Page 4 of 7 First 1234 567 Last

I really fail to see how Al Gore deserves that price

Many security experts believe that Climate Change poses the greatest threat to international security. As resources dwindle, crops fail, etc, etc then war is more likely to become a real threat. Given that the Nobel committee believes in man-made climate change (Whether it is real or not is not what is at issue here, so don't derail the thread) then it makes sense that raising awareness and organising to do something about it deserves recognition.

Obamamania!!! He doesn't even need the money...

That has it's own logic, ok not so rediculous if you put it like that.

I remember that. While I have my concerns regarding the science behind global warming and humanity's being the key element of it, once you accept that point (and many, maybe most do) the logic behind last year's award did make sense.


If nuclear disarmament is the committee's hope, they're really in wolkenkukkuksheim [sp?]. The inevitable trend is -- and by the logic of self preservation MUST be -- towards an expansion of the number of nation-states with nuclear arms.

Turnig swords into ploughshares is a noble (nobel?) purpose and all that, but how often has history witnessed such?

Although the concepts might be nice, he's not managed to achieve much. Yes, it's early in his first term so no, he's not really had the time. Perhaps come the next prize he'd have solid evidence to deserve it, but as yet no.

Wolkenkuckucksheim. (I had to look up the exact spelling of Kuckuck myself )

One thing I do not really understand is how people see the continuation of Afghanistan as a war effort?
IMO if we leave, the Taliban will return and kill all the people who tried to make Afghanistan more modern/western, slaughter the opposition and enslave the people again, it will be quiet and out of the news but hardly peaceful, which is why I prefer the continuation of the mission, that way at least the worse people get killed and not the women who establish schools for girls.

Irrelevant, a war is still a war. Trying to solve it through diplomacy is what will get you the peace prize. Remember that Nobel's aim was to dismantle every single standing army in the world.

Just when the hilarious joke of the 2009 election was wearing off and we feared being left with a horrible void of despair at electing a big ball of hype - the joke continues! I love it.

As long as Euroweenies are there to cheer us up by giving us awards commemorating how dumb we are by showing how much dumber they are, the situation will never seem as bad as we know it is.

One point Four million Bucks ($425K, after taxes). Any bets on what Mr. O will do with the prize money?

Charity? Cigarettes? Rose Garden Beer? Pay down the National Debt?

What can really be said of the peace prize?

The Swedish awarded prizes seldom have any controversy attached. It is a rigorous process of selection and so on.

The peace prize’s committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, so it is selected by politicians and made up one must assume of politicians. It is almost always of some controversy and promotes a political agenda.

Gandhi never received one. Despite being nominated many times.

It is pretty meaningless but manages to get Norway noticed once a year.

I suppose that is more important to the politicians than a wise choice.

That you haven't paid attention doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Try reading up on the litterature prize award this year.

Meaningless, you say? I beg to differ. The prize grameen bank got was a huge boost from it, and it enabled them to vastly expand their business, as the founder has said himself. Who had heard of microloans before they got the nobel prize? This applies for every winner, just check for yourself what they have to say about the prize, what it enabled them to do. None of them will say it was meaningless or irrelevant.

As for the prize always being controversial, well, it bloody well should! Big politics are controversial. Peace is very controversial. Of course the peace prize is going to be controversial. Heck, can you think of any such prize that isn't controversial? And yes, it promotes a political propaganda. That's the point.

No.

(I don't know what Alfred intended it for so I'm not going to research or argue that point.)

Intentions are nothing. Hollow. Empty. Intentions don't help people, feed people, start wars, or bring about change. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Action is everything. Deeds are proof. Helping someone up who fell down, cooking someone a meal, or pulling a trigger are actions that cause change.

It doesn't matter that a person intended to finish that project for work on time. Because he or she didn't, the company lost that business opportunity and is now worse off. It doesn't make a whit of difference if a person intends on picking up their child on time from daycare. If they don't, then you have a poster case of gross negligence and child neglect.

I don't give STFS's right testicle what Obama's intent is for the overall world peace situation. He may really want world peace and rainbows and ponies. Accomplishing that is something else entirely.

My understanding of the Nobel prizes are that they are awarded for tangible action. Louis pointed out a few oddities, but that doesn't change my understanding. If what you say is true, and it's really just something that can also be given to spur someone on, then it's significantly cheapened it and the entire process in my view (and many others it sounds like).

Intent is nothing. Action is everything. Period.

