Printable View
The Noble-price for peace already was a joke, but it truly goes to lengths to make it even more rediculous. The EU was rewarded/granted/biddedfor/bought the Noble Price of peace. I am looking forward to the moment where I get to see the amazed looks of those who award it when they realise it's real status
The traitors at the head of the EU will one be found hung from lamposts: Give them the prize, it won't save them from the mob.
Which would be a pity we can use those organsQuote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
To be fair, it is unusual for the larger countries in Europe to go for this long without attacking each other. If Adams can be given the peace prize for killing less people, why not?
Apparently the wars in Iraq / Afghanistan / what was Yugoslavia / Falklands / Lybia and so on don't count.
~:smoking:
It's called the "Nobel Peace Prize".
This has got to be the least surprising prizes ever. Uncontroversial and a proper job from Jagland. Now, if he could only learn to speak English....
Gawd I know that, your sense of humour is screaming for youQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Start writing better jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Also, I find it extremely funny how many people hint to corruption and such. Ah well, it's just the anti-EU folks, and fortunately their opinions are irrelevant to the world.
That your kind understands, can't do. Hardcore lefties have no sense of humour, it's gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It's questionable to give these prizes to institutions, rather than actual persons.
That said, it's still better than the one they gave to Obama right after his inauguration :shrug:
Which organizations are you referring to? The Red Cross? Medicines sans frontiers? Nansens refugee organization? The comittee to ban landmines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Also, Obama had been president for almost a year when it was awarded. And he had certainly more concrete results than Liu Xiaobo, for example, who had zero accomplishments, yet was universally applauded(and rightfully so).
Those are good organisations; once you accept that nobel prizes can go to organisations and not just persons than most of those would deserve one at one point or another. And the EU probably deserves one too.
He had been in office for a while when it was actually awarded, but at the time he was nominated he hadn't basicly done anything of note. AFAIK it was more about his commitment to diplomacy than any material accomplishments.
Several of the early prizes went to organizations, the prize makes no distinction between organizations and individuals. Also, several of the individuals who got the prize have been given it because of their position/work for an organization(like Liu Xiaobo who got it for charter 08).
The time of the nomination for Obama's peace prize is a hangup rooted, unfortunately, in ignorance of how the comittee works. It's not your actions prior to the nomination that's important, it's your actions after the nomination, right up until today.
And yes, Obama got his prize for his commitment to diplomacy, or in other words, on the same grounds Liu Xiaobo got his.
So then why not give it to Assad to encourage him to find a way to make peace? Or maybe Putin?
And why is it different than all the other Nobel Prizes which award past behavior?
It's almost as hilarious as Kissinger getting it.
What? If Assad had been nominated(he wasn't, so can't get the prize) in february, and then spent his time between february and october dismantling his dictatorship and unifying a new democratic Syria, then he would've been an obvious winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
But I think you confused "nomination"(start of the year) with "being awarded"(today).
You are also confused about the mission of the prize. It is not an award given to those who have made peace, but rather an award which should itself promote and create peace. The perfect prize is not that which rewards an outstanding accomplishment, but the one which gives the forces of peace the leverage they need in order to reach a peaceful solution to a situation(think Aung San Suu Kyi).
Fair enough. So... What initiatives did the EU do during this period that so wowed the panel? That so far only a few people have died from rioting in the EU as opposed to war breaking out?
~:smoking:
Jagland highlighted the following specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
- unification of Germany
- inclusion of Spain
- inclusion of the balkans
- the eastern expansion
As well as general stuff about democracy and human rights.
The EU didn't unify Germany.
Inclusion of Spain - politically OK. Economically not so great
Inclusion of the Balkans - as always a trip into the mire.
Eastern Expansion - Made the EU massively unweildly politically
I do not see how, barring Spain, any of the others how the EU has prevented wars / caused peace. The USSR and the USA brandishing nukes did most of this - but perhaps not such a nice fairy story.
~:smoking:
Thirty years too late vis Spain.
That the USA and the USSR were by far the biggest players left in 1946 doesn't mean that the "midgets" France and west Germany couldn't still have a brawl between the two of them. The coal and steal community created a forum where countries could make shared decisions about natural recources and general economic policy. It ended Germany's exclusion from the world theatre as a pariah state. The ECSC and successors undeniably did stabilise Europe. Being hemmed in by two superpowers was an important motivation to pursue stability and European cooperation - I'd hesistate to label it a "cause".Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Eastern Europe - look at the various conflicts these countries waged between years 1918 and 1938. It's an extremely unstable region that was only kept in line by Austro/German/Russian domination and later on by Soviet repression. These tensions were anything but resolved in 1991, in fact they still manifest them today on occasion. Since 1991 it's been largely quite though because these countries all wanted to enter the EU, and the EU frowns upon use of force to settle petty border disputes.
Come on guys.
This is a discussion we have every year.
It is Norway’s only chance to get noticed and if it makes no sense at all people will talk about it longer.
On the other hand, Nobel gave the easiest prize to award to the Norwegians. They didn’t need to actually study anything or do any reading. All they had to do was play Santa Claus and decide who was naughty and who was nice. I guess he figured even they couldn’t screw that up too badly. But almost every year they some how manage
Beleif in 'fair' peace prizes seems to necessitate belief in saints. There's also the question of which methods are acceptable for aquiring/ensuring peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Edit: Not to mention that when the task was handed over "to Norway", Norway was not an indepedent country, and hadn't been so since the end of the Viking Age. Sweden, on the other hand, had been directly and independently involved in several wars throughout that time. Alfred Nobel knew well that a 'peace prize' would not be a walk in the park.
The Flattened French and the Occupied Germans starting a brawl? Between them, cutting words and sticks would have been the tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Eastern Europe has been transiently bought into peace. There is almost no area of the planet that throwing large sums of money will not encourage stability for as long as the money flows.
~:smoking:
Get real... Germany was occupied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Still is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
Yes, west Germany was occupied for four years. Since then, plenty of time to rearm and settle past unresolved differences of opinion, yet never did.
France had been engaging in overseas brawls immediately following WW2, everything from the Suez to Indochina.
It's perfectly plausible. I never said it had to be an impressive fight.
Im still annoyed that Al Gore won it in 2007 instead of Irena Sendler, who saved over 2,500 Jewish children from the Holocaust.
Argue all you want about Global Warming, Gore did not deserve that award.
Neither did Obama.
Rubbish; BAOR (British Army of the Rhine) left in the '90s. The US and Britain still have bases in Germany. Germany was unable to go to war because A. It was divided and B. Western German forces were incorporated into NATO. You may as well argue that the Cold War deserves a Peace Prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The real occupation lies in Fort Knox, Germany's gold is right thereQuote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
My conspiracy alarm goes DING DING DING now. Gawd, you realize I have to go all the way to another room to shut it off, thus abondoning my coffee for half a minute?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony