....goes to OPCW.
Jagland is getting a bit rusty it seems, this is a prize few people will disagree strongly with. It's also a strong call for action in Syria though, I guess I'll have to settle for meddling this year.
Thoughts?
Printable View
....goes to OPCW.
Jagland is getting a bit rusty it seems, this is a prize few people will disagree strongly with. It's also a strong call for action in Syria though, I guess I'll have to settle for meddling this year.
Thoughts?
I was rooting for Malala Yousafzai.
http://youtu.be/gjGL6YY6oMs
I'll laugh the day someone simply doesn't bother to receive it.
@Lemur, now she is something special, she has more guts than... well I can't think of anyone really. Kudo's for her.
Even more scientifically quantifiable Nobel prizes are increasingly becoming politicized.
And the peace prize was always a joke. This doesn't deserve a thread.
Based on the award parameters set out for the prize, it is understandable why the OCPW edged out Yousafzai. Like you, however, my Lemury pal, I would have preferred her. Oh well.
The Peace Prize is purely political, complete with a stated political agenda, while the others have always been politicized. Not so much now, but a lot more in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Seamus: Apparently the reasoning behind giving it to the opcw was to give the effort against wmd's a push, and I can't really see what giving the prize to Malala would've pushed. An inspiration for muslim women around the world to fight for their rights? Tawakkul Karman got that prize in 2011, it's too soon for a repeat.
I also don't quite know whether Malala would've been better, although I think her push to promote education for everyone can also lead to a more peaceful world since education can work against prejudices and antagonism etc.
More or less exactly as I evaluated their decision. I said I would have preferred the lass get it, but I acknowledge that, within the framework of what the prize was established to do/reward, the choice of OPCW is more or less spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh, I think it debased itself well before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Henry Kissinger.
Yasser Arafat.
'Nuff said.
Lost it way before it was given to Obama. If someone wanted to give it to me for whatever reason I would simply refuse it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That changes everything. Who do I have to kill to make peace somewhere. I crave peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Kissinger's Peace Prize is understandable given the circumstances and period of time in which it was given, and even holds up today when taking a broad view of his actions, despite the revelations of some of his less than peaceful endeavors in South America, etc. Obama's? Not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Roughly 1.25M USD at current rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The Obama award was made to encourage efforts at peace-making. Hortore published their award criteria a few threads back (at the Obama award I believe), and using the award to encourage efforts at peace-making is one of the specific criterion used.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I tend to have a typical Yank's view about awards -- that they are given in recognition of something you have ACHIEVED ALREADY. From such a perspective, the Obama award was patently silly since it was more of a "you make us feel better so do some more peacenik stuff" award than anything else.
In fairness to the committee in Oslo (only Norwegian Nobel), they ARE abiding by the criteria outlined for the award at its inception and "encouraging efforts" is one of the guidelines.
The fact that I find it silly does not mean that they are not making the award as it was intended.
Please have in mind that this is the NORWEGIAN Nobel prize.
They don't exactly have a stellar history, and their modern choices have been reminiscent of HoreTore after a night out.
Actually, to provide credit where it is due, Horetore's PWD has been pretty consistent with his PWS. The Oslo Nobel folk however....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Previous choices say less about the credibility of the award as a whole and more about the Scandinavians making the decision.
If I remember correctly, the Kissenger prize was followed up by the resignation of two Nobel committee members in disgust over the choice.
The idea of honoring the peace bringers is still a very noble one in my opinion and the award is not diminished in any way when more suitable choices will be made in the future.
What's funny though, is that the ones you'd like to get the award, like Malala, is NOT a prize according to the criteria. Just like we know that the peace prize will be awarded every year, we also know that Fredrik S. Heffermehl will write an angry chronicle stating that the prize is not according to Nobel's will and that human rights, democracy etc has nothing to do with the prize. He's also critical this year, since the OPCW only seeks to ban one kind of weapon, not all weapons... Fortunately though, nobody cares about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Also, I have to ask: what has Malala actually achieved? Is there peace in Pakistan now, thanks to her efforts?
Maybe it just shows how shallow and fake our world is if even the wisest of committees are unable to see which efforts for peace are genuine. :drama1:
I will admit that watching Malala on the Daily Show I couldn't help but think that some of the things she said sounded like her media advisor told her to say that in order to get support. I really hope that she doesn't even have one but nowadays you never know. And I keep wondering about the people who call almost everything fake on the internet...
