Foreign Policy

Kristof to Obama: Time to Water That Peace Prize With More Blood


Click the pic & hear a song.

Meet Nicholas Kristof, the one man in America who thinks the irony in Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is that the president hasn't entered enough wars:

I'm generally an admirer of Obama's foreign policy, but his policies toward both Syria and Sudan increasingly seem lame, ineffective and contrary to American interests and values. Obama has shown himself comfortable projecting power—as in his tripling of American troops in Afghanistan. Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world.

NEXT: Are Fake Prescription Drugs Killing Us?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world.

    What an incongruous situation! Peace Prize winner not starting wars.

    1. “What an incongruous situation! Peace Prize winner not starting wars.”

      That comment actually works non-sarcastically…

  2. Don’t worry, Mr. Kristof. Obama already has battle plans in his desk drawer for Syria, Sudan, Iran, and probably North Korea. We’ll find out all about them starting in mid-November.

    1. Mid-November? Depends on how he’s polling in September or October. If he’s down, expect the war machine to start revving it’s engines like John on his motorbike.

      1. I think bad polling late in the election might prompt a ramp up in the many extant shooting wars, and increased output from his propaganda department the impartial news media.

        1. output about entering moar wars?

    2. Sudan and Syria are iffy as deployment would take a while if you’re talking about a full-blown war as opposed to a few airstrikes. We’re right in the neighborhood of Iran and NK, of course, so that wouldn’t take as long.

      1. Shooting wars don’t require that the other guys are able to shoot back.

        1. The British were well known for starting shooting wars with people who were armed with sharpened mangos.

          Edmund: ’92, sir — Mboto Gorge.

          Haig: By jingo, yes. We sure gave those pygmies a good squashing.

          Edmund: We certainly did, sir. And do you remember…?

          Haig: My god, yes. You saved my damn life that day, Blacky. If it weren’t for
          you, that pygmy woman with the sharpened mango could have seriously…

          1. LOL
            though I imagine a sharpened mango, strategically shoved, could be quite painful…

            1. On the other hand, there may be those who would enjoy a strategically shoved mango…

              1. Although an overripe mango would be a bit of a disappointment.

  3. So, not bombing a foreign country = helping to protect its government?

    If it was anyone but Kristof, I might find that logic confusing, but years of exposure to his columns have taught me that that’s as close to clear thinking as this fuckwit will ever get.

    1. So, not bombing a foreign country = helping to protect its government?

      Just like not buying something is engaging in commerce. When you can define things to mean anything you want, it is much easier to support almost anything.

    2. but it’s different when “my” president does it. He’s not one of those icky, war-mongering, scary Repubs. Or so one can imagine Kristoff concluding.

    3. Honestly people.
      Just war, JUST WAR – when a ruler is ruthlessly killing his own people, it is a moral imperative to take him out – that is why Saddam Hussein must, MUST be removed from power!!! All moral, right thinking NYT columnists are in agreement!!!!

      DAMN, DAMN, DAMN microsoft word program with the word replacement command – that never works!!!. It was suppose to say that Syria guy instead of that Iraq guy…..

      1. Wasn’t Kristof one of the “Liberal Hawks” who supported the Iraq War until the first dead civilian popped up on TV? And then said that it was all Bush’s fault that stuff went wrong?

  4. Hey Christopher Hayes. How about you turn that skeptical approach to the words we use toward the use of “power” and “toughness” when it applies to a man who won’t personally back up any of his tough talk and oversees a military larger than that of the next biggest 10 nations’ militaries combined?

  5. War is Peace!

    1. Fucking for Virginity!

      1. I always thought that was the stupidest antiwar phrase ever.

    1. Thanks for this. A little Clash will go nicely with my coffee.

  6. When it comes to Nobel Peace Prizes he most likely holds the highest number of kills performed for a prize winner ever.

    1. except for nobel himself who invented dynamite

      1. Nobel did not win the Nobel prize. It was created partially as a regret for the use of dynamite, yet he himself killed nobody, the US president has in fact killed hundreds under his express orders. If Nobel was alive today he probably would have demanded his money back, seeing how this award has being perverted by giving it to heads of powerful militaries that kill more than most people kill.

      2. Which Nobel won the prize?

      3. “except for nobel himself who invented dynamite”

        Except he didn’t.

        1. I believe it was indeed Nobel who came up with the idea of mixing nitroglycerine with a powder like sawdust to make it stable enough to transport without blowing yourself up.

          1. The guy was no soldier, and his invention is not purely intended for military uses, in fact his invention did more good than bad for mankind, yet some people still blamed him for all the deaths he supposedly caused.

            1. Without Nobel’s invention, there would be no such thing as modern mining, tunneling, dam-building and a million other uses that have saved more lives than it could ever destroy.

