Kojima on Obama Nobel Peace Prize

If you’ve been up nights wondering what Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima thought about U.S. President Barack Obama winning a Nobel Peace Prize, today’s your lucky day. Or not.

On his Konami blog, via Joystiq, Kojima put out some thoughts on the matter that may or may not have been lost in translation. He posed a few questions, “Has the era at last started shifting?” and “The start of the Peace Walker plan?” before adding that “Peace will not walk to you. You must both walk towards one another.”

In his possible defense, Kojima was blogging from the gym.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Eh, I’d take it if it was handed to me. I’d say that I didn’t deserve it, but a free award is a free award *shrug*

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  2. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Lol, I guess I can see how someone could think that. It made perfect sense in mah head. I just have a very deep and incredible distrust of any/all governments, hence the need to have a way to start a new one should the need arise ^^

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  3. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    There are Libertarians in the US that are anarchists, ain’t gonna lie. Hell, I’m pretty close to being an anarchist, heh. In the US, though, Libertarian implies liberal rights but also extreme economic freedom, while anarchists tend to be in favor of socialism, somehow. Libertarians recognize that government causes problems for citizens, and though the ideal goal is no government, until we can reach a social point where no government needs to exist, we should continue to make it as small as possible.

    Sorry if that was confusing…Basically, small government all around, without government control of the economy or social rights. Some want no government, others want as little to no government as possible, others just want a specific small amount of government that is less than the Republicans or Democrats. Anarchists tend to jump around the board, wanting full social rights (fuck the police!) but at the same time wanting socialism/communism. Ideally, I want a communist Libertarianist society, one where the rich make balances to allow the poor to become relatively well-off, so that the rich can stay rich while not hogging too much money, but also allowing for the rich to keep money that they rightfully earn. People that don’t (and won’t) work shouldn’t get free money from the government, and is necessary until the free market exists enough to allow for them to provide "social projects" to give jobs to the unemployed. It’s all a part of my "social ideal" that won’t happen in my lifetime, but is damn fine in my opinion. Government wouldn’t really exist, but the good government projects would still exist, and would be instituted by the people for a specific purpose, and is abolished when the purpose is fulfilled. "Takes a village to raise a child" is true, and the village (including the rich in the village) should recognize this, and aid the child just enough for the child to be able to sustain himself, which benefits everyone.

    Good example: I don’t recycle to save the environment. I recycle to save money, which should save me a small amount of money. Thereby, everyone wins. If I am rich, and find a person that needs a job, and is willing to work for it, I know that it will benefit everyone if I hire him, for he won’t commit crimes to make end’s meat, I get a valuable employee, a new customer, and I look good to the public. Everyone wins. I may not make quite as much money, but I’m rich so it wouldn’t matter. However, if I don’t hire him, then I could lose far more than a little bit of cash, possibly losing my life or far greater amounts of money.


    Whoa, wall of text. If you read it, I apologize for putting you through that. But that’s the basis of my beliefs. Wanting to reach a social ideal so that we can reach a governmental ideal, and a governmental ideal so that we can reach a social ideal.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  4. 0
    Im_Blue says:

    Also side-note what really confuses me is that in the U.S. libertarian means far right anarchism, but in the rest of the world…. or at least my end of it, it’s basically just another word for anarchism (with perhaps some subtle differences) regardless of economic view point. The Social Libertarians (who aparantly first coined the term) were anarchists / anarcho-communists. See id consider my self allined to that side of the fence if any, so whenever i hear you guys talk about libertarian it scares the fuck out of me. The last thing I wan’t is individual ownership over the means to production. lol…… im to tired for this.

  5. 0
    Im_Blue says:

    Yeah good chat, though I just woke up and can’t be fucked continuing, though I think we’v probably both said our parts.

    I said liberal with a lower case l, as in loose, free, not strict. To say your country has liberal gun laws is to say that it has fairly lose, or generous gun laws….. as in your free to own guns as opposed to not. Not sure if you guys use the word in that context.


    Good hustle non the less.

  6. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    Ok, so I know you explained more in depth what you meant when you said gun rights were more important than freedom of speech. But…man, make sure you’re clear when you say something like that, I thought you were batshit insane until I read the further explanation.

