more news today. these are the images and seeing from the streets of canada. today. this is all in the top stories. searching for a way out of the crisis. the list of countries to recognize libya's rebels as the government. to face drug trafficking charges claims this was. some say america is developing a worrying tendency of snatching people in order to try them on its own soil. and

to fly up to the international space station from the baikonur cosmodrome. always exactly. first flights into. cross talk whether the humanitarian intervention and the. way to justify his nobel peace prize that's next on the. keep. a low and welcome to crossfire time peter lavelle is u.s. president barack obama still an honorable recipient of the nobel peace prize to be fair he inherited two wars but assuming office but he is also a new war on his watch and that is libya should obama's peace prize be revoked and should politicians be parted from future consideration. can.

start. to discuss the issues around barack obama's nobel peace prize i'm joined by bill schneider in washington he is a distinguished senior fellow and resident scholar at third way in london we have tariq ali he is a writer and filmmaker and in knoxville we have john williams he is the editor and publisher of new millennium writings and another member of our cross talk team ill and hunger all right gentlemen this is cross talk that means you can jump in anytime you want bill schneider as i pointed out in the introduction barack obama inherited two wars ok fair enough he didn't start i'm a lot of people criticize his escalation of the war in afghanistan and libya is truly his war i mean nobel peace prize and all those noble words and we'll go to some of those words later in the program and being a war president they add it's it's very toxic it's next made some a not a good mix and and either he should give it back or it should be revoked do you think. well. that has not been discussed in the united states and let me point out

one thing his administration does not call libya a war it says it's a kinetic action it's a little time limited objective to try to commit to a save people's lives they do not think of this is a war in fact they don't even use the word regime change even though the president has said and objective is to get khadafi out of power so they would not even acknowledge that this is a war ok if i go you in london is that a lot of newspeak i mean this is a war if you look what's going on on the ground it's a war and i don't care if the american media doesn't want to call it out or the american white house it's a war and this is a man that was given a nobel peace prize. it is a war he was given the nobel peace prize where the nobel committee knew full well that in his election campaign he had said he is going to escalate the war in afghanistan which is he has had more drone attacks on pakistan bush ordered in

fact more drone attacks under obama bin in the eight previous years of the bush administration so they knew all that he was going to do this when people give him a prize but they were so relieved to be relieved of bush that they were drooling at the mouth at the sight of obama and essentially couldn't wait to hand him the prize i mean to be fading he was likely embarrassed but they don't go in for revoking these prices they have warlow in their mistakes and i don't think any nobel prize recipient is going to give it back i ok down williams i'm going to knoxville i think you know to be fair to president obama i think a lot of understanding american foreign policy republican or democrat america has a tendency to go to war infrequently but i thought i think a lot of his larger do a bomber when you go into dumb wars like bush went into germ wars. iraq was completely necessary ok and i would argue and a lot of other people in the world

a growing coalition of the willing i would call it is against this intervention outside intervention into libya when you think about. well peter i think comparisons to iraq are odious. start with what's true and what's not president obama was forthright. telling america and the world why we must intervene in libya might disagree with his decision but who can do without the evidence that he used to build a case to oppose a bloodbath it was everywhere before our eyes this was not true of bush and iraq eight years ago the comparison as i say is odious the reasons bush concocted for going to war didn't pass the sniff test bush and cheney told the world that iraqi leader saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he was giving them to terrorists that we would be greeted as liberators they hated broadly that saddam was and i'm not eleven and none of this was true now with my friends on the right

what you believe bush and cheney are such things in good space. they're welcome to that but still these were some obvious lies metaphysically through bribery a man named curveball code named curveball just last. recent few weeks has acknowledged that he lied. there was a lot of evidence that a man named al libi lied and probably ok but you know. using i'm not accusing mr obama of line ok and i'm not yet anyway if i could have bill i mean but if we still see you know if we see a u.n. resolution about an embargo of arms to to the rebels and now we see the slippery slope oh now it's not called a war it's not intervention there's no talk of boots on the ground but there was no there was no talk of arming people as well and that is not clearly identified who these people are so i'm not calling the president the united states a liar or not this president but there is this this tendency of slippery it's

