there's a few reasons. First, I think Trump genuinely wanted to end the war. He campaigned on ending the war in Ukraine and in Gaza.
-María Corina Machado 9:34 AM · Oct 10, 2025
I'm not even sure I'm against everything Trump is up to (it's unclear to me); I just don't like the autocratic moves: it's unamerican, and bad for democracy. It's setting a standard & an allowable behavior that could be exploited by bad people.
I think Trump genuinely doesn't like people being killed, but he's also driving a wedge in the US that can't be ignored. Sending American troops against its own citizen: not exactly Nobel-prize worthy.
This is a strange thought considering his actions.
Between drone strikes, mishandling of COVID, dismantling of foreign aid, defunding American health care, cutting off Ukraine support at several critical moments, encouraging and materially supporting Israel, he may actually end up (or already be) responsible for the most deaths of any president.
While I do understand this might be true in essence, things are a lot more complicated. He's said some heinous things that riled up actual loonies into a frenzy more than once. Deliberately. Not peace price material IMHO.
(To be fair, I generally lean left, but I don't agree with Obama getting the prize in 2009 as well, what with the targeted assassination program and all)
Its almost like there should be a Nobel "anti-prize" denouncing these people.
Biden had different pressures. E.g. I suspect that he judged that the knife-edge election he was facing didn't allow him enough leeway to put more pressure on Israel.
In addition Netanyahu made it easier to force through a settlement given he'd manage to alienate practically everyone, including uniting the Arab world after that unbelievable strike on Doha.
If you were a cynical person you could also ask whether this settlement owes anything to Trump's personal narcissist saviour complex or need to distract from domestic issues such as the Epstein files...
Still, even despite some significant scepticism about Trump's motives, I think there is a reasonable case to be made for awarding him the prize. It was still a significant (maybe even brave) jump to break with American political orthodoxy to put this kind of pressure on Israel, and the practical result of this could be very significant in terms of saving lives and potentially long-term peace in the region. We also need to encourage these kind of acts, even (or especially) amongst unlikely peacemakers like Trump.
Let's see what it looks like next year, though. Middle East peace deals don't have a great history of holding together.
I've wondered if one of the (under reported) pressures was the realpolitik geopolitical machinations of containing Iran. Especially wrt Iran's closer ties with Russia and China.
But even with insight, I would not forgive.
The whole thing just angers and saddens me. Neighbors killing neighbors. For nothing.
So many missed opportunities, snafus. Imagine what could have been. Normalization between USA-Iran (post-9/11, pre- "Axis of Evil"). Some kind of accommodation for coexistence. Nurturing democracy and development throughout the middle east.
And on and on. Going back decades, generations, ...
I really hope they would not award someone the prize who works so blatantly against the word and spirit of the criteria in the will.
I will personally try to refrain from commenting on the Venezuelan opposition since I do not know enough about them.
Unwilling or unable? Netanyahu hated Biden and has done everything in his power to sabotage anything Democrats have done to try to help resolve the conflict, even prior to Oct 7.
Trump let Netanyahu run roughshod, and the proposed peace agreement (which almost certainly won't hold) is pretty... let's say vague... about the plan for Gaza post hostage-release.
All that's happened here is another agreement to exchange hostages for prisoners, which has happened multiple times in this war already. Not much else is actually agreed to and obviously even less has actually happened.
I think Trump wanted to force the rather compromised committee to make a similarly foolish decision as giving Obama the prize, which would have then permitted immediate Israeli breach of the settlement.
Not to take away from Machado’s work, but this year’s prize is at the very least political, to both appease Trump in line with the above and also send a message in the face of the war build-up against Venezuela. At the same time their decision also facilitates the American takeover through less than lethal means by CIA revolution and the combined pressure of it all on the Venezuelan government. Machado is in fact a CIA asset, whether she realizes it or not.
If you think Eastern Europe was liberated without involvement from the CIA, which has a mixed history w.r.t. competent ops in that region, I've got a Nobel prize to sell you.
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were not hijacked by ethnic agendas, again,, as you put it. The outcome they achieved was the whole point of the Cold War. It was an outcome with bipartisan support over the course of decades. Defending the value of that outcome by supporting Ukraine and NATO is also not anything as small as an ethnic agenda.
They created an exodus of 8 million people.
Starved the population.
Killed people in the thousands in the favelas and other poor areas without a trial.
Steals elections.
To me that’s a regime at war with its own population and it deserves all the condemnation possible and all the support necessary to help transition back to democracy.
Yet the aircraft carriers are poised in the gulf to enact a third regime change operation in this oil rich country America wants under its thumb with a puppet running it.
This is the PR campaign beforehand, just like the "WMD" PR campaign in the run up to Iraq, with a woman who supports genocide in Gaza (https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036 ) being lauded with a nobel peace prize. This is probably to lend her legitimacy when she becomes that puppet.
Saddam was a bad man too but he was an average evil. The warmongers who want to destabilize every country with oil, send in the tanks and install yet another Western puppet to maintain an iron grip on global oil supplies are a very special and unique kind of evil.
Just stop and think for a moment before even think about downplaying or comparing what is happening in my country with other world conflicts, and please don’t even dare to explain what I’ve been living.
We've heard it all before, we speak english so you're not a true venezuelan, you're part of some rich caste, you're not brown enough, you're a bot, etc ... 25 years of this bullshit no matter where we go. The international left abandoned us, the international right uses us as circus act.
Of course it'd be easier for your narrative if we were defenseless people begging in our native tongue for help. It's harder when a lot of Venezuelans are actually highly educated and want to control their own country and destiny.
>> IME the venezuelans who ended up abroad speaking English almost exclusively and up being people whose families were sucking on the teat of the oil wealth under the pre Maduro government before he ripped it out of their mouths and redistributed the wealth
you mean the almost 10 million of us that left, 1/3 of the population? the 2.5 million that went to Colombia alone by foot? or the ones that that walked all the way to Peru and Ecuador to meet discrimination and xenophobia. Those are all sucking on the oil teat? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis)
>> So i guess you want this Iraq style military operation to happen. I pity your relatives for what you want to happen to them.
No one wants that, and no one said they want that. Stop making stuff up
Im just as happy that pro invasion iraqis in 2003 hated me.
Hate away. History will judge who is right.
You have no idea who I am, you're making assumptions based solely on the language I use to speak to you.
And once again, no one is talking about war, you're the only one going on about it. No one wants a war and we want Maduro out, not mutually exclusive by a long shot.
And what's Iraq got to do with this? Stop making everything about the US
Because of that you are voicing support for a woman who allied herself with fascists conducting the world's most recent racism inspired genocide.
We certainly accept this when the topic is some country that we know better here. We don’t accept the proclamation of an-ordinary-American as the infallible voice of the people. Why should we treat other countries differently?
So given the above, the other poster is within their right to compare tragedies and speculate about whether the price was deserved—it’s a competition—, and you can’t trump that by saying “but my lived experience”.
You don't need a war to have a lack of Peace!
Venezuela is number 5 by the number of displaced people, the rest are all wars, it's crazy for a country at peace
They only give out one prize, which means that no matter which they pick, there will be dozes of impoverished and unjust places that don't get recognized by it. That can't be used to reject a choice, since it's true no matter what choice they make.
- Reaching out to the Muslim world.
I see. Thank you.
But the relation between USA and the Arabic states were on an all time low after the Bush Crusade.
And Obama reached out to fix the relations. This is my recollection of it.
But i can agree that the rushed decision created problems afterwards for the committee. Like today when it is questioned.
> The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States president Barack Obama (b. 1961) for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
That would be a basis for discussion.
Everyone you don't like is Hitler.
Democracy is not just when more than one "party".
Just because a fascist or fascist adjacent party is disallowed, does not mean democracy is absent.
LOL. The person you replied to is from Venezuela:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:madacol+Venezuela&type=...
This was against the backdrop of a president who lied to the UN so he could depose a dictator, initiated ground invasions of two countries, had a VP who openly advertised that he was okay with doing evil stuff to accomplish his objectives - e.g. Gitmo and Abu Graib, and created a regulatory environment that led to the GFC.
That prize was awarded to Obama but it was meant for the US electorate for embracing what you reductively call "hope".
I gotta agree. I'm not sure Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back in that particular regard.
That said, it depends on how old you are. I think there are a lot of young people on HN, and for them, maybe that was a meaningful indication of a purportless Nobel Peace Prize?
Some slightly older than them may have checked out with the whole Aung San Suu Kyi - Arafat - de Klerk thing.
They don't really attach much import to that prize in any case because of the bad taste those picks left in their mouths.
I guess I mean that every generation kind of learns anew that, "Hey.. wow, this prize doesn't really mean what it did even 60 years ago."
It's definitely the Nobel Prize that's the most politically biased and least merited by winners at the median over the last 30-40 years.
