Re: Nobel Peace Prize Cheaped?

by doremi Fri 09 Oct 2009, 19:35

Disgraceful really. It's not exactly Kissinger getting the Nobel, but it's still a joke. And I too hope Obama turns it down.

by taipan Fri 09 Oct 2009, 19:40

holcs wrote:That has just woofed this thread.

Just wait taips!! Watch the backlash!

Still waiting

by furriner Fri 09 Oct 2009, 19:54

Allan D wrote:Can't resist coming on board with this, to the no doubt widespread dismay of those who have posted hitherto. Maybe this was to make up for the IOC rebuffing Obama in Copenhagen and kicking Chicago out in the first round. At least Barack and Michelle get another free trip to Scandinavia.

This does make the award a laughing-stock but it is part of a pattern -

Jimmy Carter - 2002 (the Prez who praised the Shah of Iran as "one of the world's finest living statesmen")
Al Gore - 2007 (for making a film that even a UK High Court judge said was shot through with inaccuracies)
and now His Holiness Obama.

Get the picture? Win the Democratic nomination for the US Presidency and you're a hot tip to get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

John Kerry must be wondering what he did to offend the Norwegians although I agree with Orrin Hatch (a Republican Senator, natch) who said that Bill Clinton (and George Bush Snr) for running a foundation that has distributed over a billion dollars in relief aid for natural disasters all over the world.

The idea that Obama should be given the Peace Prize as an "incentive" doesn't seem to wash very well either. Should the Nobel Prize for Medicine be given as an "incentive" to find the cure for cancer or given when the cure has actually been discovered? Einstein had to wait until 1921 to get his Nobel Prize even though he had first developed his relativity theory 16 years earlier. No wonder the Swedes didn't want to touch the awarding of the Peace Prize with a bargepole, seeing it as overtly political and handing it over to the Norwegian Parliament.

The track record on incumbent US Presidents who have been given the NPP is hardly a good one. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most bellicose of US Presidents who, as Assistant Navy Secretary, ordered the US fleet to the Phillipines whilst his immediate boss, the Navy Secretary and President McKinley were away for the weekend, thereby precipitating the Spanish-American War of 1898, got his award for the Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire) in 1905 ending the Russo-Japanese War. The Treaty blatantly favoured Japan (who showed no gratitude to the US 36 years later) and even Roosevelt admitted that it was largely the work of his Secretary of War and Acting Secretary of State (and TR's successor as President), William Howard Taft, who deserved the prize more than he did.

The second incumbent POTUS to receive the award was Woodrow Wilson, who was considered in Europe in the same terms of mindless adoration after WWI that Obama is now. He received his award for presiding over the Paris Peace Conference which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI. As far as I remember that didn't work out too well as far as achieving a lasting peace in the world and many believe it contributed somewhat to hostilities breaking out twenty years later.

Certainly the award didn't impress Wilson's opponents in Congress who refused to ratify the Treaty and excluded the US from membership of Wilson's brainchild, the League of Nations, turning it into a lame duckfrom the outset. Obama's award doesn't seem to have impressed Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Taliban or Kim-Jong-Il, either. So much for the "incentive".

Rather an irony that the award comes on the same day that Obama is considering, with his National Security Council, whether to send 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. Still it will be a comfort to the GIs as they go into action that their Commander-in-Chief is a Peace Prize recipient.

I always thought the comparisons, when he came into office, with FDR and JFK were absurd and overblown. I see now that many on the US left are making comparisons with another Democratic President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who also pushed health reform and many other worthy domestic reform measures through Congress, but is now chiefly remembered for being caught up in the quagmire of an overseas war he inherited from his predecessor. I hope, for Obama's sake, that this analogy does not ring true. After all, having received the Peace Prize, it would be a shame if the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee were to ask him to give it back.

My nomination for the Peace Prize - the Iranian people. If the world had listened to them (the Chosen One said they were "having a vigorous debate" when they were being shot, beaten and arrested in the street) last summer and if they had got their way and elected a government that was at least moderately accountable to them instead of the mad mullahs currently in charge we all might find it much easier to sleep safely in our beds.

Outside of Carter, and the mad Mullahs in Iran bit, I agree. Shocked

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:10

Obama's Reaction to Winning the Nobel Prize
By Barack Obama
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.
After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."
And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."
So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.
We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.
And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.
I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.
These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.
But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much.

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:14

Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI.

One of the smartest things I've heard about that came from a French Army officer who was a delegate's aid at the conference.