a slippery slope into a war a full out war and this is what i'm getting at and this is why i'm talking about the nobel peace prize that this is this is not an accidental war now at this point . no one will deny that there are a lot of risks in doing what the president is doing we are getting involved in a civil war that's always been generous and this could be a very slippery slope the president is certainly aware of that but he saw an opportunity to avert an impending humanitarian disaster within a day in libya there could have been a slaughter which was promised by qaddafi hundreds of thousands of people the resistance in that country he saw that the united states might have the ability to make a difference that other countries were willing to act and that was an opportunity he was unwilling to pass up despite the very real risks that you described ok let's continue with bill's logic so the americans this want to lurch virtuous in all of this but there is a possibility there could be

a lot of massacres down the road if this isn't managed well and there's nothing to indicate that it is being managed very well because the international community is tripping itself into a civil war worth and where it has no idea what the outcome is going to be. this is exactly right and i would say to be perfectly frank peter in my opinion this has very little to do with civilian casualties or the fear of civilian casualties after all no one but no one from the west suggested imposing a no fly zone over garza no one suggested imposing a no fly zone when lebanon was invaded and attacked a few years ago sensually what we're witnessing is a western intervention in libya to try and take the initiative in the entire region back from the people on the ground and to build up the credibility of the west i mean only yesterday bill gates said that the despot in yemen who by the way

is killing quite a few people every single day in that country should stay in power the saudis have been permitted to invade bahrain and are carrying out a wave of repression in their gun create this war in libya intervention in libya is part of the country offensive caressed the initiative back then gadhafi who is not an intelligent leader to put it mildly played into the hands of the west by bombing is own people and sending his troops in instead of either negotiating or doing the decent thing and quitting power so he's played into the hands of the west they've taken the advantage of that trying to get the initiative back and the results we don't know i think what is quite likely is that at the very least libya will now be partitioned like iraq was partitioned with a no fly zone after the first gulf war in the kurdish territories ascension it

became a u.s. project crit this could happen now in the lebanon on and the consequences of that are unpredictable at the moment it might work but the more likely trances are that it will end up. step down if i go back to you in knoxville. i think brings up a very good point is that there are other actors in the about obama administration and it's very duplicitous a lot of people see a lot of double standards where the united states will stand a virtuous stand protect civilians what civilians are still very unclear actually and but it won't do it for other people in the region and i think that you know a lot of people outside of the united states would say the gazans really could have used a no fly zone when the israelis were committing atrocities against the gazan population there double standards it still smells of double standards doesn't it. make a good point and so does and i would only say that just because obama hasn't acted

previously to prevent the slaughter of innocent folks doesn't necessarily mean he's not acting in good faith in this instance i wonder what my friend would say if. we had seen a bloodbath in benghazi then then what would the criticism of obama be at that point i think he had to act i mean let's face it there is a wave sweeping the middle east and north africa and i think what's needed is a clear obama doctrine and i don't think it's something he should rush into establishing but he's got to tell those waters take a good deep look and then dive into some because creditor blind will accrue to him no matter what happens ok bill it's interesting i think there should be i mean i don't think go ahead go ahead bill gregg. i don't think the president really intended to promulgate an obama doctrine he didn't say this was a president this is a new principle for intervention what he said this was a specific case where we could intervene and make

a difference and save lives you could start talking about syria which is after all killing its own people you could talk about gaza you could talk about a lot of places the president says we're talking about libya where we saw the opportunity to act and make a difference every other situation is different and many of them like syria are much more complicated so the president didn't seem to want to say this is a new obama doctrine ok talking of my go to you before we go to break here i think there is a new doctor in here i think there is no obama doctrine coming into play and it's the same thing as the bush doctrine except for we really don't want to put troops on the ground ok and i'd like to point out every one of the panel hillary clinton says well we're not going to intervene into syria yet go ahead toddy. well i think there is no new doctrine we have had this line taking place since bill clinton was in office bush continued it and bush lied his way on iraq so blatantly that it put people off the united states for a long time obama is now carrying on in the same way and trying to win public

opinion back to the idea of western wars of intervention cloaked in humanitarian. logic i don't accept the fact that this is a war in good faith i think this is an opportunist war fought in order to give the western initiative in a part of the world where they had already lost it and i think. now after a short break we'll continue our discussion on obama's nobel prize stay with r.t. . if you can. still. download the official policy up location on the phone on called touch from the i choose option to. lunch all cheat on the go.