Asking genuinely as a person who is not familiar with the US political climate before the 90s…
• Vietnam War and Bombing of Cambodia: Kissinger played a key role in the secret bombing of Cambodia and the escalation of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, which expanded the conflict, resulted in significant civilian casualties, and destabilized the region, enabling the rise of the Khmer Rouge and contributing to mass deaths.
• Bangladesh Genocide (1971): Kissinger and President Nixon strongly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship during its violent suppression of Bangladesh’s independence movement, despite well-documented human rights abuses and U.S. officials’ warnings about atrocities.
• Support for Dictatorships and Coups in Latin America: He was instrumental in U.S. support for right-wing military coups, notably the 1973 ouster of Chile’s democratically elected president Salvador Allende, and the subsequent support for General Pinochet’s regime, which was responsible for widespread human rights violations. Kissinger also backed Operation Condor, a campaign of repression and assassination by South American dictatorships.
• Indonesia and East Timor: Kissinger has been implicated in supporting Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which led to widespread killings and humanitarian abuses.
• Undermining U.S. Principles and Rule of Law: Kissinger’s tenure saw numerous secret operations and violations of U.S. and international law, including illegal arms transfers and covert interference in foreign elections and governments.
• Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks: He was accused of interfering with peace negotiations in 1968, potentially prolonging the Vietnam War for political gain.
Anyways, the first couple paragraphs of his Wikipedia is an introduction.
>Kissinger is also associated with controversial U.S. policies including its bombing of Cambodia, involvement in the 1971 Bolivian and 1973 Chilean coup d'états, and support for Argentina's military junta in its Dirty War, Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor, and Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Bangladesh genocide.[6] Considered by many American scholars to have been an effective secretary of state,[7] Kissinger was also accused by critics of war crimes for the civilian death toll of the policies he pursued and for his role in facilitating U.S. support for authoritarian regimes.[8][9]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Maha...
But back on Obama, was your expectation that he wouldn't hurt a fly? Did he start a war? Did he not set the stage for withdrawing from two wars (both justified imho!)? Did he order the killing of anyone who wasn't a legitimate military target? I'm not saying he should have been given any award, and certainly his was premature, but it is hardly without precedent.
The peace prize is given to leaders who worked towards peace. It gives them recognition, sort of like a pat on the back so they won't give up.
Would you rather a retired politician get the prize so he can boast about it? or an active politician so that he now has the prize as a reminder of their promises and work towards peace?
He said it best:
"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. But the US did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and conflicts in Syira, Libya and all over the world sprung that were too easy for the US to be involved in but the US didn't. The US military responded to various natural disasters providing crucial aid, such as with the 2011 Haiti earthquake.
I think this sentiment is held largely by people who don't want to be bothered by nuance and who have an immature concept of peace, one that doesn't involve violence or military action (despite concepts like "peace keeping force" existing).
But especially in this specific case, where he actually presided over a dramatic US escalation in Afghanistan:
https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releas...
in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
What do you mean by this?
It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards.
China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far.
If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him.
One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.
The sentiment wasn't because of Obama, it was because of the Koch brothers and others like them funneling billions to corrupt American discourse.
Over decades they funded conservative think tanks and academia to make their libertarian ideals more widely accepted. They funded the tea party and divisive mentalities. Others like Rupert Murdoch built up media empires to drive lies, outrage, and manufactured stories to build anti-government sentiment. None of that was Obama's doing.
Here's one way he could have handed it dramatically worse with a huge amount of empirical evidence: started lobbing random tariffs and abandoning trade deals and going isolationist.
But again, people being racist to Obama isn't the catastrophe I outlined. It isn't even trump. But the chain of events he set off and the collapse of this greatest republic. I called it back then, I liked Obama, but this is America, he wasn't even far-left or that controversial but the reaction to him will tear apart the country. America like it or not is the new rome, and when rome's fall, there is usually times of upheaval and instability until a new rome takes its place. Except things are at an exponentially more connected and interdepndent state. The '08 financial crisis alone started in the US and destablized the whole planet. Countries are now learning to rely a lot less on the US, to do less business with the US,etc.. realizing the risk relationship with the US carries.
I'm not even talking about the current admin and their lunacy, but consider that even if in '28 a more sane administration recovers all the allied relations and financial reputations, who is to say that in '32 there won't be someone even worse than trump? I'm sure after trump, his family would be in line to take his reign and build upon what he started.
The Koch brothers, fox news, etc.. they still care about money and they've always been around. It isn't even "racism" so to speak, that's just the excuse they're using. such people historically used religion or national pride instead. The gift Obama gave is riling up enough of the people that weren't even voting to begin with to vote for trump. and the DNC deciding hillary clinton was a good idea, just like kamala harris because they're good politicians. people voted for obama (twice!!) because he represented change. Yet "occupy wallstreet" happened under him. People voted for trump..you guessed it, change. But none of that matters, what matters is the source of wealth. If I had to speculate, the country will split up and Whatever new state has California will become the new center of power and finance because of silicon valley, sure. But also because of geography. Spain, England, Portugal rose because of their geographic proximity to the new world, as did Rome with the levant , baghdad, persia,etc.. with China & India,etc.. geography and its influence on wealth and commerce. California is on the west coast, close to east asia, south america and canada.
There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. you're right about that. But timing the right thing properly makes the difference between making the whole thing worth it and a lasting change vs making it performative and temporary. I like to think the only reason these people aren't actively plotting the return of slavery is because LLMs are more efficient.
The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider.
Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.
Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone.
I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
Depends on who he's making the promises to.
Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way.
In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.
As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted.
This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France.
> As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage?
No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon.
Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
Either way, if a US citizen is a legitimate target in an combat operation, it doesn't make sense to risk the lives of soldiers (US citizens) just so he can get a trial. In a perfect world,he would turn himself in and face trial to vindicate himself and his innocence but a drone strike kills that person and risks no more people that required.
Yes, you would prefer no killings take place, and I would also prefer to live in a utopia where there was no violence. I find our attitude obscene, that someone else on your behalf committed violence, minimizing to the absolute necessary amount and you pass judgement on them. Someone has to make the hard decisions that involve violence and war which are unfortunate realities, not inventions of some comic book villains. People have been warring since there were people. A peacemaker isn't someone that waves a magic wand and makes peace happen but someone who avoids violence unless it is required.
Citizen or not, if someone is providing material aid to a group that is intent on specifically targeting unsuspecting civilians, they're not criminals. They didn't break laws, they are engaging in combat. a domestic terrorist can be a criminal, so can a foreign terrorist working as non-state actor. But a terrorist group that's acting as quasi-state and waging military action is by definition a military target participating in war. Any such person must be treated as a combatant.
Truth is, Obama didn't commit enough justifiable violence,he could have done a lot more in syria and the levant, against Iran and elsewhere. but he was too peaceful and wanted to appease his voters. Ultimately, war is necessary at times, and it can even reduce the amount of actual death and suffering in the long run. Let's not forget that it was nuclear bombs and 50M+ people dying that ended the cycles of warfare in europe and most of the world for over half a century. Although people forgetting the lessons of that violence are repeating history again now. If there are aggressors intent on violence, the only way to achieve peace is through violence. You can't appease such people or debate with them (the allies tried that with hitler and learned their lesson).
My position is to refrain from criticizing too much any party that is responding to aggression or violence.
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president?
I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract.
You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now.
Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes.
Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.
Obama ran on change, he shouldn't have been "listening to advisors" like bush did with Iraq.
If he jailed bankers for example, both the left and right would support that, except the corporate ruling class and other politicians. The ACA on the other hand, there is a lot of misinformation around it that made it a partisan thing, and we still don't have universal health care, despite all the work he put into it.
I'm not saying it's fair, but even most on the left expected him to be a force of change, and that's mostly because he's black. The thing is, democrat presidents spend their first term cleaning up after the previous guy anyways, so I get it isn't realistic. But look at how trump is basically trampling on the constitution, long established norms and institutions,etc.. Obama didn't need to do all that, but he tried to be moderate and safe. Racists were going to hate on him no matter what, he needed to piss them and his own party off enacting change. Moderation and stability was not why he was elected.
And I think the democratic party lost its head a bit because Obama became president, they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia, which caused a lot of moderate people, and even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals to revolt against the left.
All that said, I have no idea what can be done to fix things. I just wish I knew how to brace for the fall.
I think it depends on the voters. A lot of people at that time were not able to afford health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Or they'd have a plan that would get cancelled when they ran into an actual serious illness because the insurer would find some pre-existing condition that was ubiquitous. I was very glad that the ACA passed. Could it be better? Sure, but given the political realities it is what it is.
> even younger gen-z voters who're losing out on opportunities because of extreme liberal ideals
What opportunities are gen-z voters losing out to because of liberal ideals? If anything, the Democrats were much better on helping people pay for college, job training, etc.