  7. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    I suppose, then, you are right in that the right to bear arms is mostly important to protect the right to free speech, but the act of buying a gun CAN be a form of speech in and of itself, i.e. used as a political/social statement. And, were free speech to be 100% guarenteed, I would agree that the right to bear arms wouldn’t be (as) important. However, sadly, it never will be, and thus there needs to be a "fall-back" in place to make sure that we can resecure those rights. A necessary evil, if you will.

    For point #1, in the US, Liberal means that one supports gun control/legislation, I believe you mean Libertarian? Liberal laws would mean more gun control, and *is supposed to mean* less gun deaths (it doesn’t, look at Washington DC’s gun crimes compared to other cities with less gun laws), while Libertarians want less/no gun laws. I blame partly the culture of America (stupid), not so much the gun laws themselves (although I dislike some of them also). Switzerland has a massive amount of gun ownership and also a massively small amount of gun-related deaths, and is the ideal that I hope to strive towards, but that’s just me. A gun in every home (ala Switzerland) means that people would be less likely to rob other people, knowing that they are armed/ready to fight back.

    2…I think that in a full-blown revolution, much of the army would join the rebel cause, depending on the situation. That’s why I also believe that civilians should be able to own the same types of guns as the military, or else they won’t be able to fight back should the need arise.

    I agree that less guns would be better, but there won’t be any way to guarentee that criminals won’t have guns and that governments won’t oppress their people (look at the UK, Australia), and thus the common, law-abiding people will always need a way to defend themselves. If I could get rid of 100% of all guns and bombs and tanks and keep it that way forever, then I would absolutely do it (and that would include police and military weapons). But as long as the military and the police are allowed to own guns, then I will continue to support the rights of the common citizen to have the same protection. After all, if we let cops/military men have more power than the common man, the saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" becomes completely true, and at the cost of the common man’s rights.

    Also, criminals don’t give a rat’s ass about gun laws, I mean look at England. Handgun ownership is supposed to be illegal (except for certain circumstances I believe) but yet there is still violent handgun crimes that are committed. If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

    I apologize if I came off a little strong, I had the impression that you were a US citizen at first. Clearly, I am, lol. At least you are able to make a valid discussion and recognize my arguments instead of ad hominem attacks that others make in relation to gun issues. I would love to have a formal debate sometime. ^^

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  8. 0
    Im_Blue says:

    Well im not a U.S. citizen nor do i live there so although i have read the doccument a few times in history courses and such im not super familiar with it….. for that matter I wasnt even aware you were a U.S. citizen.

    However at the end of the day the U.S. Decleration of Independence and Constitution for that matter are in no ways indicitive of human rights as a whole….. It is more of a political/legal manifestation of the broader claim to innate human rights. Im getting super side-tracked but the point is that for debates on the raw value of Human Rights your better off quoting the numerous philosopher’s works with which the U.S. D.O.I.P. and Constitution are largley inspired by. I.E. John Lockes Two Treatise of Government or Rousseau’s Social Contract. Or really any debate on Human rights…. not a legal or political doccument.

    Anyhow I wasn’t really trying to argue against the right to bear arms (though i do find the idea somewhat draconian), more I wanted to know why you thought it was more important than the right to free speech. Turns out you don’t since in your opening sentence you state that the right to bear arms is important to protect the value of free speech, which suggests that the right to bear arms is of secondry importance to the right to free speech. In other words if all civil liberties like freedom of speeh were 100% garunteed then the right to bear arms would be utterly pointless since you would have no liberties in need of protection.

    In regards to whether the the right to bear arms is important in providing citizens with a means to oppose any corrupt government I half agree with you. Yeah I hate the idea of governments having a monopoly on the use of force…. that plain sucks ass….. I mean at the end of the day I would like to see all governments abolished and power restored to the people as a whole. But in the contempory world im not sure allowing people to possess fire arms is an effective means of holding governments accountable. I could crap on and on about this but there are two main reasons im opposed to it.

    1: I do not think that it is too much of a streach to conclude that your country’s liberal gun laws are at least partly responsible for your MASSIVLY dissproportionate amount of gun related deaths.

