[insha]

Just came across this while browsing. Bush nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

WTF is going on here? What next? They are going to hand a peace prize to Saddam?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by insha:
Just came across this while browsing. Bush nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

WTF is going on here? What next? They are going to hand a peace prize to Saddam?

A cow with 'no bell' prize.

[jonn804]

IMHO... both bush (with a little 'b and the pope are both idiots.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by insha:
Just came across this while browsing. Bush nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

WTF is going on here? What next? They are going to hand a peace prize to Saddam?

Let's see here...

If the choice is to award the prize to either the man who oppressed 25 million people OR the man who gave 25 million people a chance at freedom - I have a pretty good idea who I would choose.

It certainly shouldn't be awarded to the peacenik weenies who move their lips and warm their chairs - and make no effort otherwise.

You can't fail if you don't try. Of course, you can't succeed, either.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quoted from SpliffDaddy:

It certainly shouldn't be awarded to the peacenik weenies who move their lips and warm their chairs - and make no effort otherwise.
__________________________________

Of course, you were at the forefront of their liberation from the beginning...

And you were in the streets of your city to yell your opposition when your government made deals with Saddam for your benefits.


Thank you for your participation...

[gadster]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Let's see here...

If the choice is to award the prize to either the man who oppressed 25 million people OR the man who gave 25 million people a chance at freedom - I have a pretty good idea who I would choose.

It certainly shouldn't be awarded to the peacenik weenies who move their lips and warm their chairs - and make no effort otherwise.

You can't fail if you don't try. Of course, you can't succeed, either.

You just don't get it do you, Spliffdaddy? You can't impose democracy. Democracy grows its own roots and takes root deeply, slowly. It's not a thing that can be spread like Amway. It is an organic process: frustratingly slow, but inexorable and comfortably permanent, given it's own good time.

[alien]

Originally posted by insha:
Just came across this while browsing. Bush nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

WTF is going on here? What next? They are going to hand a peace prize to Saddam?

Relax. Read this part over again:

Lundestad said thousands of people, including member of any national legislature or government and many university professors, have nomination rights, so being proposed for the prize is no distinction in itself.

"It's easy to get nominated for the prize, but very hard to win," he said.

Lundestad said he had received thousands of e-mails protesting the nomination of Bush and Blair, for example.

"There is a common misunderstanding. The fact that someone is nominated is in no way a form of endorsement from the committee," Lundestad said.

MPs can nominate whoever they want to. This time an independent Norwegian MP nominated Bush and Blair. But the committee consists of members from the full political spectrum, including three from parties that strongly opposed the war.

There's about a zero chance that Bush will win. (Of course, if he succeeds in negotiating a peace deal or similar this could change. But negotiators seldom win, Pres. Carter being an exception.)

[rezonate]

Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize?
God is most definitely a comedian.

[DeathToWindows]

the fates have a saidistc sense of humor

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Let's see here...

If the choice is to award the prize to either the man who oppressed 25 million people OR the man who gave 25 million people a chance at freedom - I have a pretty good idea who I would choose.

It certainly shouldn't be awarded to the peacenik weenies who move their lips and warm their chairs - and make no effort otherwise.

You can't fail if you don't try. Of course, you can't succeed, either.

PEACE Price. There's a reason why you call us Peaceniks ... we seek peace not war. Bush is a "War" President, not a peace President.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Bush is a "War" President, not a peace President.

[vmarks]

Arafat, the man who invented bus-bombing and airplane hijacking, was awarded the Peace Prize. After that, no nominee can suprise me.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Arafat, the man who invented bus-bombing and airplane hijacking, was awarded the Peace Prize. After that, no nominee can suprise me.

Difference being, at the time, Arafat shunned violence, and turned away from it to further the peace process. Bush doesn't.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by rezonate:
Difference being, at the time, Arafat shunned violence, and turned away from it to further the peace process. Bush doesn't.

Ah, but it seems that was only his position for the the rest of the world. Back at home, he continued to wage violence and terror. So instead, the Nobel committee awards dishonesty.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ah, but it seems that was only his position for the the rest of the world. Back at home, he continued to wage violence and terror. So instead, the Nobel committee awards dishonesty.

Not at the time from the perspective of the prize committee. The commitee can't predict what a person will do in the future. He, for all anyone knows, was honourable in committing to abandoning violence, which is why He was awarded the prize.

[Monique]

I would much prefer to see Mr. Blair win the Noble prize. He had the courage to go against the Serbs and then against Hussain. And many other things like terrorism. I do not think that Mr. Blair went to war lightly and just woke up one morning and said here we go it would be fun to go to war today nobody does.