> they started operating as if America is now a liberal utopia
But as you've indicated above, Obama wasn't even all that liberal. More of a centrist which seems to be what you're critical of if I'm not mistaken? Biden was probably more of a classical liberal.
This obsession with Obama’s award is just further evidence Fox News decides what we recall and get angry about. It comes up every single year. It’s a meme at this point. Obama but not Arafat or Kissinger? Get out of here lmao
Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ received it because they "jointly worked for a ceasefire and for bringing peace to Vietnam," though Lê Đức Thọ refused it and Kissinger did not attend the ceremony.
Obama received it nine months into his Presidency for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having few if any concrete foreign policy achievements.
Obama could have at least matched Kissinger by ducking the ceremony, or even by refusing it like Lê Đức Thọ did because it wasn't justified.
That alone, in a sane world, would tell you these people had no business having a Nobel Peace Prize. At least Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ had the common decency not to stand at that podium. Most of those other Nobel Peace Prize winners did not have that kind of self awareness.
It is amazing how many hits you get when you Ctrl+F 'Obama' on this post.
You can also verify the results here https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ (a whole story behind this hostname). Again, only possible by the María Corina's huge effort
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/the-official-unofficial...
On the other hand, Gore got one for less.
A little premature, anyway. Let's get through 24 hours of a ceasefire first. That'd be an achievement these days ...
>Every Country has signed on! If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.
That's not negotiating.
Not everything is about oils or some conspiracy of western governments.
I have little doubt she did a lot of good practical work for Venezuelan democracy (to expose Maduro's government). But her ideology - accept foreign invasion (which will inevitably kill innocent venezuelans) and privatizing oil reserves (which will inevitably result in undemocratic fallout of the profits) - is unfortunately not that of peace and democracy.
I wish she would more look at Norway as an example, which is a rare case of oil profits being shared collectively and democratically.
Venezuela had the biggest oil earnings of its history during the early Chavez years and all that money was pilfered. The oil industry infrastructure, the electric infrastructure is currently in shambles due to lack of investment, maintenance and corruption. Part of the recovery of Venezuela will require external investments just to get production back to the levels we had before this calamity.
They also took massive loans in exchange for future oil at insane prices, when people argues that we are going to lose our oil if X or Y happens to me it doesn’t mean anything, because we already lost it with these inept criminals in the government anyway.
Edit: even Maduro is now offering our country’s riches to the US in exchange for remaining in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Note that while you're not, the Nobel Peace prize winner unfortunately is. And honestly, much more so than privatizing oil, I think this would be the end of even the sham democracy that currently exists. The examples of countries becoming more democratic after a foreign military invasion intent on regime change are entirely restricted to the losing powers in WW 2.
Yes. Norway is basically the only real democracy with a nationalized oil firm, and they found oil after having been a democracy for like 100 years. Everywhere else state oil companies are piggy banks for tyrants and prevent the country from investing in economic development because they don’t need private tax revenues. State oil companies are a trap.
Private/state distinction matters only a little in practice for democracy. What matters is whether people have democratic control (equal participation on decision-making) over these structures.
Let's be real, sanctions play a big role in the economic decline of Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy. In fact, it's a very problematic totalitarian regime, where women have limited rights and the royalty has been known to kill enemies. They very much mismanage money, with ridiculous projects, ostentatious lifestyles if you're royalty or the elite, and have the "highest prevalence of modern slavery of all countries in the Arab States region" [1].
Saudi Arabia is doing well economically though because it isn't sanctioned by the USA, and you don't hear bad press about it's totalitarian regime, or corruption, etc. because it's a USA ally.
If the USA cared about how people are treated by their government, they'd be in Sudan or Congo. The USA cares about getting rid of Maduro, so they will make it as difficult as possible for the Venezuelan regime to make money from its oil, while pointing out all that's wrong and blaming Maduro for everything.
I'm not saying things are well in Venezuela, or that Maduro is a good leader. I'm saying this is all part of a playbook that's been successful before, and it's reductionist to not blame the USA for Venezuela's decline.
[1]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...
Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
In 2014 there were mass protests against the government, in reality it was an attempt to overthrow the government, which was responded to with brutality. That brutality was met with sanctions. Today their GDP/capita is about $5000. That's obviously going to be explained in part by the decline in oil prices around the same time, but not to that degree, to say the least.
* - As an addendum here it's also unclear to me how exactly Wiki is calculating that figure and whether it accounts for, in any way, the substantial scale of emigration from Venezuela. If not, then the relative decline is even larger than it sounds.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela#/media/Fil...
Many government officials in Venezuela have direct involvement with various industries, including oil. So it suddenly becomes this extremely complex and dangerous mess when doing any trade whatsoever with Venezuela. This is why their economy completely collapsed following the sanctions.
[1] - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/11/2015-05...
Also, Maduro is willing to trade our natural resources if it gets him more years in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Look at the history of people the US sponsors in regime change operations around the world, and how things turn out. So long as they're loyal to the US, first and foremost, anything goes. Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Humberto Castelo Blanco, Augusto Pinochet, Efrain Rios Montt and many more though I'm limiting myself to the Americas. Of course I can fully understand the perspective that 'anything must be better than this shit show.' But it often turns out, in hindsight, that that's not exactly the case.
And in general this is a big part of the reason that I'm highly opposed to the US meddling in countries around the world. There's always such a heavy price to pay in American dollars and the blood of others. And.. for what? Yeah yeah, this time it's different...
This is not at all true. A large share of Venezuelan oil is refined in Texas by Citgo for PDVSA. The US could easily stop that but doesn’t. The sanctions are on regime ghouls, the military, and some state companies run by the security apparatus. None of which existed before the 3rd time the Chavistas stole an election and jailed their opposition.
No. They wouldn't. The Venezuelan government has proven extremely incompetent to produce oil.
What the Trump's tariffs have shown to the world is that, in the scale globalization is today, trade with the US doesn't matter that much anymore. Case in point: Brazil. After Trump stuck 50% tariffs on them, their exports to other countries grew much more than enough to offset the loss to the U.S.
The US embargo on Venezuela is a lot like its embargo in Cuba, Iran and North Korea: it is not the cause of people suffering but is an excuse by those corrupt and incompetent regimes to hide their failures.
> Machado defines herself — and her party, Vente Venezuela — as “liberal” (or neoliberal, depending on how you look at it), both politically and economically. Her political vision revolves around reducing the size of the state as a provider of public policies, supporting entrepreneurship and promoting the free market, as a means of creating wealth and jobs in a devastated economy. Her vision of government is similar to what Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan had in mind ... The presidential candidate has proposed privatizing the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — a taboo in local politics — and returning all the companies that have been expropriated by the Chavista regime to their rightful owners. This also includes Siderúrgica Venezolana — a company that her father (who died this year) was the president of, before it was seized ... Her vision on the distribution of social funds is somewhat more American than European, as is her deeply anti-communist discourse.
Source: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-01/maria-co...
(I'll believe the west's "concerns" on Venezuela's "democracy" and "human rights" when they overthrow the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE - where western companies are allowed to profit from oil resources in these regions - and bring "democracy" there).
You may also want to educate yourself on the real reason for the Gaza Genocide and why Trump and Tony Blair ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5j989107lo ) now plan to "directly administrate" Gaza - (1) https://asiatimes.com/2025/02/trumps-gaza-takeover-all-about... (2) https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-israel-brutal... ... As always, the sudden interest by the ex-colonials to bring "democracy" in Palestine is also about oil and gas.
You should have stopped right there.
The reason western countries care about Venezuela’s democracy is twofold it was prior to the Chavez coup the oldest democracy in South America, and Maduro helps other anti-democratic leaders in Latin America rig elections and suppress opposition. He’s a regional destabilizing force.
If you think this is about oil it shows how little you know, please read a bit more before spouting off here, this isn’t Reddit.
Sire thing your links will be right and all my years suffering here are BS
I think this prize recognizes her courage and fight for human rights.
Dismissing that as "just being in the opposition" ignores the reality of what it takes to stand up to Maduro's dictatorship.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
They kidnap, torture and kill political prisoners.
Deployed the national guard on the favelas to kill indiscriminately thousands without a fair trial.
You can Google all the UN reports on these matters.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/fernando-alban...
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
So it isn't as bad as Russia. Putin hasn't such boundaries.
It completely banalizes the risks people like Machado face just for opposing authoritarian power.
Pretending there's any equivalence between the two situations says a lot about your worldview, or lack thereof.
I take it you haven't read the news in approximately 6 months?
What makes you think otherwise?
Scarier when you understand that 20 years is way too long an estimate for this.
Europe is watching.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
I don't see how wishing a foreign country to militarily overthrow a regime in your country promotes peace.
If we also include democracy to that umbrella, I don't see how support of privatization of natural resources can be considered promotion of democracy.