video on demand all keys mindful of costs and speeds now in the palm of your. question on the call. for the full story we've got it for. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with a news maker. twenty years ago in the largest country in. the subsequences of a. one hundred chamber and jenna church. where did it take. if. any is eve. fifty.

times. fifty. five it's. fixed. welcome back to crossfire people about to remind you we're talking about obama's nobel peace prize.

but first let's see what russians think about all of this. two years ago the newly elected american president barack obama was awarded the nobel peace prize but stronger than the efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples but now as the u.s. intervenes in libya many want it so who would be taking away the russian public opinion research center asked citizens one thing to know. about libya sixty two percent of the respondents say libya turmoil is exclusively domestic problem and foreign countries should not interfere and another twenty seven percent believe into missile community should start to stop the civil war they are. ongoing conflict in libya has once again stressed the controversy awarding president obama

the u.s. commander in chief with the peace prize. ok gentlemen let's go back to the nobel prize here i'd like to listen to some of the words that rock obama gave for that because maybe once he picked up his award in two thousand and let's listen to what he had to say. so i come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict i face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the american people. for make no mistake evil does exist in the world. well if i'm going to you believe always called obama be the commander in speech i mean we have to give him that at least he speaks very well but has he tainted has he tainted the the award because there's always expediency i mean he is elected by a group of people there is something called even i admit the national interest he's going to act in the national interest as he understands it for his the people that

voted for him ok and everything else is secondary ok so he ok he got the nobel prize well sorry i'm still going to be commander in chief i mean this is it taints the award. the award has already got a few things on it long before barack obama you know we can soak in the prize tonight here are a few are henry kissinger ok i mean that's what a lot of other people would say we consider ok but still in this case actually i mean that i mean but when the prize was given to obama americans were surprised and shocked what do you think about that don what do you think if you see if we mature if you think it was you think it has the same value now as it does back in two thousand and nine. yes yes i do because it has been tainted in the past and also let me just point out that obama inspired the world just by getting elected i know he's got a lot of detractors now especially not part of the country but he did inspire the world just getting elected prevented a person who was singing bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran and pointing to one hundred

years of possible warfare in iraq point of fact is obama's put fewer boots on the ground than nearly any of our recent presidents now now he might you know that could change because there is a lot of turmoil in the world but i don't think you thought him for acting in libya there's a cost in violence a cost in human lives to not acting and when you've got people marching with banners and people saying we want democracy i think you have to be cognizant of that and help a certain if the thing for those folks who could see the heartbreak and horror of from the skies if we did not that ok trying to find out she i mean we're giving the nobel peace prize we're sitting president that really hadn't done anything at that point he was in it just like you pointed out this thing goodness he's not george bush and just hoping that a war is a preemptive war is coming out of washington would slow down or maybe come to an enemy it was it was it a an award of hope because it certainly those hopes have been are in tatters right now i mean with. tomahawk missiles being fired and who knows what in libya today

i don't think it was an award of hope it was an award of wishful thinking and an award of sicko friends i mean if you look at the list of nobel prize prize winners . you have had a lot of u.s. presidents some bilious the award has been pretty tainted i don't know whether you're aware of this peter but in one thousand nine hundred eighty six someone suggested old hitler for the peace prize this was of course not taken up but he was suggested might have to mount gandhi never was awarded the peace prize so it is a pretty there's a there's a very interesting norwegian jury is frederick have from a loose written a book on. about peace prize and he says of the peace prize for truly from the beginning violated alfred nobel's instructions that nobel had said that the peace prize should only go to those people actively engaged in peace and it's been

hijacked by retired norwegian politicians and a cold war academic from the past to hand it out at will and there was a lot of criticism in norway when obama got it and when others got it i mean kissinger is a case in point. but numerous other people have caught it and gabrielle garcia marquez himself a prize winner of the nobel prize winner on literature said it would be more accurate to call it the nobel award price than this would give it to whoever they wanted whenever. vilifying of a few which actually got to people who had guiltless go to people there about these prize al gore when they defeated theoretically more votes in two thousand and barack obama i mean that was it was a real sense that there was so much relief and so much anger george bush they gave it to two different people the one who really deserve the nobel peace prize who didn't get it i'm sure is eating his heart out is bill clinton and he did make war in kosovo but that war was seen as