              1. Why did Nobel hate Mother Gaia?

              2. So, Nobel was responsible for Climate cooling warming change?

                1. If he is, we should name another award after him, as climate change has made more of the world arable whether it is man-made or naturally occurring.

              3. to further this analogy then; obamacare will save moar lives than obamawar destroys, ergo – obama good

                1. You must possess the same crystal ball the Nobel organisation has, you can see the future and award success before anything has actually happened, with such god like powers surely you should do more than post stupid comments on the internet.

                2. How will it save more lives? It makes care less accessible and more expensive…basically the exact opposite of what climate change has done to the earth for mankind.

                3. obamacare will save enslave moar lives than obamawar destroys


          2. It was diatomaceous earth.

        2. ‘Scuse me.
          I meant to write:
          “Except he didn’t *win the Nobel prize*.”
          Mea culpa for being too short.

          1. You Hobbit Americans need to learn the art of proofreading.

            1. If only they’d add a preview button.

    2. I wonder if they let him control the drones from the WH. Pew pew pew!

      1. Why is that disturbingly realistic and funny at the same time?

    3. I dunno, are we counting Kissinger and Le Duc Tho separately or together?

      1. Yeah, and Arafat wasn’t exactly a piker.

      2. In fairness, Le Duc Tho declined, on an account of the fact that he was busy fighting a war.

      3. I don’t know how many people Le Duc Tho killed, but although Kissenger had not qualms with supporting invasions and general warmongering, he was never a commander who ulitmately gave the kill orders and is thus responsible for the kill.

        1. I believe that is what we Suthners call a coward, boy.

    4. Yasser Arafats record is like Sy Young’s 511 wins. Never going to be even approached.

      1. Arafat killed a ton of people no doubt. But BO is still probably ahead of him.

      2. Not true if you count the Negro Leagues. Check recent African history.

        1. ^^This^^

          Before emigrating to Palestine, Yasser Arafat pitched in excess of 1200 negro league games under the moniker “Fatty Washington” and compiled a record of 537 wins and 412 losses, both records. He was known for his quirky throwing motion, which was more akin to lobbing. His most notorious pitch, the “crazy bomber,” was also his most controversial. He was known to wail like a banshee as he delivered the ball in a high-arcing lob followed by his running behind the second base umpire lest the ball come off the bat in his direction.

          According to his memoir, his greatest moment was when he struck out Hank Greenburg, Al Rosen and Harry Danning on nine consecutive “crazy bombers” in an exhibition game, saying afterward “I would have rather those been explosives so I could have killed the Jew bastards,” which brought about an abrupt and ignominious end to an otherwise stellar pitching career.

          1. Well thought out and funny. “A” work. Please keep it up.

          2. Well played sir.

          3. Indeed, well done!

            I wish you could have worked Steve Stone into it, but what the hell.

    5. I think Woodrow Wilson (Peace Prize 1919) racked up more kills than Obama. World War I and all that.

    6. Yeah, I don’t think so. There’s some pretty tough competition.

  7. I’ll bet he’s not doing enough screwing for virginity either.

  8. Maybe a government program where underemployed young people and students who need to pay off huge college debt could learn to fight and kill and invade places like Syria.

    1. Could we drop Occupy Wall Street and Kristof from B-52’s over Damascus? Two-birds, one-stone and that.

  9. Kristoff thought a little differently when the other team was in the White House…..stion.html


      1. HAH! I eluded the SpamBot! Nah nah nah nah boooooo boooooo!

        1. It’s like the internet version of walking across rice paper.

          1. “When you can do this, Grasshopper, then you will have learned…”

            1. Glasshopper, you rucking facist.

              1. *facepalm*

                My error…

              2. That sounds rather painful. And could hurt real bad too.

    2. There’s no moral tenet that makes me oppose invasion.

      And there you have it. That quote speaks volumes.

      1. That article is hysterical. Kirstoff clearly loves humanitarian intervention. And understand the humanitarian case for invading Iraq. But he just can’t bring himself to support any war waged by the other team. Reading that and how he is not acting with Obama in office, there is no doubt that had Bush been a Democrat or a President Gore wanted to invade Iraq, he would have been on board.

        1. humanitarian intervention

          That phrase makes me shudder. It’s just so….shudder-y-y

  10. Not giving is taking.
    Not taxing is giving.
    Not killing is protecting.

    1. ramming a 8 foot iron tipped pike up someone ass through their foramen magnum into their brain is love…
      hard love, physical love, but love none the less. Love hurts…

  11. “Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world.”

    Because we are somehow stopping other people from attacking these dictators? There are about 180 other countries out there that could step in and put a stop to this, why does it have to be our job to make descisions about small countries on the other side of the world?

    If this guy really wants to stop the regime in Syria so much, he should put together a volunteer mercenary force and take some guns over there. Oh, wait, he does not actually want to put his own life on the line, he wants everybody else to make sacrifices so he can feel morally superior.