[FeLiZeCaT]

I do not trust Blair one bit...

That man needs to clean house..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...147271,00.html

quote:

"The failure of leading British companies to make real headway in Iraq is a sensitive issue for Mr Blair and the government, which had to struggle to win domestic political support for the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Making billions of pounds out of the rebuilding would provide some kind of financial compensation for Britain standing side by side with America during the assault."

[gadster]

Originally posted by Monique:
I would much prefer to see Mr. Blair win the Noble prize. He had the courage to go against the Serbs and then against Hussain. And many other things like terrorism. I do not think that Mr. Blair went to war lightly and just woke up one morning and said here we go it would be fun to go to war today nobody does.

Oooo, naïve. Nice.

You think she's naive, leave it at that. You other comment was completely inappropriate.

[gadster]

Originally posted by gadster:
Oooo, naïve. Nice.

You think she's naive, leave it at that. You other comment was completely inappropriate.

Fair enough. Sorry Monique.

[saab95]

Originally posted by insha:
Just came across this while browsing. Bush nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

Sure, why not? Arafat has one in his trophy case, so why not Bush?

WTF is going on here? What next? They are going to hand a peace prize to Saddam?

If Jimmy Carter can win one so can anyone else.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Let's see here...

If the choice is to award the prize to either the man who oppressed 25 million people OR the man who gave 25 million people a chance at freedom

I would nominate him for the Houdini Award.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Anybody can be nominated, it's not like it's being taken very seriously.

But do keep something in mind - Jimmy Carter won the Peace Prize for his work on supposedly singlehandedly defusing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Not long after he was awarded the prize, North Korea revealed they were lying the whole time and simply kept developing their weapons program in secret. Should Carter's peace prize be revoked, considering his achievement turned out to be founded on lies? It's not his fault, per se, but the amount of arrogance displayed in believing that he really convinced Kim to stop building nukes was pretty laughable.. almost as laughable as the whole premise of Iraq's WMDs as a reason for invasion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Anybody can be nominated, it's not like it's being taken very seriously.

But do keep something in mind - Jimmy Carter won the Peace Prize for his work on supposedly singlehandedly defusing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Not long after he was awarded the prize, North Korea revealed they were lying the whole time and simply kept developing their weapons program in secret. Should Carter's peace prize be revoked, considering his achievement turned out to be founded on lies? It's not his fault, per se, but the amount of arrogance displayed in believing that he really convinced Kim to stop building nukes was pretty laughable.. almost as laughable as the whole premise of Iraq's WMDs as a reason for invasion.

Sequentially, I believe that Carter was nominated well after his nuke deal with North Korea was publicly revealed to be an abject failure. I don't believe that was the express reason he was given the award. Nor was it the real reason. Comments made by committee members just after the award was announced indicate that the reason Carter was given the award was really to deliver a public slap to the incumbent president. In other words, Carter didn't win it for anything he actually did. He simply represented the anti-Bush to the nominating committee. Having lived through Carter's hapless presidency, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Arafat, the man who invented bus-bombing and airplane hijacking, was awarded the Peace Prize. After that, no nominee can suprise me.

Arafat didn't have Itzhak Rabin killed. Jew nutcases took care of that.

There aren't just two sides in this conflict.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sequentially, I believe that Carter was nominated well after his nuke deal with North Korea was publicly revealed to be an abject failure. I don't believe that was the express reason he was given the award. Nor was it the real reason. Comments made by committee members just after the award was announced indicate that the reason Carter was given the award was really to deliver a public slap to the incumbent president. In other words, Carter didn't win it for anything he actually did. He simply represented the anti-Bush to the nominating committee. Having lived through Carter's hapless presidency, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

Where do you get this NK thing from?

Here's the official press release from the Nobel. And keep the spinning to a minimum, OK?

The Nobel Peace Prize 2002


The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, 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.


During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.


Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.


In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.

from here

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sequentially, I believe that Carter was nominated well after his nuke deal with North Korea was publicly revealed to be an abject failure. I don't believe that was the express reason he was given the award. Nor was it the real reason. Comments made by committee members just after the award was announced indicate that the reason Carter was given the award was really to deliver a public slap to the incumbent president. In other words, Carter didn't win it for anything he actually did. He simply represented the anti-Bush to the nominating committee. Having lived through Carter's hapless presidency, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

Don't forget to wear the tin-foil hat at all times Simey

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Where do you get this NK thing from?

Here's the official press release from the Nobel. And keep the spinning to a minimum, OK?



from here

That's just what I said. He wasn't given it for North Korea.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's just what I said. He wasn't given it for North Korea.

Ooops Sorry.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here's the official press release from the Nobel. And keep the spinning to a minimum, OK?