a no other humanitarian intervention but clinton has probably done more for peace than any recent president jimmy carter you retire you bring out jimmy carter peace prize ok but i mean if i go in john. deserved off it and i've done a fine go to you your servant ok go ahead go ahead take your hand and i'm going to clinton deserve the peace prize this guy impose sanctions and maintain sanctions in iraq madeline albright his secretary of state defended the killing of a least a million iraqi children because of sanctions saying it was necessary imposed a no was on iraq destroyed virtually everything so softening the concrete for bush and cheney to take over he deserve that. give us a break ok john what about it what about former politicians foreign policy look at jimmy carter because jimmy carter a lot of people criticize him for some of his thoughts since spread his presidency but he i think it's fair to say that even his detractors while he was president say

he's done good he's done the best job of former president could ever do for peace and helping. poor people in general all the way to recognizing different issues around the world that sometimes the media forgets or sometimes gives a certain view on that maybe is very. for american and western interests ok what i'm saying about the middle east but is that a case of maybe a former politician has done well because one of my thesis is that politicians probably shouldn't get it at all go ahead john. no i think there's a lot of value in giving them to former politicians that sets an example for others who leave office and can do good works even though their power base no longer exists in a political sense but let's you know so many people get this award though who have no power base except whatever power base the people. or international opinion gives them i think of two thousand and four one gary. my theory pardon my pronunciation

but who started this amazing movements plant trees in kenya and transform the country and made life easier for especially for women who had to gather the firewood and is really helping transform the world into a greener place without the nobel who knows what might have become of her and her movement shirin baby disbarred judge whose human rights advocacy in iran for women and children was suppressed what might have become of her without the world's attention i think the nobel prize definitely serves i wonderful function in the world yes like anything else it's subject to abuse and i think the jury frankly is still out on obama his legacy is yet to be made but again there is a cost in not acting ok tell me what do you think i mean i can reflect upon when he got the award in looking at his presidency since then it still is indeed a nobel prize. peace prize is still very the discourse of western. international relations is still very it recognizes that is the paradigm and i think a lot of people in the world see it if i you know i'll be very blunt is kind of

a white people's award when it comes to politics it is totally dominated by people who essentially different western inclusive agree where i mean look at the latest one ok surely to give it to the right people i agree shereen about these a case in point but this chinese guy they gave it to loucheux be in the last nobel peace prize it's quite astonishing because though he is in prison and he shouldn't be in prison let me make that very clear the chinese government of keeping him. prism but his political beliefs are walked one one china should have been colonized for three hundred years by a western power order. in order for it to learn civilization that the iraq war was justified that kerry was wrong to criticize bush on the iraq war that of crime is down is justified because the vietnam and korean wars where wars against totalitarianism that is right good and this is the guy who gets the nobel peace

prize so you know it's obvious that the motive is ideological and the chief of the prize winners jaclyn the next norwegian politician said we wanted to teach china a lesson that's really it's had exactly the opposite him it's very interesting to me a lot of the think a lot of people say that the day the chinese dissident did win the award irritated a lot of people but julian julian a sign irritates a lot of people too and but he's considered a villain by the united states but a hero for so many other people empowering hero by the way and he's certainly not a person that's creating war or promoting conflict. look the chinese this it was an article in a surprise because of his views on all these previous issues he was given his nobel peace prize because of his stand in defiance of chinese authorities and it worked i mean it created a lot of attention to that issue it wasn't because of things he's written in the past the nobel peace prize does best when it's clearly clearly an award for human

rights activism but when he gets involved in political controversies on the left or on the right it's always going to be to speed ok john i'm going to give you the last word on this do you think that obama now has it's incumbent upon him to make good on the his words of being a peace maker he still got a little time left in his first term. well i hope it's possible i hope it's possible i think the jury is out i think obama's legacy is yet to be made he's only been in office for two years a little over and they've been very distracting years that the whole world faced. economic decline you know he's been distracted every which way and so i think we just have to kind of give him the benefit of the doubt all right gentlemen i have to jump in with run out of time let's give mr o'donnell the benefit of the doubt many thanks to my guest today in washington london and in knoxville and thanks to our viewers for watching this heat our teeth see you next time and remember cross talk rules. and.