    1. Hopefully he’ll take that sonofabitch Van Owen with him, with the expected results.

      1. Ok, that made me laugh so hard that I almost choked to death on the pill I was swallowing.

        1. Somewhere, Warren Zevon is smiling.

    2. I’d say that, by not putting together a mercenary army to take out the assad regime and sudan, Kristof is “in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world.”

  12. There is nothing incongruous about fighting a war for peace. I know that the “fucking for virginity” talking piint is clever to the airhead set, but yes, Virginia, some wars are morally correct.

    I absolutely oppose intervention in Syria and the Sudan, but each potential conflict needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not with unrhinking hippie phrases warmed over from the SDS.

    1. but each potential conflict needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not with unrhinking hippie phrases warmed over from the SDS

      I’ll evaluate it like a hippy if I wanna, FUCKIN’ SLAVER!


    2. but yes, Virginia, some wars are morally correct.

      I find this subject interesting.

      Who gets to decide whether it’s morally “Correct?” By what measure?

      Personally, I’d argue that only wars fought in a nation’s self-defense are “correct;” however, this opens up shit like “preemptive strike.”

      1. Who gets to decide whether it’s morally “Correct?”

        Like every other moral issue, ultimately each person has to decide for themselves.

        1. Yes. I do not understand how anyone could believe otherwise.

        2. I outsource my moral decision to NYT columnists because they are so objective and consistent, without regard to political party.
          I am sure Kristoff added up the number of innocent people killed under Hussein as opposed to Assad, and came to the correct conclusion…

        3. R C, I decided you’re wrong on this.

      2. I suppose the person in charge of deploying forces gets to decide the morality and anyone who doesn’t like it can go screw.

        1. Which, I would guess, was one of the reasons behind giving Congress the power to declare war. The idea being that if you could convince a majority of congress of the necessity for war, you had a shot about being morally correct.

          Doesn’t mean it will always work that way, but that would have been the theory.

          1. Yeah, you’d have to be operating under the theory that the people in Congress were following the will of their constituents as well. That was a pretty cool theory once too.

            1. Although even following their will may not always be the best thing e.g. WWI

      3. Who gets to decide whether it’s morally “Correct?”

        The winner.

        By what measure?

        By how long he stays in power after winning or how long the press stays in his corner.

        1. How is this endorsement of rank moral nihilism “the winner”? I could just as easily say “well because no one can figure it out I guess war here is okey-dokey”

          1. Somebody noted yesterday (Pound Head On Desk, methinks) that you moniker is strange in that it doesn’t appear as though you’ve actually read Atlas Shrugged. If you have then you must realize that you have more in common with James Taggart than with Dagny.

            1. His name just means he’s randy all the time.

    3. … but each potential conflict needs to be evaluated on its own merits…

      I agree. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the leaders of this country have done the sort of moral evaluation you advocate, since WWII. I think that war decisions are based on political merits, as opposed to moral merits. That’s my cynicism. Obama and Bush just don’t strike me as guys who are putting in the soul searching required to determine the morality of a war. I think they glance at the latest polling numbers instead. And then people die.

      1. Bush strikes me as the kind of guy who would do a bunch of sould searching to find a reason to justify the war he wants. Just keep searching, eventually you can wriggle out a justification.

        Obama thinks whatever he does is by definition morally correct.

  13. A pretty grim evaluation of Chicago and Illinois:

    1. When did Obama start sending drones in there?

    2. Shit, I’m packing up to move there.

      1. No worries, the City, County of Cook and State of Illinois will lighten your load by taking your wallet as you enter. Helpful, no?

  14. There is nothing incongruous about fighting a war for peace. I know that the “fucking for virginity” talking piint is clever to the airhead set, but yes, Virginia, some wars are morally correct.

    I absolutely oppose intervention in Syria and the Sudan, but each potential conflict needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not with unrhinking hippie phrases warmed over from the SDS.

    1. yep, the slaves werent gonna selma-walk to their freedom

      1. Damn you Orrin. Just when I thing I’m done with you you pull me back in.

    2. Oh, on its merits. So remind me again what were the merits of Afghanistan and Iraq?

      1. Like, Muslims are dirty or something.

        Oh, that and they say they want us dead, and even though they lack the technology or funds to plant crops, we consider them a viable enemy that must be struck down, en masse, by murderdrone.

        1. Well, their 2 ocean navies, with a multitude of destroyers, and aircraft carriers, as well as amphibious landing craft, as well as sea and land launched intercontinental thermonuclear weapons, satillite guided, imperils us daily…
          wha?!!? They don’t have ANY of that?

          1. But they have the biggest weapon of all… BAD INTENTIONS!!!!!!

          2. Ocean navies? What about their terrible, terrible land navies?

            1. That is why I joined the Army – I wanted to sail the ocean brown – crashing through the sand dunes… the lifeboat drills are easier too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.