Is there peace because of Obama or peace because of Al Gore. She doesn't deserve the Nobel-price I fully agree, as the Nobel-price doesn't deserve her. I got a kilo of spinache in my fridge that has more credibility.
Edit, it are actually two ounces.
Nuclear disarmament initiative coupled with the Cairo speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
"Causes of war" human rights-thingy. Highlighting climate as a cause of war is what gave the IPCC the prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And anyway, you just disagree with the prize for them because you disagree with them politically. So your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
Owwwww ouch Horrie, you are suggesting that the Nobel peace prize is not political? Just reading between the lines, but that would be hysterical
As I said in a previous post, the peace prize is purely political, as was intended by Nobel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
After he died?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He was a great guy but I doubt he agrees with what is given on behalf of him. Nobel peace prize commision isn't just arrogant and narcistic, that would be putting it too mildly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He outlined his political will before he died. The Nobel committee has gone further than that by including human rights activists as worthy recipients, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
His political will, however, is clearly a long way from your political views, Frags. If you disagree with the prize, that's a clear sign the committee is doing it according to Nobel.
How very Noble of them. I would just say that they are using it to Caput tuum in ano est in his honour but that's just me. No it isn't just me by the way, nobody takes the Nobel-peace prize seriously anymore, credibility has been lost. You should get one for free with cornflakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Edit: LOL@Ebru, my favorite Turkish powerbabe. Yeah, over 1700 victims of chemical weapons since 1915. Perspective and all that.
Dutchies only
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments
I am going to marry her one day and endure her temper.
So... You agree with the award for Obama and disagree with giving it to Liu Xiaobo then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What does it matter, give a my little pony castle to whoever deserves it most instead. Has more credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That you disagree with them is a sign they're on the right path, as you do not agree with the aims of the prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Oh, and the EU was also a prize according to the will. By applying the strict definition Heffermehl wants, which excludes human rights activists, the prize would be given to various heads of international organizations, mostly EU and UN affiliated, with the occasional peace broker in between. I fail to see how that would be "better".
What you, and the the Nobel price commitee, fail to understand is that nobody respects this price anymore. It has been tainted by political activism and all it says is 'yourrr my boyyyyyyy'. Respect only goes so far and I kinda like the mental image of the Nobel peace commision being flabbergasted about the fact that nobody gives a :daisy: about their price. They overstepped in their activism, simple as that, now it has no gravitas anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Especially hilarious was giving it to the EU, everybody with half a brain understands we have to thank the Americans for peace in Europe, not the EU who is making every mistake it possibly could make. 1848 2.0
We should never have let the Norwegians handle it...
Frags is actually right at one point: The Nobel Peace Prize has become somewhat of a laughing stock. I guess it's only still on the radar because the Swedish section has a good reputation, and Norway kind of tags along in the shadow.
Kissinger... :rolleyes:
It hasn't been 'tainted' by it, it was founded on it. It is supposed to say 'you're my boy'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nobel's vision was the immediate and unilateral dismantling of a country's armed forces. The prize was created to further that aim.
And the rest of us is just waiting for it's latest low of all time, up to the point of a reversed Mount-Everst. That low. I don't know how low it can get after giving it to the self-congratulating EU, or Dronebama, but I am sure they will surprise me. Giving it to that Afghan girl would have made sense at least, but they wouldn't have the guts to give it to her.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That would not be in line with Nobel's will(strictly interpreted), and would require changing it in a way you described as "Caput tuum in ano est in his honour".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I do like the expansion the cmmittee has done, however, and I do believe it's in line with Nobel's ideological views.
Giving it to organizations like the EU is what Nobel had in mind. Have a look through the first 20 laureates, it's almost exclusively the chairman of some international organization like the EU.
EDIT: And on Kissinger: I fail to see how bringing an end to the defining conflict of an entire era, the Vietnam war, should not be considered worthy of the peace prize.
Challenger Deep in the Mariana trench is even deeper than Mount Everest is tall. So that could work for the latest low of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Either it is an age thing, or there has been a genuine shift in perception over the years, but when I was younger, the Noble Peace Prize was an 'oh wow!' moment, the perception has changed to 'That award used to mean something, now handled by idiots'.