The prices for physics, chemistry and physiology are hardly going to create controversy anywhere but within scientific communities. The Nobel prize in literature obviosly has a potential to stir controversy since books can harbour political content; but nothing tops the peace prize which is an entirely political prize. Otherwise you believe in saints, it is almost a given that this price should be controversial to some level.

Then go make your own prize, you don't share Nobel's vision. Like it or not, it was his right to do whatever he wanted with his money, he choose to make this prize. Whether or not you(or anyone else) support it, is quite irrelevant.

Nobel wanted a world without war. He created the peace prize as a means to that end. Of course the prize itself should further peace, and not just be a reward for accomplishments.

It's more like a reward for not being Dubya. The Western International community is so relieved that Bush is out of the picture that they're caught up in the Obama hype. Time will tell if it lasts.

Oh in that case, I see no purpose for the award. I more or less follow Whacker's logic on this one.

Well there seems to be at least one advantage to taking over from the previous idiot... you seem like a genuis compared....

Or previous warmonger... you seem like a peace activist compared...

He has started off some peaceful or at least peace encouraging ideas... (or adopting said ideas) so if the award is about encouragment to keep down the right path then it does kind of make sense...

That being said what matters more to the peace commitee, effort made towards peace of actual chances said person could bring about the peace...

Im sure theres hundreds or thousands of people who put more effort into making the world peaceful than Obama, but how many people who want to make the world peaceful have anywhere near as much power as Obama...

That tireless peace campaigner may have put her life towards peace, but Obama with a simple signature can bring the world far closer to peace than the campaigner could do in several lifetimes...

I have to agree the award being an encouragment for people who seem pro-peace to continue thier work seems a bit silly...that being said if it would work or help on any level to make the world more peaceful im happy for it to look silly...

Then if this really is the case, it's a big huge joke. Whether I or anyone else supports is entirely relevant. A well-off person can easily create a foundation and a system for recognizing accomplishments, but if people view it as a joke or a farce, what good is it? Before you try to pull something out of your hat on that one, look at what exactly is going on by giving Obama this award. People are heavily questioning both the actual awarding and the award itself now. I will say this much, your words have given me enough incentive now to go research this and the process. As you say, if it does also cover intent and not action only, then that's one more person who now could care less.

Your logic fails. Nothing BUT accomplishments and deeds will bring about peace. Here's another analogy for you. This is like awarding a child a gold star for their intent to go read a book and write a book report, instead of actually rewarding them for performing the actions.

Write this down. Intent is nothing. Action is everything.

Thing is, Whacker, people do care about it. This thread is proof of that, isn't it? So.... Logic Fail.

Again, this prize isn't about this. The peace prize is created to further peace in the world, how many times do I have to say that? It is not a reward for achieving peace. There are other awards for that.

The peace prize has never been about rewarding someone. It has always been a political tool to further an agenda. That was its intent.

I will most certainly not.

According to the NPP's homepage, you appear to be wrong...


http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...hortfacts.html

As you should know, Viking, Nobel's thoughts were a bit more detailed than what he wrote in his will.

His vision was a world without war. His contribution to that end was the peace prize. So.... How can it be anything other than a tool for creating peace? Do you really think Nobel wanted it to be a passive reward for someone, instead of an active tool to further his agenda?

Pathway to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

Fortunately, we're all atheist social democrats, so religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't concern us

That is actually being ignorant and not understanding the meaning behind the saying. It is more philosphorical than religious.

At the same time, I doubt he wrote that passage without really meaning it. 'Cause...if it is used as tool; some kind of prod; then the award is going to become disrespected and eventually useless. You cannot ignore that it is commonly known as an achievers prize, and that this is one of the reasons why it has been relatively respected to this date.

Are you sure we live in the same country? Because.... Here it's been viewed as a political tool more than an award for a long time.... Haven't you noticed that when there are discussions about who to give the prize to, it's a discussion of "which area deserves some focus this year" much more than "who's done some good"?

So you think if we talk to the taliban they won't slaughter women who establish schools for girls or was it that what you refer to as irrelevant?

It is a tool for peace, but if those who receive the awards hardly have done anything; it will eventually become a worthless prize since achieving it means close to nil. The tool will loose its power.

Obama has done something though; so upon thinking more about this award and comparing it to previous ones (the 2004 laureate got it for planting trees); and what it should take in general to get this award...the awarding makes more sense.

Page 4 of 7 First 1234 567 Last