Nobel Peace Prize 2020

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has just announced that this years Noble Peace Prize has been awarded to UN WFP:

Ohh what have they done!!!
Now Donald Trump will turn his anger towards Norway. Who knows what he will do to revenge such an insult. (Short of sending in the Marines, I hope)

1 Like

What buffoonery. The Nobel prize gets more ridiculous by the year. Efforts to combat hunger start with allowing people to feed themselves. The WFP has proved itself part of the problem in third world countries.

1 Like

Yes that is a good idea. What is your proposal and solution to obtain that noble goal??

Of course while we wait for a solution millions will starve to death.

Stop supporting despots and sell them weapons may be a good start.
Not fighting proxy wars for political reasons may also help.

Have you got a suggestion for how the people making soup from weeds in Syria should feed themselves tomorrow?

Or the people in Yemen that cannot tend their fields because of bombing and rocket attacks by one side or another in the proxy war between the US and Iran shall feed themselves?

Inducing starvation is one of the oldest weapons of war, as said in the speech by the leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee today. Feeding people is thus a way to stop wars.


While the US has obviously taken sides in the conflict, I would say Yemen war is more of a pissing match between Saudi Arabia and Iran over their influence in the region.

Just my 2 cents…

Yeah, they are like Republicans, scared shitless of losing control of power. They don’t care how many people they kill to maintain their comfy lifestyle.


With weapons, intelligence and targeting help from the US. Saudi Arabia and UAE are supplying the soldiers that is doing the fighting as proxies for the US.
The Houthis are doing the same as proxies for-and with weapons from- Iran.
Or are we in doubt about the US Government’s wish to “fight” Iran any way they can?

PS> Anything from Trump on this “insult” against his ego yet??

He now considers Norway a shit hole country and will stop all flights to and from there.

Oh, and he said he never liked Norwegian Wood and banned it from all radio stations.

And … the only way Trump lost is because the votes were rigged.


Feeding people seems like a no-brainer to me: of course the world is more peaceful when there is less hunger. Hunger is a vulnerability which is used against even children so that they do terrible things to keep themselves or their families fed. Just as having a financially indebted person in a position of power or with access to secrets is a vulnerability. Donating to women’s and orphan’s charities will get you flagged as a terrorist, because suicide bombers know that their families will be taken care of when they are gone.

Feeding people is like putting out a fire: it must be done. At the same time, preventing fire (and famine, and over-leveraged politicians) in the first place is a vital part of it.


There’s that but SA has always coveted that country due to its access to the sea, and it seems they have projects for cities in Yemen too. Especially now that China is expanding the sea route of their belt and road global project.

Half of the food is stolen by local military.

So half reach the starving people then. Isn’t that better than none? At least some people survive.

PS> During the war in Vietnam a lot of the “Texas Long-grain Rice” that was shipped in by USAid actually went to feed Vietcong and NVA soldiers in the field.

PS>The “aid” was as much a subsidy to US farmers as to feed the people living in so called “secure villages”, set up under the Strategic Village Program.

1 Like

The answer to hunger is not the WHO, it is capitalism and small government. Easy. Can anybody name such a country that has starving people?

The answer is NEVER to give money to despots to feed their people. Starve the despots of foreign funds but help the people rid themselves of despots.

My general view is that UN programs often make things worse. Funds are eaten up first by the mostly-corrupt UN bureaucrats nowhere near the starving and then by the warlords and big men. The little people still starve.

So the answer is easy, but getting there is not.

As for Donald Trump not getting it, I would suggest he’s far more deserving (spreading peace diplomatically in difficult places etc - but that’s over their heads) but he knows no one is ever going to give him anything congratulatory let alone say something nice about him. He doesn’t care less. The peace prize is a perfect example of the Left in action; the Oscars for PC attention seekers. Probably should have given it to Macdonalds. At least they get food to the masses cheaply.


Letting a population starve is inhumane, birth rates tend to decrease naturally as females in a country become more educated.

In the mid 19th century Ireland had a very high birth rate and there were crop failures, the British government let them starve in a kind of malthusianism natural population control, they did provide some food aid but nowhere near enough, there is still a lot of animosity about the great famine to this day, letting a population starve can create a lot of animosity between populations which lasts for generations.

It isn’t as if hunger is an exclusively failed state problem. Your country and mine both have chronically hungry families. And there’s an association between law-breaking/violence and people who can’t meet their basic needs. Countries with the least violence are also those which do the best when it comes to making sure their children have enough. Nutrition makes education possible makes economic and democratic success possible. If we can’t fully open the first door for our people, we are leaving the engine of our future economy and governance unfueled and unlubricated out in the rain.


Not starving though. There’s no World Food Program needed here. Charities feed the hungry. Such voluntary activities are a feature enhanced by small government. Sadly, Australia’s governments continue to grow and encroach upon the self-reliance and personal responsibility that are also features of small government regimes.

My ‘tough love’ view is that the hungry need a hand up, not a hand out. You want to eat? Then work.

Lovely, but we’re not insects. Mammals generally need help feeding and caring for ourselves as juveniles. Social mammals are better off when children beyond our direct progeny are better off. If we don’t want the war brought to our neighbourhoods,we had better take care of the juveniles who live there, or who may live there during our lifetime. If we’d like to prevent war in general then charities like the WFP are an important tool.

Better to rid ourselves of the warmongers and encourage trade.


The British were certainly culpable but did make significant changes as a result of the famine. They repealed the protectionist corn laws which lowered the price of grain and in general started Britain on an far more prosperous era of free trade.

The famine wasn’t caused by Britain. It was the result of over reliance on a single crop on the pitifully small plots each family depended on. A single disease thus did devastating damage to the main staple of those farmers. Ireland actually had enough food and even exported it during the famine.

1 Like

While the general population starves, their “leaders” always seem to find cash for business jets, fighter aircraft, artillery, machine guns, and bombs to defend their palaces.

While the Pentagon pens orders for multi-billion dollar ships and planes, the hungry in America stand in line for charity from those lucky enough to have work.

Maybe the kids can find work building aircraft carriers.