She's probably not as bad as Milei but.. I would not rule out a similar outcome.
Every Venezuelan that aspires freedom should be proud today.
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-...
The Nobel committee is supposed to follow certain guidelines that were set up by Alfred Nobel, and ideally their decisions should make sense because it’s a prestigious prize. The committee consists of regular people who absolutely can be criticized for their stupid decisions, whether their stupid decisions match Nobel’s vision, how their stupid decisions affect the wider world because of the prestige of the prize, or whatever else I or anyone else feel like.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
standing up and risking their lives for the good of humanity merrits more then a nobel price can give!
Abiy Ahmed (2019), from Ethiopia, ended the cold war with Eritrea. Then he launched a war against the region of Tigray, with mass rapes and mass civilian killings. He harassed the free press, and turned the country into an autocracy.
Juan Manuel Santos (2016) from Colombia and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2011) from Liberia later appeared in Paradise Papers because they had secret offshore companies in Panama and Barbades. Their political activity was more tame after the prize than before. Both ended their presidential tenures with plummeting approval rates, especially because of corruption allegations.
Barack Obama (2009) received the Prize for his generous discourses on foreign policy, just after being elected. Then he lead the USA to more war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Libya. He helped Saudi Arabia invade Yemen (UN states this war killed 300,000 people). He helped the Egyptian army with its coup, that killed thousands of opponents and sent 60,000 in jails (including the elected president who died there).
In my opinion, this prize is, most of the time, a dark and heavily political joke.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
[1]: NYT: https://archive.is/diXo5
It's okay if a non-voting member of the Nobel org 'regrets' other peoples' decision because Obama didn't immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and pardon Bin Laden. Maybe he can take some solace in the fact that he let Putin take Crimea and shoot down MH17, trading peace in 2014 for war in 2022.
Of course it’s now led to Trump having a Peace Prize obsession, which sis not a bad thing.
Side note: Democracy will not work in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood loses popularity and/or Islam in the region becomes more moderate. Until then, you're just going to end up with the same situation as Ethiopia and Tigray with a Brotherhood-dominated government and the Copts.
You should really learn about the history of the 19th century and the history of other countries wrt slavery.
Also, save the snarky condescension for Facebook and Reddit.
Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 prize winner, resided over the genocide of the Rohingya people.
I think that is a understandable approach (providing support), though it can lead to giving the prize to people who never achieve any of their goals. Whether that’s a worthy trade off I do not know.
She’s also in hiding since the last elections, likely on an embassy but undetermined.
She also received the Sakharov Prize not long ago; if she had to receive only one, the latter would be easier to explain.
I get frustrated in the US we are always thinking in terms of the next election. Movements that effect lasting change: civil rights, national independence movements, ending slavery, heck even the current conservative regime in the US, are all multigenerational efforts with clear principles and goals that get passed down.
I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.
Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.
The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.
It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.
The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.
They openly talk of their respective candidates being offered the "crown."
"House arrest" was reserved for compliant natives. Aga Khan's palace was another favoured location for the likes of Nehru and Gandhi.
Real freedom fighters, were sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans.
Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.
Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.
As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.
Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won.
Without anybody using violence to do it.
Those who think there is nothing to be done but to counter authoritarianism without another authoritarian, or violence, or just to give up and suffer it - might be inspired by this.
I'm not the NNC but that seems like a "meaningful accomplishment".
You could ask: "Sure, allright, the populace was convinced that election was a sham. But... Maduro is still in power so she still hasn't done much". Let me flip it around, perhaps: What did Gandi ever actually accomplish? Isn't it the same thing: Show that violence is not a necessary element, get the people to reframe the situation a bit?
Can we prove Gandi sped up the UK's exit? Even if we can, one of those holocaust level holy heck humanity can get extremely dark moments in history that is rarely talked about is the absolute terror that occurred during the split of the Raj into India and Pakistan.
My point is: Judging the eligibility of a person for a peace prize on the basis of 'measurable meaningful accomplishment' is not how it works and probably shouldn't be how it works. It's either a bullshit prize (kissinger got one...) or it is like making a statue of somebody: It takes a person, turns them into a principle or ideal. Even though humans are much more complex than that.
The notion of "one is capable of being in opposition in an autocratic regime and get stuff done without resorting to violence" got a peace prize, but as per the dictat of Alfred Nobel, only people can get it, so, they stuck the label "Maria Corina Machado" on it. And that wasn't a bad labelling: She really did accomplish 'meaningfully' that goal, at least, I'd gather according to most folks' definition of the word 'capable'.
Exactly this happened in Belarus in 2020. Government wasn't shy of using its power though, many people got long prison sentences, many people had to run, nothing changed wrt to dictatorship. I don't see anything inspiring in this story honestly.
The amount of presumption, ignorance, and lack of reflection in your comment is astounding. It shows that you don't take life seriously and/or don't understand what risks being an opposition party in a dictatorship actually entails.
The prize is a joke. Its almost an anti-prize at this point. Look at the company you would be with. I definitively would not want to be included in that group.
And still your comment is about 'US invading Venezuela' and not about the people suffering.
Maduro is a scum that has took Venezuela by brute force. Any effort to wipe him out will improve dramatically the lives of millions.
But please go on with your 'US invading countries' narrative and don't even think for a minute about the people.
Sovereign states that have important natural resources or geopolitical position are always run by Bad Guys that we need to invade and kill. The media said so!
What does it tell about a politician of a country that wishes for that sort of thing on her fellow countrymen?
Too bad they where so divided for so many years, that when they trully worked together to wind a election it was too late because now MAduro dont even care to steal the ellections in plain sigth and probably theres no more solution without violence.
And to repeat my point that I do every year: Nobel peace prize is the only part of the price that is actually given out by a foreign political body (Norway, founding member of NATO and Oil nation) and not the Swedish academy.
It's famous recepients include presidents that bombed/joined war during/just after been given it and bloggers that kept blogging after surviving shootings. And Henry Kissinger
Petition to rename it to "Norwegian peace price". /signed, a Swede
Are you suggesting that the committee should consist of some kind of qualified experts instead of non-competent politicians?!
Preposterous. Typically of a Swede.
(To be fair to Nobel himself, the world was a bit different when he authored his testament, and Norway was relatively innocent still.)
She did dedicate this prize to Trump [1]:
> I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!
She is a vocal Trump supporter after all [2].
[1]: https://x.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1976642376119549990
[2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
> On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). The UN Security Council passed the resolution with ten votes in favour and five abstentions, with the stated intent to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity'
but I guess that's fake news...
But I'm more interested about how you can travel between timelines. Is it with a portal gun like in Rick and Morty?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/barack-obama...
While you're there you should also let Hilary Clinton know that she wasn't a war hawk either, and the no-fly zone just spontaneously appeared with no US involvement at all.
If I'm joining an ongoing party, did I start the party?
It was hardly a civil war before NATO bombing, but rather protests which were brutally squashed by Gaddafi forces. Opposition lacked any means to wage a way before NATO started supplying them with arms too.
Also there, civilized societies should look away and just let it happen when people fighting oppression is being slaughtered. Well, that's quite similar to this timeline, because that's what's happening in Gaza and being ignored by "The West".
In the context of that regime change operation they killed many civilians and left a humanitarian catastrophe in their wake. The country is beyond fucked but Hillary did get to say "we came, we saw, he died" afterwards, underscoring the lie. So mission accomplished?
For some reason the UN security council stopped approving NATO "humanitarian" operations after that and Russia started treating NATO expansion as an imperialist, existential threat.
And let us not forget his assassination of an American citizen by drone strike for visiting the place of his fathers death, also assassinated by drone strike.
And if we want a “fun fact,” he is the only Nobel Peace winner to bomb and kill another, as commander and chief his forces bombed and killed innocents in a Doctor’s Without Borders outpost in Afghanistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike)
Obama did not make Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire.
At worst, this conspiracy infantilizes Arab populations by removing their agency. At best, it’s false marketing for the CIA and other agencies.
Yes, he could exit those countries hastily. But that has its own cost. Getting in wars is the easy part. Getting out of one is the hard part. Ask Putin who went into Ukraine on a 3-day limited special military operation.
Bush Jr. got us into multiple wars and unlike his father did not limit the scope of them. His father did get us into a war with Iraq but was smart enough to keep it limited in scope.
Also, under Obama, the "wars" were not real wars like the Russia/Ukraine war where both sides are losing hundreds of people every week. But they were more like peacekeeping operations that occasionally ran into skirmishes.
Every week? If we just look at the Russian casualties numbers, its around 1000+ casualties PER DAY.
There was a recent leak of the death toll and the most active area's had a 2/5 dead rate, 1/3 "missing" rate, and the rest was wounded.
If we only count the death + "missing" over the entire front for Russia, its 500+ PER DAY.
Ironically, the Russian->Afghanistan invasion was WAY less deadly then what we see today in Ukraine.