Simey was right on with regards to Carter's award being influenced by the committee's anti-Bush views. The chairman of the Nobel Committee stated as much during the Nobel Peace Prize announcement:

Friday's announcement that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize represents a pointed challenge to the unilateralist foreign policy advocated by rightwing hawks in the Bush administration.

While the announcement itself cited Carter's "vital contribution" to the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt – one of the stellar achievements of Carter's four-year tenure (1977-1981) – as well as his subsequent peace-making and human rights activities, the criticism of the Bush regime was implicit in its wording.

Reading out the announcement written by the five-person Nobel Committee, Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik said, "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

But the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, was far more direct in his statements to the press. He said the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Simey was right on with regards to Carter's award being influenced by the committee's anti-Bush views. The chairman of the Nobel Committee stated as much during the Nobel Peace Prize announcement:

Please stop this anti-Bush and anti-USA BS. It was probably influenced by the commitee's(and most of the world's) dislike of the current policy the US administration follows in international relations. Two very different things. But if it makes you feel better I'm sure you could spin that into being some rampant anti-Bush/anti-USA BS.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please stop this anti-Bush and anti-USA BS. It was probably influenced by the commitee's(and most of the world's) dislike of the current policy the US administration follows in international relations. Two very different things. But if it makes you feel better I'm sure you could spin that into being some rampant anti-Bush/anti-USA BS.

Wait a moment. Doesn't that strike you that animus toward an unreleated third party is an odd reason to give an individual award or honor? Certainly it diminishes the value of the award to the recipient. Suppose you won a prize and then was told that you didn't win it because of you, but really only because the award committee wanted someone else to feel bad. That wouldn't be much of an honor, would it?

IMHO, the Nobel committee did themselves, Carter, and the Peace Prize, grave disservice by going public with their political motivations. If you are going to manipulate awards so cynically, for heavens sake don't say so!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wait a moment. Doesn't that strike you that animus toward an unreleated third party is an odd reason to give an individual award or honor? Certainly it diminishes the value of the award to the recipient. Suppose you won a prize and then was told that you didn't win it because of you, but really only because the award committee wanted someone else to feel bad. That wouldn't be much of an honor, would it?

IMHO, the Nobel committee did themselves, Carter, and the Peace Prize, grave disservice by going public with their political motivations. If you are going to manipulate awards so cynically, for heavens sake don't say so!

Hmmm... I don't read that article to the same conclusion that you do, necessarily....

I read ""should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." ---- as more of a "now that we've given the award to someone doing the right thing, those doing the wrong thing should learn from that" I did not understand that to necessarily mean those were the criteria for the decision to give it to Carter, but rather that once the decision was made, the current administration should take note of the criteria for winning the award.

I can see how if you have a predisposed notion to see anti-Bushism under every tinfoil hat, to see it everywhere, and I agree that I think that one individual IS anti-Bush in regards to having disdain for his disastrous foreign policy....as many others also do.
But I think its a knee jerk reaction to presume that means that was the criteria for the award...giving it to "anyone but Bush". I think if you reread the two paragraphs together:

Reading out the announcement written by the five-person Nobel Committee, Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik said, "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

But the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, was far more direct in his statements to the press. He said the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

That you'll see the chairman is making a point by contrast. He's saying essentially "Here is the behaviour we are giving an award to honor. Note how it is directly opposed to the current policy." That does NOT mean, to me, that they are awarding it to Carter arbitrarily to punish Bush, but rather that Carter actually deserves it for reasons A, B, C. and therefore, since Bush is 180 degrees opposite reasons A, B, C, maybe he'll see that and take notice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Hmmm... I don't read that article to the same conclusion that you do, necessarily....

I read ""should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." ---- as more of a "now that we've given the award to someone doing the right thing, those doing the wrong thing should learn from that" I did not understand that to necessarily mean those were the criteria for the decision to give it to Carter, but rather that once the decision was made, the current administration should take note of the criteria for winning the award.

I can see how if you have a predisposed notion to see anti-Bushism under every tinfoil hat, to see it everywhere, and I agree that I think that one individual IS anti-Bush in regards to having disdain for his disastrous foreign policy....as many others also do.
But I think its a knee jerk reaction to presume that means that was the criteria for the award...giving it to "anyone but Bush". I think if you reread the two paragraphs together:



That you'll see the chairman is making a point by contrast. He's saying essentially "Here is the behaviour we are giving an award to honor. Note how it is directly opposed to the current policy." That does NOT mean, to me, that they are awarding it to Carter arbitrarily to punish Bush, but rather that Carter actually deserves it for reasons A, B, C. and therefore, since Bush is 180 degrees opposite reasons A, B, C, maybe he'll see that and take notice.

