Nobel Peace Prize?

Can a Nobel Peace Prize be rescinded?  Hmmm......  I know Pulitzers have been, but Nobels?  What if, say, a Nobel-winning scientist is shown to have used false data, cheated, etc. in the achievement for which the prize was awarded?  After all, didn't Piltdown Man fool the archaeology community for almost four decades?

Would such an instance merit taking back the Nobel?  Of course it would merit revocation.  But would the Nobel committee have the integrity and courage to do so?  Rescinding would acknowledge an enormous error on the part of the committee.  Hmmm......

Now, what if someone won, say, a Nobel Peace Prize and didn't at all deserve it in the first place? Remember the key word here, "peace."  And, in the course of five or so years, the recipient, using or not using his authority, engaged his country in most definite war-like activities.  (Note I refrained from saying "war," only partly tongue-in-cheek.)  Think Afghanistan, Iraq, drones, etc.

Apparently, the Obama administration, as exemplified by the talk of the President himself and his Secretary of State, is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  (Yeah, Yeah--I remember, "But Bush lied.") Well they should.  But now there seems to be evidence that the US is going to launch missile attacks against the Syrian regime of Assad.  Perhaps Obama (and his lackeys at the Nobel Committee?) don't consider the launching of missiles to be an act of war, but some convoluted expression of peace.

To get this out of the way, why in the world would anyone trust anything coming out of the mouth of John Kerry?  Check his record, all the way back.

It seems likely that the gas warfare was perpetrated by Assad (or his brother, likely the only two who have authorization to use gas).  If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say so.  But, as in an American court of law, I'm not absolutely certain, so I can't convict.  So, if Obama does order the attacks, are we to, in effect, start a war with Syria (only three days, at least that's how many days missiles will be launched--according to "sources close to the administration") when we are not absolutely certain?  (Again, I harken back to "But Bush lied," if only to expose yet another episode of extreme hypocrisy.  And, Bush didn't "lie," not if gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction."  SH did use gas on his own people, the Kurds.  Or perhaps I mistakenly think the Kurds are every bit as human as the Syrians?)

But what if the gas was actually used by the insurgents, back by Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and other extremists? Then what?  I know the likelihood of that is slim, but......  Again, we don't know for certain--think US court of law, criminal case.

And what if the US (namely Obama and Kerry, like H Clinton before him) are being played for suckers by, say, the Iranians or even the Russians?  It's not at all unlikely, since the entire world has been playing Obama for a sucker for five years now, the entire world, that is, except the American LameStream Media and other Obama sycophants.  There are lots of reasons for doing so.

BTW, read closely Kerry's comments about the effects of using this gas, a weapon of mass destruction. Read them very closely.  Then reimagine them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Now, calm down, I'm not an apologist for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Without them, it's quite likely there would have never been a me.  My father was a US Marine in WW2, taking part in invasions/landings at Palau, Pelilieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.  That means, of course, that he would have been in the assault waves of the home islands of Japan, had Japan not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  With US casualty rates of 40% and higher in the invasions of those aforementioned islands, it was quite a miracle he survived anyway--do the math. What was the likelihood of yet another reprieve?

Yet, again, maybe Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do.  He's either very, very naive--as Putin and others seem to believe and, if only tacitly, say--or his goal is to further destabilize the Middle East to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, his group of choice in Egypt, Libya, and now it appears Syria.  (Check out the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with its roots in Wahabism.)

These "sources" have indicated US missiles might fly as soon as Thursday.  I, for one, am not looking forward to Thursday to see if we have engaged in yet another military folly.  "Folly," of course, unless there's a master plan.  (I know, I know--conspiracy theorist!  One thing American politicians have excelled in is the marginalization of critics.  Those who even dare to question US leaders, be they Presidents or members of Congress are quickly labelled, "conspiracy theorists," "Tea Partiers," etc.  Critics of government are no longer what Henry Steele Commager once called them, "the most important members of society."  They are now isolated as the fringe, not to be taken seriously.  After all, who can doubt the goodness, the benevolence of big government?  Note, for instance, Obama's commencement address at Ohio State University.)

Let's hope these "sources" are wrong or, if they are not, wiser heads prevail before the missiles are used.