Your point still stands about the US evolvement in Iran/Afghanistan, but darn your numbers really way below the actual body count in the Russian "3-day limited special military operation". Those are numbers from the first year, not the daily of the third year.
You are likely correct. I have heard of the high casualty estimates, but wanted to keep it conservative to not have someone complain about the estimate being too high.
Peacekeeping is like the UN sending troops in to monitor a ceasefire. These were wars. 35,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Overthrowing Gaddafi. Tens of thousands of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Drone strikes killing thousands of civilians in Pakistan. US foreign policy has equated “peace” and “stability” with its own military hegemony, being almost constantly at war to further its hypocritical ideology. It’s been a cash cow for the defense lobby.
Another fun fact, the lowest per capita worldwide war deaths in a specific year in world history occurred in 2019.
And finally, when the US goes isolationist, the rest of you animals start killing each other instantly. So keep it up if you want a lot more "history" to happen in your lifetime.
The US itself only began resuming mass offensives with the decline of the USSR. But a world collapsing into unipolarity should lead to less conflict according to your view, as there would be less incentive for inter-state violence. The other pole was undergoing collapse, and the US sent soldiers, and continued to do so for decades.
But strictly speaking 2019 is part of a longer term downtrend in violence between nations after World War 2. That’s a trend that preceded American hegemony - a hegemony which is frankly a shadow of its former self. The real risk today isn’t multipolarity, it’s that the US is denial of multipolarity. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel. The US just doesn’t have the money to hemorrhage out to military disasters any more. It’s a house of cards growing taller and taller. What has no limit is the foolish arrogance of our leaders. The way to stop war is rarely escalation (anathema to the defense lobby).
And we are all human beings, US and non-US alike, not animals. It’s the capacity for compassion that makes us human, not the ability to kill.
Of course it's hard, but if that's true, then why is he making those promises, or worse, why is he being given a peace award based on those promises?
The Nobel Foundation is an attempt to make amends for the harms done by its founders invention of explosive materials - which subsequently birthed the military-industrial complex.
Its use of its material wealth to invest in index funds derives a great deal of wealth from weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies .. In that sense, it has only been since 2017 that it has exclusively attempted to avoid profiting from investments in the Wests' military-industrial complex. However, there is a growing voice of discontent which claims that the Foundations' policy change to "avoid investing in controversial weapons systems" is a PR move, and not a real force for change.
No, I do not think that the Nobel Foundation is making amends. I think it is functioning as a propaganda tool of the very military-industrial complex from which it derived its wealth.
Duplicity is not making amends.
All it takes is for its capital investments to be handled by a third party.
The North Vietnamese Communists were not freedom fighters. They were a criminal gang (with widespread but nowhere near total support from the population) who conquered North Vietnam and in the process killed many, raped many, tortured many, displaced many, made agriculture suffer, caused starvation, etc.
The conquest of South Vietnam also destroyed agriculture there, leading to mass starvation that killed at least 100,000 people.
He was a lot worse than Kissinger. There was a reason why the US fought against those bastards.
Not to the fault of the people per se, but I see too much "awarded for effort, then oops turns out the complete opposite happened" with the peace prize.
Norwegians are known for their oil and salmon. not knowledge, but being spoiled. so maybe the committee are just painfully incompetent to the level we should now bet that Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years
That much is obvious, given that:
- There are ongoing sanctions against the country by USA
- USA has a portion of its fleet just off Venezuale's shore, killing people in boats
- USA has an active $50 million reward for information leading to arrest of Venezuela's current president
- Current president's main rival is being internationally propped-up in the midst of all of the above, most recently by having the Nobel peace prize awarded to her
- That main rival has publicly supported US imperialism, promises privatization of Venezuela's energy resources, has called for US regime change in Venezuela, and is strongly Zionist and supporting a genocide
So, yes, Venezuela should expect big turmoil in the coming years.
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/39336/us-attacks-venezue...
> This question will resolve as Yes if, before January 1, 2026, the United States carries out a military attack against Venezuela's territory or military forces.
Alright, we are into conspiracy theory territory now. But let me just say that these awards make me a bit nervous.
Dissidents in countries which are enemies of the west? With enormous oil reserves? With an American fleet poised offshore ready for regime change? Definitely. Who are zionists to boot? Even better.
Dissidents in brutal, dictatorial countries (e.g. Saudi) which are allies? Hell no. Never. The nobel prize is a tool of statecraft and that would be a self defeating use of its PR potential to advance western foreign policy goals.
Actually its not limited to Obama, its whole history is ridden with scandals, definitely a far cry from the Nobel prizes in natural sciences.
I'd tell you what he did to elections but we'll all find out soon enough.
https://x.com/polymarket/status/1976434242386317640
Someone without any history whatsoever put 70k on her 5 hours before the announcement
https://x.com/polywhalewatch/status/1976499384373121488
Trump was never above 5-10% and out of nowhere she was the winner (see the 1 day market view) https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2025?t...
Other than the fact that polymarket is legally not a stock market, what really is the difference between insider trading on a stock market vs insider trading on polymarket? Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses. The only purpose of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions. Insider information makes the predictions more accurate. Unlike the stock market, we don't need to encourage public participation in prediction markets. In fact we might want to discourage it because it's essentially gambling. Therefore, we should definitely not outlaw insider trading in prediction markets.
If you discourage public participation in prediction markets "oh I will just lose my money to an insider a few hours or days before the final result, so why bother", then the end result is that nobody participates until an insider makes a big bet. Then the market is worthless until the insiders jump in. Is that really what prediction market advocates want?
The other point is that:
> Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses
Is not true. There's more than just capital in terms of cash. There's human capital (employees), brand value... and importantly, information. Which is what prediction markets intend to do in the future: become an information value source for productive businesses.
Money isn't the only unit of value.
Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
> Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information). Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
That's not true. As mentioned in this thread, the UK has laws in general against this (for betting). The USA also already has laws against specifically insider financial disclosures (Regulation FD) for corporations, that also applies to betting on prediction markets (Dirks vs SEC ruling in the general case). I'm not sure if Regulation FD applies to Nobel prizes, though, as that's not regulated by the SEC, and I'm not sure if the USA has general laws on illegal betting. But therefore, I do not think you can claim that "there is no prohibition on insider trading", as that's already clearly mostly illegal and thus already priced in for the public participation in prediction markets.
> It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information).
Again, the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources, so the status quo is already what I propose; you don't see insiders trade on predictions like "would OpenAI release GPT-5 in 2025" as that's against the law.
> Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
This is also not true. Bayes Theorem! The information does not need to be fully accurate, just more accurate, enough to update from P(A) to P(A|B) given P(B), where P(B) is the prediction market's price on a certain prediction! That means an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates, if you can derive information from it.
I didn't say an inaccurate prediction market is completely worthless. But it is self-evident that an accurate prediction market is a lot more valuable than an inaccurate one.
> the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources
Not only are most markets not related to corporations including the most important ones, I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading. Everyone on Polymarket knows it's the wild west, and yet people still trade plenty.
Yeah, you're just describing humans behaving irrationally then. That's clearly not rational behavior (which to be fair, is totally expected for humans), which means that even if it's descriptive of the current markets now, that's not actually ideal.
Other than a vague sense of "fairness", can you articulate why insider trading should be illegal?
(I'm not saying you're wrong, btw. People aren't always rational.)
Isn't that the entire point of the prediction market model? You derive the wisdom of the crowd by enabling smarter people who make better educated guesses as predictions (from the same access to information as others) to win out over time. They are incentivized to do this financially, by winning bets.
If markets just becomes "first person to cheat takes all", then there's no incentive to NOT cheat. So you drive away the people who power the prediction market in the absence of information. Over time, this means that the prediction market is just random noise until a leaker publishes news. At that point, you might as well as just skip the middleman and just make a website "LeakNews" where you can directly offer bounties that goes towards a reward paid out to a leaker for news you are interested in.
I don't care either way but for the sake of argument:
Stock market is something you can't avoid (ignoring hermits), so an insider trade can ruin your pension fund or other financial wellbeing with you having no way to opt out of the risk, so the government protects you. (This is good!)
Polymarket is more like a bet between friends. You don't have to play but if you do understand it's unregulated and someone can cheat.
"The investigation, initiated in June 2024, focused on individuals suspected of using confidential information - specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date - to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets. Such actions constitute an offence of cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, a criminal offence."
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/gambling-...
A prediction market, on the other hand, aims to provide the best possible probabilities on events (arguably), and "insider trading" helps that purpose.
However, I agree that they might get rules against this. But not to benefit the market, just because people think this would be proper. Social desirability bias is strong.
This is similar to the way all football teams benefit from fair referees and even matches, even if sometimes it means they lose.