You seem to be reading the editorial commentary rather than the direct quotes. The pertinent part is: But the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, was far more direct in his statements to the press. He said the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

Even if you interpret this to mean that the comparison never occured to the committee until after they had selected Carter -- which I regard as highly unlikely given that Carter had been out of office 23 years -- Berge still shouldn't say that. It definately suggests that Carter's award was merely a means to an end. That devalues the award to Carter, and discredits the award in general. It's not a peace prize, it's a deliver a political jab, prize.

[alien]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sequentially, I believe that Carter was nominated well after his nuke deal with North Korea was publicly revealed to be an abject failure. I don't believe that was the express reason he was given the award. Nor was it the real reason. Comments made by committee members just after the award was announced indicate that the reason Carter was given the award was really to deliver a public slap to the incumbent president. In other words, Carter didn't win it for anything he actually did. He simply represented the anti-Bush to the nominating committee. Having lived through Carter's hapless presidency, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

Those comments you mentioned were made by the leader of the committee at that time, when asked by journalists after the announcement. It's a mistake to take that as the opinion of the committee as a whole. As I said in another thread, the committee has members from several political parties, more or less covering the political spectrum here in Norway.

One of the persons (then and now) on the committee is from the right-wing Progress Party. (The only party fully supporting the invasion of Iraq.) She publicly denouced the comments, saying she was very sorry they were made. In fact, another member, a Socialist, also said those comments had to be on his behalf only.

So that's the story. Carter got the prize for everything he has achieved, and he's been a strong candidate that has been mentioned by commentators here for many years now. I sure didn't like those comments, but I leave it there and think Carter deserved the prize like few others!

(BTW, it's an awarding committee. Nominations come from a lot of persons all over the world. )

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You seem to be reading the editorial commentary rather than the direct quotes. The pertinent part is: But the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, was far more direct in his statements to the press. He said the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

Even if you interpret this to mean that the comparison never occured to the committee until after they had selected Carter -- which I regard as highly unlikely given that Carter had been out of office 23 years -- Berge still shouldn't say that. It definately suggests that Carter's award was merely a means to an end. That devalues the award to Carter, and discredits the award in general. It's not a peace prize, it's a deliver a political jab, prize.

You're not really understanding what I said. In fact, we agree on one point: I pointed out that one person expressed their own political views. Where we differ is that you make the quantum leap assumption that that means the entire committee based their decision on that one person's criteria, and I'm not going to assume that. I also went further to say that what he said does not indicate any criteria used for the decision, only how he felt the impact of the award should be felt.

but this is the last time I'll try to correct you, since that always gets into a useless spiral. I know what I said, and what I meant. I hope you can understand that, but if you don't, that's ok, too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by alien:
Those comments you mentioned were made by the leader of the committee at that time, when asked by journalists after the announcement. It's a mistake to take that as the opinion of the committee as a whole. As I said in another thread, the committee has members from several political parties, more or less covering the political spectrum here in Norway.

One of the persons (then and now) on the committee is from the right-wing Progress Party. (The only party fully supporting the invasion of Iraq.) She publicly denouced the comments, saying she was very sorry they were made. In fact, another member, a Socialist, also said those comments had to be on his behalf only.

So that's the story. Carter got the prize for everything he has achieved, and he's been a strong candidate that has been mentioned by commentators here for many years now. I sure didn't like those comments, but I leave it there and think Carter deserved the prize like few others!

(BTW, it's an awarding committee. Nominations come from a lot of persons all over the world. )

Ok, I can accept that. This buffoon misrepresented what the committee decided the award upon. That certainly changes things.

I guess this is a lesson. When an award is decided behind closed doors, as this is, one member of the committee shouldn't speak without clarifying whether he is speaking for himself or the committee. The words he used certainly read like he was speaking for the commitee "this should be interpreted as . . ." It's hardly surprising that his words were taken at face value.

Thank you for restoring a little of my faith in the Nobel prize. Now, if only they would withdraw their award to Arafat.

[typoon]

Originally posted by rezonate:
Difference being, at the time, Arafat shunned violence, and turned away from it to further the peace process. Bush doesn't.

If they can give it to Arafat they can give it to anyone. If he shunned the violence at that time how come he didn't to ANYTHING to stop/curb the violence? Apparently he didn't shun it enough. You are right about one thing Arafat DID turn away from it to worsen any peace prospects. He WAS given MORE than he was asking during Oslo and the Camp David Accord and he DIDN'T take it. Nice way to further the peace

After they gave it to Arafat I lost all resepct for what that award means/meant.