    2: Do you really think that a citizen militia would be able to overthrow the U.S. army? You are talking about the most powerful military in the world.

    Look at the end of day I understand where you are coming from, and 200 odd years ago I think it probably had a lot more relevance. But as far as im concerned in the contemporary world, the less guns, tanks, bombs, nukes and so on exist, the better off we’ll be.

  9. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    The right of citizens to own weapons is what guarentees that a government can’t take away their right to free speech.

    Perhaps you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence, but let me quote the Preamble:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Now how do you think that a group of citizens will be able to abolish/alter an oppressive government if they aren’t allowed to own firearms while the government’s military owns much more powerful weaponry? Note of course that the United States wasn’t meant to have a standing army, we are supposed to raise an army when it is time for war, not have one ready/waiting all of the time. But now we have a standing army, with all the weapons they need, and citizens that are being more and more oppressed, yet without the same access to firearms, there is no non-suicidal way to re-establish a non-oppressive government.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  10. 0
    Im_Blue says:

    "I consider that a civil liberty that is just as important (in fact, more) than simple freedom of speech."

    Wait are you for real? You think the right to own a gun is more important than the right to speak openly. Am I missing something?

    Please explain.

  11. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    But in my opinion, he didn’t do anything that the average half-decent person wouldn’t do. That’s why I think that it shouldn’t even have been up for consideration.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  12. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "So basically, he got it for not being Bush."

     I disagree. He got it because, as a political figure, he has always stood in support of Diplomacy and working together with other countries. He has always been in favor of peace vs. war, and he has always been against Nuclear weapons.. Granted the fact that he doesn’t spit in the face of the rest of the world, like Bush did, probably helps, but I would argue that they didn’t award it to him for "Not being Bush."

    Did you read the Nobel Prize Committee’s statement regarding why he won the award? Their arguments are pretty valid. Like I said, I can easily see where they are coming from. I don’t neccessarily know if he actually deserved to win, but I can see why they considered him in the first place.

  13. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    "Lets not accuse the man of trampling on the consitiution, taking away our rights, or any other various bullshit arguments used against him until he’s actually done it, ok?"

    Then by that same token, let’s not give out any bullshit accolades until he’s actually done something to deserve it.  And I’m not just talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, either.  Fair’s fair.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  14. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    …So basically, he got it for not being Bush. Like I said. He isn’t acting like a complete idiot (as far as peace goes). That doesn’t warrant a peace prize, though.

    Anddd…while in the Chicago (or was it Illinois? I can’t remember) legislature, he has voted in support of several laws that restrict the rights of gun owners. I consider that a civil liberty that is just as important (in fact, more) than simple freedom of speech.

    Sure, he hasn’t restricted civil liberties since being President (that I know of), but he has before (or at least attempted to).

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  15. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    This is also how i see it, the committe getting pre-emptive, which while understandable, probably isn’t the best move.

    For some reason i saw it as this:

    In the movie Hancock after he saves the guy played by the arreasted development guy, and everyone is shouting at him for wrecking the train, the AD guy yells loud enough so everyone can here “THANK YOU etc etc” to make a point that “hey, at least he saved me”

    I saw it as sort of something like this, just a big loud “HEY WE THINK THIS GUYS OKAY”.

    Like i said above, understandable, but probably not the best choice of action.

  16. 0
    Ratros says:

    If that was all it took to recieve the damn award, than there would be hundreds if not thousands more deserving than him.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  17. 0
    Ratros says:

    It’s an insult to everyone who has ever actually earned the reward.  He even said he did nothing to deserve it, yet he still took the damn thing.  It’s sickening.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  18. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "and hasn’t tried to strip away (ANY) personal liberties yet."

    There you go, I fixed it for you. Lets not accuse the man of trampling on the consitiution, taking away our rights, or any other various bullshit arguments used against him until he’s actually done it, ok?