After it had been signed he said "This isn't a treaty, it's a truce that won't last twenty years."

He got it right almost to the day.

by Basil Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:16

He had to spoil it with the world looking to America bit.

by taipan Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:18

Allan D wrote:
Obama's Reaction to Winning the Nobel Prize
By Barack Obama
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.
After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."
And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."
So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.
We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.
And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.
I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.
These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.
But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much.

FFS Jay we need a puke icon

Now

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:19

Outside of Carter, and the mad Mullahs in Iran bit, I agree.

Aye Carter should've got it in '78 instead of a convicted terrorist and a quasi dictator.

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:55

Bradman wrote:Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI.

One of the smartest things I've heard about that came from a French Army officer who was a delegate's aid at the conference.

After it had been signed he said "This isn't a treaty, it's a truce that won't last twenty years."

He got it right almost to the day.

I always thought it was Marshal Foch, the Allied C-in-C, who said that, or rather (en francais):

This is not a Treaty, but an armistice for twenty years.

which made it rather more accurate, although it lasted slightly longer than 20 years as the treaty was signed on 28 June 1919 and Hitler invaded Poland (thus triggerring WWII in Europe) on 1 September 1939, thus making it a truce of 20 years 65 days.

Contrary to popular myth, Foch was complaining that Versailles was too lenient not too severe. The problem with Versailles was that it was never enforced. Germany ceased paying reparations in 1930 (3 years before Hitler took power) and the disarmament clauses which limited the German Army to a force of 100,000 for the purposes of maintaining internal order and forbade Germany from either developing a Navy or an Air Force were disregarded from the outset. Winston Churchill, in an article, Hitler and His Choice, which he wrote in 1934 stated:

I have always laid down the doctrine that the redress of the grievances of the vanquished should precede the disarmament of the victors.

As he went on to point out, the opposite applied in the period following Versailles with Germany re-arming as fast as the Allies disarmed, with the process only being timidly reversed (at least in Britain) beginning in 1935.

Also it should be remembered the two of the Axis Powers in WWII, Italy and Japan, were on the Allied side in WWI and benefitted from the Paris Peace onference with Italy acquiring the German-speaking South Tyrol from the broken remnants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Japan acquiring the Marianas Islands, a former German colony in the Pacific. Needless to say, Hitler exempted both these acquisitions from his demand for a 'Greater Germany', comprising all the German-speaking parts of Europe, and from his demand for the return of Germany's former overseas territories.

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 20:59

I think you might be right on the wording of the quote but i'm sure it was an Army officer (relatively junior at that) and not Foch who said it.

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:03

Bradman wrote:Outside of Carter, and the mad Mullahs in Iran bit, I agree.

Aye Carter should've got it in '78 instead of a convicted terrorist and a quasi dictator.

Pity he spoilt it by coddling a full-blown (as opposed to quasi-) dictator as here:

Carter handshake

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:08

Bradman wrote:I think you might be right on the wording of the quote but i'm sure it was an Army officer (relatively junior at that) and not Foch who said it.

You may be right, Bradders, but the history books seem to give the credit for the quote to Foch as here:

The Treaty of Versailles and Its Consequences

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:16

Allan D wrote:
Bradman wrote:I think you might be right on the wording of the quote but i'm sure it was an Army officer (relatively junior at that) and not Foch who said it.

You may be right, Bradders, but the history books seem to give the credit for the quote to Foch as here:

The Treaty of Versailles and Its Consequences

Well I could argue that Foch was a French Army officer (though not relatively junior) but it was always told to me as coming from an aide (Maybe Foch's). Let's face it it wouldn't be the first time a politician has ripped stuff off. Having written speeches for them in my short and last role as a public servant I guarantee most of them couldn't string two words together without help.

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:19

Allan D wrote:
Bradman wrote:Outside of Carter, and the mad Mullahs in Iran bit, I agree.

Aye Carter should've got it in '78 instead of a convicted terrorist and a quasi dictator.

Pity he spoilt it by coddling a full-blown (as opposed to quasi-) dictator as here:

Carter handshake

Would you rather he'd shaked Khomeni's hand? Actually I think the US gave tacit approval to the overthrow. Something about a state dept official coming back from Paris and saying Khomeni was a saint.

Mind you the US have a history of backing rebels to overthrow dictators only to end up with egg on their face.

by eowyn Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:29

Who cares? Men have ****** up the world always and forever and you will keep doing so. Sadly there are some women who think that by becoming just like you the world will be a better place.