Also: the point of an exchange is to make money. Different types of exchanges have different fee structures, but generally their profit is a function of volume, so there primary objective is to attract volume. Since every trade / bet requires two participants, they need to balance the needs of both participants to make it work. Price discovery is a positive side effect of efficient and fair markets, which is why as a society we like them and encourage them, but it isn't what they are trying to achieve except inasmuch as it encourages participation.
In the US, there's no general rule that protects you against trading against someone with insider information. Mostly what's forbidden is an employee X of company Y trading on her own account; but if X acts on behalf of Y, they can go crazy.
For you on the other side of the trade, it doesn't really matter whether you sell your Standard Oil stock to someone officially acting on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway who knows that next week Warren Buffett will announce that they are going to buy Standard Oil, or whether you are selling your stock to someone who has the same information, but is not officially authorised by Berkshire Hathaway.
Yet, people still trade in the stock market just fine.
I would suggest as a retail investor you shouldn't buy individual stocks anyway: just buy an index fund.
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and people still traded them.
In any case, your arguments suggest that exchanges should be able to decide whether they want to allow insider trading, and companies should be allowed to decide which exchange they want to list at (so they can indirectly decide whether to allow insider trading). No need for a blanket one-size-fits-none rule.
Depends on jurisdiction.
Why?
Is someone forcing you to place bets at gunpoint?
(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and the market worked just fine.
My point in my earlier comment was that your question about 'why?' seemed a bit weird. You can look up the 'why?' relatively easily, even if you don't find it convincing.
Because some information affects the stock market. So Regulation FD already applies, for financial news.
> Even if we ban on this one too
The UK already banned this, see other comment above in this thread.
> insideinformationverywelcomemarket
You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". Or, basically a crowdfunded TMZ. TMZ will pay thousands of dollars for non-financial info on celebs and then publish that news. That that point, you're just describing a slightly classier crowdfunded TMZ.
Sure, but that has everything to do with what information you are allowed to make public, not with whether you should be allowed to bet on arbitrary other markets.
> You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". [...]
The commodities markets in the US used to have no prohibition on insider trading until fairly recently. They still called it a market.
Prediction-market contracts are either CFTC or SEC territory. Many "event contracts" are regulated as swaps (CFTC). If a contract references a single security/issuer, then it falls under security-based swap rules (SEC). Either way, trading them with MNPI risks liability under the applicable anti-fraud rules. (CFTC Rule 180.1 is guided by SEC 10b-5 case law on misappropriation.)
The CFTC uses the misappropriation theory: trading while breaching a duty to keep information confidential is prohibited, even if you never "tip" anyone. They’ve brought cases on this theory. CFTC enforcement and guidance explicitly cite misappropriation cases (Ruggles 2016, Motazedi 2015, EOX, etc) as "insider trading" analogs for non stock trading.
> They still called it a market.
I'm saying you can pivot your hypothetical company to a website-that-pays-for-news-like-TMZ. Last time I checked, they don't call TMZ a market.
You think maybe that might not be on the straight and narrow?
Maybe we should get people to bet on it! Gamblers routinely show that they have a strong understanding of the world, right? What? No I don't have a problem. Hey do you have a few dollars I can borrow?
Great opportunity for someone to create some effective opposition.
There is a medal in it!
Ironically, someone who badly wants a medal is actually in the perfect position to turn around the brain/competency drain, “bring back science”, boost US competition with China’s green tech wave, help Ukraine win (instead of the endless: “not lose for now”), fire the all the senate confirmed bozos…
If he did, a Nobel prize would be unconventional under the circumstances. But well worth it nevertheless.
No Rushmore. There isn’t enough room left on that mountain for that size of an ego. But maybe a genuine gold working toilet installation for Rushmore tourists.
———
Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment, reaffirming key points of the existing constitution with a highlighter for supreme justices with poor eyesight, might be one promising approach.
> “No person shall” [something, something] “hold any office” [something, something], “who, having” [something, something] “engaged in insurrection”, [something, something] “or given aid” [or incited, or encouraged insurrection, or threatened a vice president for not implementing an insurrection, or delayed relief for law enforcement engaged in stopping an insurrection] “or comfort” [or praise or approval or promises of pardons] “to the enemies thereof.”
> […All the powers of the purse given to the representative branch, with no provision for presidential “creative” reinterpretation…]
> [Etc., etc.]
If anyone wants to give a shout out to anyone building effective resistance to the avalanche of presidential power, essentially being voluntarily abdicated by the other two branches, I would be interested to hear of them.
(Traditionally that has been a very high consensus bipartisan issue. Not everyone, but most everyone.)
Interesting point! Bit of a tangent, bit Brazil is in the process of holding Bolsonaro to account for power grabs that have a lot of similarities with what's happening in the US.
Too early to call their long term efficacy, but definitely one to watch.
Jailing political opposition isn't the mark of a stable democracy. You covering up for it doesn't help.
I think the point I was trying to make was, a few years ago, it looked like Brazil might all out stop being a democracy. It now seems more likely that democracy will continue, and the process of that de-escalation is an important one to watch.
Trump, and the regime associated with him, are an exploitation of preexisting degradation of limited, democratic and responsible governance in the United States. The restoration of"good government" is the obvious counter to his rising dictatorship, but that would result in other existing power blocs (themselves also abusive, if not so gratuitously as Trump) loosing their own ability to exploit the system after he exits the stage. Faced with a choice between "stop Trump and end our own abuses as a consequence" or "let him run rampant and hope the US survives so that we can exploit it later" established American institutions have overwhelmingly gone with the second option.
They are not rallying for or under an Anti-Trump, but looking for a credible remedy for Trump.
Unfortunately, that is a much harder challenge, given how centralized their opponent party's representative power has become. Centralized power is so dangerous, because it is so effective.
And the Supreme Court's participation in that centralization adds a formidable head wind to any reform.
I just don't see the Democrat being able to take the same road. Even if they wanted to.
I think the future for now is balanced between Trump successfully tilting the next elections enough to continue to sideline Democrats, or attempting to do so and triggering a sea change/backlash that gives Democrats some significant power to attempt reforms with.
My "acid test" for whether or not someone on the left actually cares about freedom, democracy, etc is whether or not they support the Maduro government
There's a shocking amount of people who do!
It's like how people talk up peaceful protest by referencing Martin Luther King. He was a major centralizing figure for civil rights, but he did not exist in a vacuum of context either.
On Gandhi in particular, many do not realize that there were parallel movements inside India that did resort to violence. So the context is not as simple as it may seem.
Gandhi's protests are a very valuable source of info on both violent and nonviolent protests. It's easy to talk about an armed or violent revolution. But it's not a decision to be taken very lightly. Apparently, both the sides of the American civil war went into it expecting it to somehow end in a few days! You know the carnage that followed. I have no clue why they held that belief. But it supports the fact that people almost always underestimate the cost of a war.
Non-violent protests are more effective at garnering support and mobilizing a huge movement. The human costs are also arguably lesser. I dont know if it's practical all the time. But it should be given a big chance if an opportunity exists.
Non violent resistance can be and has been crushed many times in history.
To win one needs to wield some kind of power or leverage. Non violence does not work if your adversary cannot be shamed by a moral high ground. It will achieve zilch in that case.
"This recognition of the struggle of all Venezuelans is a boost to conclude our task: to conquer Freedom.
We are on the threshold of victory and today, more than ever, we count on President Trump, the people of the United States, the peoples of Latin America, and the democratic nations of the world as our principal allies to achieve Freedom and democracy.
I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!
the fact that you are able to read opinions that don't match yours is for me a positive. better to have it imho than to only see what one agrees with at all times.
now whether the discourse is healthy or not is up to the rest.
The actually sad thing is, it's pretty damn obvious.
Humans are incapable of being rational, it's not how our brains function. We can, with great effort, emulate what we think rational thought would be like.
Human brains regularly lie to themselves because it is cheaper or easier than actually processing input.
You know that fun retort: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?", and how it's always trotted out as this supposed retort to someone suggesting you ignore obvious info, but our eyes are lying to us constantly. There are tons of ways your eyes cheat, or lie, or outright ignore reality in favor of some internal model. This isn't even limited to optical illusions!
And the same is true of all sensory input we have. There are auditory illusions and ways your ears lie to you. There are things like phantom limbs that demonstrate your brain will ignore explicit and clear reality for no reason.
Humans are emotional creatures, like all biological creatures. Humans make choices emotionally
Do you think the most emotionally charged information will always be truthful?
The outcome we are experiencing was obvious, but people ignored it because that sort of implies that information needs to be filtered or curated and that makes people nervous.
>I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause - Maria Corina Machado
Seems to me democracy isn't her real priority or why flatter someone who tries to transition from democracy to dictatorship?
