The Nobel - should we even take it seriously?

[Macfistowannabe]

All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates from 1990-2005

2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

 

[BVS]

Should any award be taken seriously? Grammy, Emmy, Oscar they've all had questionable moments...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Should any award be taken seriously? Grammy, Emmy, Oscar they've all had questionable moments...

I guess you have a point there.

 

[Irvine511]

 

[Dorian Gray]

of the 15 or 16 choices you have there, you've highlighted three I'm guessing you find questionable. Fine, now, eliminate those and look at the others on the list. That should answer your question.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

BUT...

In theory, The Nobel Peace Prize sends a message to the entire world, for better or worse, on who is (supposedly) making the world a safer place to live in.

It matters to the people who follow it, and to the people who are doing whatever it takes in order to earn this badge of merit.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Hi Irvine, what's up?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

of the 15 or 16 choices you have there, you've highlighted three I'm guessing you find questionable. Fine, now, eliminate those and look at the others on the list. That should answer your question.

I bolded those I found the most questionable because they have been given a prize that they don't deserve, in my opinion. I figured it would spark a debate, but oh well.

But many people find the Nobel relevant regardless of who wins it. After looking at the winners, I cannot take it seriously anymore than I take Michael Moore seriously.

 

[verte76]

There's not a perfect award. BVS has a point.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

There's not a perfect award. BVS has a point.

On this I agree, but I take it one step further.

Considering the people who have been given the award, it should be taken as an insult.

 

[verte76]

I know why they gave it to Mikhail Gorbachev. It was the year after the Berlin Wall became history and they thought he deserved some of the credit for not invading Poland or any other Warsaw Pact country. Of course Russia became an absolute hellhole, and the award was very controversial.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I bolded those I found the most questionable because they have been given a prize that they don't deserve, in my opinion

Why didn't Jimmy Carter deserve it?

 

[coemgen]

If we're not going to take it seriously, the alternative would be to not have the award. I don't think that's a good idea.

It should be taken serioulsy, but as it's been said it's not always going to be perfect. The three you highlighted though, what was the reasoning for their awards? Who were the other top candidates?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Why didn't Jimmy Carter deserve it?

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/index.html

"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

Huh?

Peaceful solutions to international conflicts like bribing Kim Jong Il with money so he doesn't build nukes. He built them. Jimmy Carter did not make the world a safer place.

Advancing democracy by allowing more nations to fall to communism. He didn't advance democracy, he defamed it.

Human rights, such as his recent position against abortion?

Economic development? The unemployment rate under Jimmy Carter was hardly any better than France's current unemployment rate.

Social development, sure, if you want evolution indoctrination.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It should be taken serioulsy, but as it's been said it's not always going to be perfect. The three you highlighted though, what was the reasoning for their awards? Who were the other top candidates?

We can start with Ronald Reagan, who ended the Cold War. Apparently his tough talk about the Evil Empire was too hawkish for the NPP?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And then there was Yassir Arafat, a man I despise.

After Forty Years of state-sponsored terrorism, he somehow deserves a prize for Allah knows what.

 

[BVS]

We can start with Ronald Reagan, who ended the Cold War. Apparently his tough talk about the Evil Empire was too hawkish for the NPP?

Oh please for all those strawman arguments you made for Carter, I could make a list twice as long for Reagan and they would have foundation to stand on.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Oh please for all those strawman arguments you made for Carter, I could make a list twice as long for Reagan and they would have foundation to stand on.

So I didn't include how he overthrew the Shah of Iran. Now we have Ahmadinejad financing the destruction of Israel.

If you'd like me to go on, BVS, I'm game.

 

[verte76]

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/index.html

Huh?

Peaceful solutions to international conflicts like bribing Kim Jong Il with money so he doesn't build nukes. He built them. Jimmy Carter did not make the world a safer place.

Advancing democracy by allowing more nations to fall to communism. He didn't advance democracy, he defamed it.

Human rights, such as his recent position against abortion?

Economic development? The unemployment rate under Jimmy Carter was hardly any better than France's current unemployment rate.

Social development, sure, if you want evolution indoctrination.

He wasn't the best president, true, but he's done some pretty cool things since leaving office, like raising money to fight disease in Africa. I think he deserved the Prize. In effect, he's served his second term, just in a different way.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

He wasn't the best president, true, but he's done some pretty cool things since leaving office, like raising money to fight disease in Africa.

Jimmy Carter has a great heart, and I admire him for it. but at the same time, it's his brain that puts lives in danger.

 

[BVS]

If you'd like me to go on, BVS, I'm game.

I think you're missing the point.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think you're missing the point.

Maybe it's just you.

I've cited many examples on how some of the winners should be stripped of their recognition for "peace-making."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe GWB should be nominated, after all his brain has never put any lives in danger. He's a prince of peace.

 

[BVS]

Maybe it's just you.

I've cited many examples on how some of the winners should be stripped of their recognition for "peace-making."

Obviously many many people disagree with you. Yet you offered Reagan?! Very comical.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Maybe GWB should be nominated, after all his brain has never put any lives in danger. He's a prince of peace.

Or just rename it to the Nobel Inaction Prize.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Obviously many many people disagree with you. Yet you offered Reagan?! Very comical.

How so?

If he served as long as FDR, we wouldn't have totalitarianist oppression in many more countries.

True, he did wage wars, but for many of them, the end result was peace in regions where he stepped in.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Maybe GWB should be nominated, after all his brain has never put any lives in danger. He's a prince of peace.

I remember this being a joke on the Conan O'Brien show (or Leno, I can't remember). If I remember correctly, he was nominated.

 

[verte76]

I protested Reagan's Central American policies. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Fortunately George Bush saw the light and they had a democratic election in Nicaragua, won by the conservative Sandinista opponents. They'd done a few nasty undemocratic things.

 

[BVS]

How so?

If he served as long as FDR, we wouldn't have totalitarianist oppression in many more countries.

True, he did wage wars, but for many of them, the end result was peace in regions where he stepped in.

His inaction did a lot for the spread of AIDS in America. And his administration played a huge part in the amount of nuclear arms in the world today.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I protested Reagan's Central American policies. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Fortunately George Bush saw the light and they had a democratic election in Nicaragua, won by the conservative Sandinista opponents. They'd done a few nasty undemocratic things.

Keyword: many.

Not all.