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:33

But where would you be without us.

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:34

Bradman wrote:
Allan D wrote:
Bradman wrote:Outside of Carter, and the mad Mullahs in Iran bit, I agree.

Aye Carter should've got it in '78 instead of a convicted terrorist and a quasi dictator.

Pity he spoilt it by coddling a full-blown (as opposed to quasi-) dictator as here:

Carter handshake

Would you rather he'd shaked Khomeni's hand? Actually I think the US gave tacit approval to the overthrow. Something about a state dept official coming back from Paris and saying Khomeni was a saint.

Mind you the US have a history of backing rebels to overthrow dictators only to end up with egg on their face.

I agree with the last part - Castro being a classic example. As far as Iran is concerned Carter's mistake was to hang onto Pahlavi for far too long as "an island of stability" until the only alternative was Khomeini. The one who really got screwed was Bakhtiar and those who supported a democratic alternative.

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:37

eowyn wrote:Sadly there are some women who think that by becoming just like you the world will be a better place.

Boadicea? Joan of Arc? Elizabeth I? Catherine the Great? Mrs Ghandhi? Mrs T? queen

by taipan Fri 09 Oct 2009, 21:47

Allan D wrote:
eowyn wrote:Sadly there are some women who think that by becoming just like you the world will be a better place.

Boadicea? Joan of Arc? Elizabeth I? Catherine the Great? Mrs Ghandhi? Mrs T?

Caster Semenya?

by Bradman Fri 09 Oct 2009, 22:03

I noticed it was a woman in command at mission control when we tried to blow up the moon late last night.

by Allan D Fri 09 Oct 2009, 22:11

taipan wrote:
Allan D wrote:
eowyn wrote:Sadly there are some women who think that by becoming just like you the world will be a better place.

Boadicea? Joan of Arc? Elizabeth I? Catherine the Great? Mrs Ghandhi? Mrs T?

Caster Semenya?

Who he? - ED. sherlock

by footwork Sun 11 Oct 2009, 21:37

FWIW, have just learned that apparently nominations for Nobel prizes close Feb 1. Barack Obama was inaugurated for the second time on Jan 22. He'd been in Office less than two weeks when nominated.

Speaking of women who should be allowed to help run this sorry world, Aung San Suu Kyi is a worthy NPP recipient, who at 60something is still under house arrest, after almost twenty years. Nobel Peace Prize Cheaped? - Page 2 Kopfschuettel

Nobel Peace Prize Cheaped? - Page 2 Kopfschuettel

by Allan D Sun 11 Oct 2009, 22:07

According to Nobel's will the Peace Prize was designed to be given to:

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Alfred Nobel's Will

Difficult to see how Obama fits in with that but let's be generous. It was also Nobel's idea (despite the fact that he was Swedish) that the Peace Prize (unlike the others which are awarded by the relevant Swedish Academy) should be awarded by "five persons appointed by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament)" (not the Parliament itself).

However it should be pointed out that Norway was then a part of Sweden, although it had its own Parliament, and didn't become an independent country until 1905, 9 years after Nobel died and 4 years after the first prizes had been awarded. Nobel might have thought that the Norwegians would be less susceptible to international pressure in making their awards than the Swedes (although the present award smacks of "political correctness") but also the Storting was involved in the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which had been set up not only to promote democracy but also anti-militarism.

Although the nominees are kept secret for 50 years previous unsuccessful nominees have included Adolf Hitler (in 1939!), although swiftly withdrawn, Benito Mussolini and Josef Stalin. Winners of course have included Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat.

I was astonished to learn that Jonas Salk, who developed the first anti-polio vaccine, was never awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Regarding the Peace Prize I was wondering who ought to have won it but didn't. My nominees would be Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II for their part in bringing about the end of the Cold War and at a lower level Group Captain Leonard Cheshire V.C. and his wife, Sue Ryder, for their welfare work not only in this country but throughout Europe after WWII in bringing about reconciliation.

by taipan Mon 12 Oct 2009, 07:05

Of course Cheshire was on the plane that dropped one of the 2 atomic bombs during WW2. Some might say that brought peace about.

by Josh Carney Mon 12 Oct 2009, 07:27

Laughing stock really. If they wanted to give to to a black man then even somebody like Bill Cosby is more deserving.

The only thing this will do is to make Obama an even bigger tall poppy that people will want to mow down.

by Sponsored content