To my understanding the biggest problem in Venezuela (and it’s a big problem) is the terrible living conditions. I don’t know how much the supposed regime is to blame for that and if a supposed good government would have done a better job. Maybe a good goverment would have still managed a country with poor living conditions for the majority. But we wouldn’t hear about it in the news because The West has labelled it as a good government. (How selective is the reporting on countries with bad living conditions?)
I read the bio. I don’t know enough about Venezuela to judge whether she is a pro-democracy fighter or just another politician who wants power for herself. Certainly you can label any candidate pro-democracy if they oppose your most disfavorite regime.
So I’m not going to spend two hours researching what the Venezuela situation is about and whether this is a good award or if it’s just trying to stick a thumb in the eye of a regime that The West doesn’t like. Just so I can argue through six replies with five different people about (either) how downtrodden the Venezuelans are or how manufactured the outrage against the government is. (But you can guess which side I am most likely to fall on.)
Wake me up in two weeks when there’s a topic on democracy itself. And then the tone has shifted from Democracy Uber Alles to actually, did you know that Plato the most smartest man in the world was skeptical about democracy, actually I think a pseudo-democracy where only smart people get to decide would be great, actually.
However, her accomplishments were also clear last summer, and I feel it would have been far more appropriate to give her the prize last year. Instead, it went to an organization that has been around for 70 years. While they have done great work, there was nothing they did specifically in 2024 that stood out, at least that I could find. So, clearly, Machado was not an obvious choice, at least last year.
Also want to add that I don't think Trump should have gotten it, simply because it is far too early to tell if the current "middle east peace plan" will actually turn out to be more than just fanfare.
A better statement would have been to have no peace prize this year.
But I am confused, Obama got his prize in 2009, which would mean he did not receive it for anything he did as president, and before that he was only domestically focused, afaik.
edit - I also see from other comments that people were placing bets on trump for the prize, which would not make sense if he had to be nominated by 1/31
The low signal/noise ratio people are at best perceived as 'communicators' more often jesters.
If anything the anomaly of the social media era is that people who put themselves out there as low signal/noise ratio character are even taken seriously at all.
Prizes like that are given to people who are perceived to be special, the more you talk and yap the more you give people an opportunity to realize how NOT special you are and how NOT special your character is.
Peter Grant did it best with his clients Led Zeppelin back in the days, keeping them in the dark before and after the 3.5 hour shows.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/09/norway-braces-...
But just so you picture it: things are so dire there after 25 years that people would even cheer at any country intervening.
So let’s pause for a moment and think: what is the best alternative? Keep enduring the regime like the Cubans have been doing for double the time we have? That’s also a depressing outlook.
Of course it is. I'm not denying or downplaying how bad it is. These situations are scary as hell. They're not supposed to happen. And it must change. Venezuela deserves peace. But now imagine the alternative you're thinking of.
To start with, who was responsible for the political turmoil in South America for much of its history? Imagine another invasion. Do you expect them to withdraw as soon as the current Venezuelan regime has fallen? The regime that's virtue signalling now has a history of proudly brandishing their xenophobia and racism. What do you think life will be like under a remote controlled rule by them? There are plenty of examples around the world for how that will end. Is that the change you wish for?
> what is the best alternative?
The best alternative is for the native population to bring about change without foreign interference. But honestly, I have no clue if that's practical at all. I don't know any other solutions either. The people must decide for themselves as to how to resolve this. All I'm saying is that you must be careful about the intentions of anyone who steps in offering help. I sincerely wish that the Venezuelans win peace. Good Luck!
You should have stopped there.
> Do you know how many atrocities western militaries have inflicted in countries that they invaded in the name of liberating them?
Tell that to the Ukrainians who I'm sure would love USAF air support and for the 101st to come help out. I'm certain that no matter what the US does, you will complain about it. We could walk top the water and bring democracy and prosperity to Venezuela using the power of love you would still find a reason to complain.
One thing you will never do is actually think of the people on the ground (unless they agree with your specific political ideology). The rest of the world is getting tired of your obnoxious ideological rhetoric. We know you are only complaining because you don't want yet another far left failure out of power.
I'm in no mood to consider any sort of gatekeeping.
Like I said, much of the world is enjoying a lot of 'democracy and prosperity' that you delivered! If you choose a random conflict or crisis anywhere in the world and study its history, you will find your grimy fingerprints all over it, in 8 out of 10 cases. You still feel entitled to speak for the rest of the world as if everything revolves around you, despite being clueless about what they feel about your presence or involvement. And it comes with the customary "when did you ever thank us for what we did" style condescension that has become a persistent joke about you these days. This is exactly the type of hubris that landed you in the current crisis. If you want to see obnoxious ideological rhetoric, read your own statement imagining it's from a foreigner talking about your country. You'll see it if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
Uh oh! Time to flip the switch! Mega-LMAO.
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
> Tapper returned to Bolton’s remark about having helped plan coups.
> Bolton said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”
> Tapper asked: “Successful coups?”
> Bolton said: “Well, I wrote about Venezuela in in the book and it turned out not to be successful.
> Before Bolton joined the Trump administration, it was widely reported that Trump wanted to use the US military to oust Maduro. In August 2017, Trump told reporters: “We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour.”
> “We want as our principal objective the peaceful transfer of power but I will say again, as [Trump] has said from the outset, and Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, all options are on the table.”
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-senior-us-official-j...
1- The Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of 5 Norwegians. Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help, it's probably even counterproductive. Random endorsements on Twitter don't matter either..
2- The committee values international cooperation, not trade wars, isolationism, or cozying up to dictators.
3- They prize the defense of democracy, not attacks on it.
4- The cherry on the cake: Machado got the prize while he's been threatening war with Venezuela itself. It almost feels like a big f*ck off
[1]: https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-call-with-the-rightfu...
Indeed. Juan Guaidó is yesterdays man.
According to the New York Times...
" She has expressed support for the use of force to depose the Maduro regime; one of her advisors told the New York Times that she has coordinated with the Trump administration and that she has a plan for the first hundred hours after his deposition"
Not sure what democratic mandate she has to be in charge post a foreign led military coup - though she is a graduate of the Yale World Fellows programme.
So rather than a big FU it would appear to be more likely to be an attempt to raise her profile to legitimise a US led coup.
2025 Venezuela opposition, 2023 Iranian opposition, 2022 Belarus, Russia opposition ( and +1 for Ukraine ), 2021 Russian opposition ( +philipines ).
If not influenced by the US - it would appear very much aligned.
In the last 5 years, only in 2024 - celebrating a Japanese who campaigns against nuclear weapons - would it appear not to be aligned.
1- He doesn't turn against her or try to undermine her (he certainly would otherwise)
2- He publicly supports her cause.
3- His attention stays on Venezuela .. I really doubt she wants a full-scale US intervention.
Please. At least get the facts right.
It was not just Russia and Israel. It was also Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Rwanda.
On charges of... uhhh... hm...
Because... uhhmm.. he doesn't like them?
> I think it also becomes a real test of in-group loyalty to see who can outcompete in slavishness the other members of the circle, who are also competing to be slavish. That’s why you get these strange [phenomena] like Donald Trump’s physicians claiming that he’s the most physically vigorous president ever.
> Now, even when Donald Trump was younger, he was a big man, but he was never a great athlete. And now, as he approaches his 80th birthday, he’s obviously not physically fit.
> The fact is, you’re not just willing to tell a lie, but tell a lie that abases you, that makes you look foolish, that makes you look like you don’t care about yourself at all, that you only defer to the leader. That’s the real sign of loyalty. It’s flattery that is not meant to be believed but functions as a kind of system of in-group recognition.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to Chairman Mao (supposedly) swimming across the Yangtze River in his 70s at a pace faster than an Olympic champion of today.
There’s no meaning to any of it. It’s just propaganda and self-abasement for the purpose of loyalty competition to the leader. In fact, the more ludicrous, the better, because it means you’re willing to fully destroy any personal credibility you may have as a sacrifice to show loyalty.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/10/the-dav...
Here is a related tangent:
>Norway walks back US Navy fuel supply boycott
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/security/naval/naval-ships/nor...
(oh wait, that's Denmark, but never mind, a certain president probably wouldn't know the difference; if some Fox News commentator said that Greenland belongs to Norway, he'd believe it).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-nobel-...
It’s pretty understandable for Mrs. Corina to take whatever support she gets internationally.
https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036
Providing her with this award while Trump's naval battle groups stand ready to attack Venezuela isnt helping arrest the collapse of the west's moral authority.
She supports the sanctions against Venezuela. I wonder what her views are on US-backed military regime-change and blowing-up random Venezuelan boats.
I must confess I am no Venezuelan political expert, and it always gives me pause whether the economic siege that has been laid against Venezuela with the sanctions is about democracy, or about access to unrestricted markets (a la United Fruit Company — now Chiquita — and Standard Fruit Company — now Dole plc).
(exception maybe Costa Rica?)