    IMO, I think that the reasoning expressed by the Nobel Prize Committee was understandable. Obama has been a champion for diplomacy and talking, rather than the "Shoot first, ask questions later" approach taken by the previous administration, and has also been pushing for an end to Nuclear weapons since before he was President. In addition to that, since becoming President, he’s been put in a very powerful position where he actually has the oppurtunity to apply those beliefs in reality. So, yeah, I can see where the Nobel Prize Committee was coming from when they awarded him the Nobel Prize. Granted, I don’t think he quite deserved to win this time around and the award was probably a bit premature, but he was certainly more qualified to win the award than many, many others.

  19. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    yeah, i sort of agree. I don’t think Obama will Never deserve, i have faith that he’ll accomplish something in his 4 years. Just they should have waited till then.

    One poster on Kotaku said he won if for not being Bush, another said “good enough for me”

    A little unfair, but it made me laugh regardless. Although my Grandma agreed with the two of them when i told her.

    The part i don’t like, is how i KNOW his opponents will slam him for this, when he himself had nothing to do with being nominated and chosen. According to my Peace Studies TA (therefore don’t take this 100% true) he had heard when an aid woke Obama up (i guess it was like 6 am when it was revealed) and told him he had won, his reaction was along the lines of “What the hell just happened?”

  20. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Uh…I guess his thoughts…make…sense? Somehow? I can’t make heads or tails of his comment, from what’s posted here.

    My thought: Obama hasn’t DONE anything yet, so I don’t think that he should get a Peace Prize just yet. He was nominated in FEBRUARY, at the very START of his presidency. This is almost as bad as giving Al Gore the Peace Prize…Hell, the reason that was given for why Obama got the freaking prize is basically because the world likes him. Being a nice guy doesn’t make the world much more peaceful…Hell, he probably only got it because he wasn’t a gigantic fool in foreign affairs (at least, not as much as the previous President), and hasn’t tried to strip away (many) personal liberties yet. Yet, he still lets the US bend over for Israel, and wants to send more soldiers to Afghanistan. Really good peace-keeping skills there, bucko. Better than Bush, sure, but worse than I would be…We need to go back to a strict "agressive neutrality," not much unlike Switzerland.

    *Sigh* of course, I’ll have people from both the Republican and Democrat side that have a problem with some part of my post. If it isn’t the "Israel sucks" it’ll be the "Obama doesn’t deserve the prize," or some other minor detail. My point is, he’s only done things for peace that the average politician would’ve done, and it isn’t anything spectacular. It’s a bunch of "let’s focus on something else so I don’t have to do anything large and actually useful" that the world seems to thrive on, even though we’re turning Iraq/Afghanistan into the next Vietnam.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  21. 0
    Sporge says:

    I don’t think you can say he hasn’t done anything yet, he has already done quite a lot as president, but he had a life before he was president where he did a lot for small communities. 

    But even during his presidency he has already been involved in many things, it is hard to decide what he can be given credit for because no president does everything alone, and often other people deservem more credit but never see it.  But as a figurehead of our nation he has done a great job of being seen and helping improve America’s image in other nations.

  22. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Just goes to show how pointless and worthless the Peace Prize is then. *Sigh* Why must even such a prestigious group such as them be controlled and overcome by political hype…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  23. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    True, it should go to those people. But then again i’ve heard ghandi was nominated 5 times and never won, and he’s (as far as i know) who really showed the world what non-violent resistence can acomplish.

  24. 0
    TJLK says:

    I guess Obama was just joking when he said he was going to repeal the patriot act.  Considering he has said he no longer wants to completely repeal it.  I guess its not a lie if you were just joking in the first place…  Or maybe it was just a lie.

    Anyway, In my eyes this award should go to someone who deserved it.  Sima Simar – Womens Rights Activist in Afghanistan.  Receives death threats constantly but still refuses to quit giving women and education and health care.

    Dr. Mukwege (My choice).  He treated over 21,000 women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that suffered brutal sexual assaults and gang rapes.

    If Obama actually acheives his goals I’d say he deserves it AFTER he achieves them.  Nobel Peace Prize shouldn’t be used for political reasons.  It should reward those who have serviced the world.

  25. 0
    KayleL says:

    I think people should stop using Google as a translator for Japanese. It’s so bad that even the most simple phrases could not be translated properly. Babelfish by Yahoo is better, but still not reliable.

Leave a Reply