To be clear, Venezuela is long past the "popular socialism" phase and decayed into the "strongman holding on" phase.
Another reason I don't just say it sometimes is to avoid trolling by fans of whatever or whoever I criticized.
Fuck Donald J. Trump, worst President of the Untied States in history.
i’m not sure if you’ve seen how many people have lost their jobs for saying truths about kurk or how many people are losing jobs, scholarships, visas, education etc for saying things about a certain regime, but it’s happening, for real. they’re actively pushing to force people to turn over their social media accounts for review.
we can’t blame this poster for vagueposting here. i often pushback against vagueposting but in today’s climate we cant blame people for taking their personal safety seriously when it comes to vocalizing their criticisms.
I'm reminded of the (apocryphal?) Russian protestor arrested for holding a blank piece of paper.
In Singapore someone was charged for holding up a piece of cardboard with a smiley face drawn on it: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/11/26/public-order-in-si...
That you think anything else is copium of Russian quality. That you think that criticizing Trump would get you fired is absurd. You seriously need to work on yourself. You aren't getting push back for "telling the truth" (which is just repeating questionable things from journalists). You are getting push back for being a terrible human being. So terrible in fact that people are leaving the Dems just because they don't want to be associated with them, not for any policy or something the Reps did.
PS None of this would have hurt the Democratic Party if it wasn't for how you reacted to his death. It was truly the worst thing I have seen in US politics in my lifetime.
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
> Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
Ironically, trump may win the peace prize next year for ending a war he created. If indeed, against the odds, he has ended this war.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Before Israel's invasion, a minority supported Hamas' actions. Now, it will be very hard to find peace during the generational legacy of Israel's violence.
This is why overwhelming violence cannot lead to peace. Israel was justified in defending itself, but proportionality was necessary. As an alternative, I think Mossad have show themselves capable of disabling Hamas without heavy civlian casualties.
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
[1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-influencers-netanya...
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/isr...
[3] https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-spent-m...
[4] https://www.jta.org/2025/09/30/united-states/israels-secret-...
And Trump's regime is openly facist. No other kind of regime would call terrorists those who present themselves as antifacists.
oh, he absolutely 100% would
(To be clear, I don't think Trump should get one; and Obama's win was really weird. But, hey, if Kissinger can get one..)
Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize
If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency.
I'm in a circle of people who lean pretty damn far left and even at the time, the only reactions I heard were "huh, what?"
Sure, but if you want your prize to have an impact, you sometimes have to hand it out to hopefuls?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
1- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 2- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
- Obama was embassed by the peace prize. You can read this in his memoir, in his own words.
- If peace is achieved in the Middle East, it will be the greatest peace negotiation since the end of WW2. I'm unsure how anyone can dispute that.
- Netanyahu has a vested interested in prolonging war and crisis, as his own political survival is at stake. Context if anyone is not aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p... - this makes it very unlikely the 20 point plan will be completed.
- Russia has indeed played Trump for a fool. Putin has bought plenty of time, they now have the upper hand in drone and missile attacks and Ukraine has lost the financial support of America. In return, Putin has conceded absolutely nothing.
- Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars. Good examples are his chastisement of Israel for breaking the earlier ceasefire, and its bombing of Qatar. He also did instigate negotiations with Russia, although he failed. His interventions in other conflicts are also genuine.
- Norway was reported to be bracing itself for retaliation https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-09/norway-on...
I am really unsure why I'm being downvoted here.
Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Trump, at all. I am a close follower and wide reader around current affairs and politics.
I'm not sure this is what Al Nobel has in mind.
Just going to drop this here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYFVEka3fA&pp=ygUYc2FyY2FzbWl...
I don't think that's a fair assessment. I believe Russia is primarily to blame, on account of it repeatedly invading Ukraine.
I believe NATO also encouraged it.
I don't recall Trump ordering American troops to invade Ukraine. Don't see how you're negating my point?
(fwiw, I am not a Trump supporter at all, I just try to see both sides and not hate trump because "he's the other team" - politics is not football)
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
Settlements are continuing in the West Bank, which are widely regarded as illegal by the international community.
There is little doubt amongst international experts that what Israel has done is genocide, and the parallels with South Africa are justified.
I'm hopeful that the genocide won't continue. However, I also think it's unlikely that peace will be achieved. Some form of violence or occupation is more likely, driven by Netanyahu's political interests.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-finlands-stubb-expect...
The man has the shortest attention span in history, and needs constant dopamine hits to continue on something.
But as I said in another thread, María Corina Machado is more than worthy - and well deserved. It is just such a shame that Trump will likely throw the biggest tantrum, and destroy stuff, for no other reason that he didn't get the big shiny thing he wanted.
Were this the reason for him to receive it, he would deserve it even less, and erase every shred of dignity this award ever had.
Big if, there have been many agreements between Israel and Palestine!
Probably need to wait at least 2 years, preferably like 8-10 but by then he might already be dead (natural causes).
Date: June 2025 Deal: Rwanda-DRC Peace Agreement Parties: Rwanda, DRC Desc: Preliminary White House deal + Qatar ceasefire; ends proxy wars over resources. RW troop pullout, DRC disarmament, investment. US Role: Trump-brokered; signed late June, impl. July. Fragile per critics.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Cambodia-Thailand Ceasefire Parties: Cambodia, Thailand Desc: Truce halting border skirmishes (40+ killed, 300k displaced); med. by Malaysia w/ US-China input. Tackles old border disputes. US Role: Trump supported via leader calls; started July 28, but accusations of violations linger.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Egypt-Ethiopia Peace Accord Parties: Egypt, Ethiopia Desc: De-escalates Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam tensions; water-sharing & security coop to avoid Nile conflict. US Role: US shuttle diplomacy; fits African stability efforts.
Date: July 2025 Deal: India-Pakistan Truce Parties: India, Pakistan Desc: Renews/expands Line of Control ceasefire; cuts firing, opens econ corridors. US Role: Personal Trump calls; credited w/ averting nuclear risks.
Date: July 2025 Deal: Israel-Iran Rapprochement Parties: Israel, Iran Desc: Econ normalization & de-escalation; security guarantees, less proxy fights in Syria/Yemen. US Role: Brokered post-Iran nuclear pressure; called a "major stride" for stability.
Date: August 8, 2025 Deal: Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Declaration Parties: Armenia, Azerbaijan Desc: Ends 35+ yr Nagorno-Karabakh war; White House-signed. Creates "Trump Route" (TRIPP) corridor for trade/energy, cuts Russian sway. US Role: Trump hosted & negotiated; boosts Caucasus transit/resources.
Date: October 8, 2025 Deal: Israel-Hamas Gaza Ceasefire (Phase 1 of 20/21-Point Plan) Parties: Israel, Hamas (med. Egypt/Qatar/US) Desc: Ends 2-yr war: ~100 hostages freed by Oct 13, prisoner swaps, troop pullback to pre-2023 lines, 72-hr truce. Long-term: Hamas disarm, Gaza rebuild under intl board (Trump chairs). US Role: Trump's big win; Kushner/Witkoff finalized in Egypt. Hailed as "everlasting peace."
Just to see what happens.
Ceasefire went into effect ~5AM Eastern, they were still bombing when I went to bed.
Because a few phone calls and document-signings can bring about many orders of magnitude more "peace units" in the world, if backed by the world's largest economy and the world's most effective military at projecting power.
It's not about rewarding saints, it's about rewarding people who do genuine efforts to bring peace in this world.
You wouldn't want to incentivize a reckless vigilante just because some of the times it might lead to a desired outcome, disregarding all the times they'd get it wrong and would cause injustices (leading to more chaos, and not peace) just in their selfish pursuit of accolades and prizes.
Trump is openly mentioning that what he's doing right now is worth a prize, can't get closer to doing it "for the prize". He exaggerates all his accomplishment (no he did not end 7, 8, 9, etc. wars... barely even one).
All of this is done/said for one purpose, and it's not actually peace. It's one thing you can't reproach to him, he is pretty transparent in his intent when you give him a microphone. Do you think he will lose sleep over the peace in the middle east failing (once again)... or do you think he will care more about not getting the prize he literally mentions every time he's questioned about a war?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Why would you tell such an easily refutable lie?
2) 90%+ of the comments here were never about trump. Not when you posted and not when I posted. You are lying. Even with the "even more trump comments" it is still nowhere near 90%. The sentiment is not "overwhelmingly partisan." Again, you know this, you are just lying.
3) Asserting that trump has nothing to do with the topic at hand is completely absurd, egregiously dishonest and ridiculous. You know exactly why people are bringing him up. Even Machado mentioned him when accepting the prize. The assertion is even more dishonest than you saying more than 90% of the comments here mention trump (an objectively false and easily refutable lie)
Beeing thrown in prison for years reasons: • owning a walkie talkie. Can be used to organize a revolution they said • listening to foreign radio stations