The Nobel Peace Prize has just become officially irrelevant. [Archive]

pikesome

10-12-2007, 10:20 AM

Just out of curiosity... Who else deserved it?

There's got to be someone who worked for peace that could have gotten the award. The issue with Gore is 1. GW isn't 100% agreed on, especially how it was portrayed in his movie 2. It really doesn't have much to do with peace, science and maybe even economics but not peace. Couldn't someone involved in either the Darfur conflict or Myanmar be worthy?

tiptap

10-12-2007, 10:23 AM

Radar Chief

10-12-2007, 10:24 AM

Just out of curiosity... Who else deserved it?

:shrug: Rush Limbaugh was nominated. :Poke:

patteeu

10-12-2007, 10:24 AM

Yeah if the killing in Darfur or Myanmar were to be at least decreased.

In that case, maybe the award should go to Gen. David Petraeus.

jiveturkey

10-12-2007, 10:24 AM

There's got to be someone who worked for peace that could have gotten the award. The issue with Gore is 1. GW isn't 100% agreed on, especially how it was portrayed in his movie 2. It really doesn't have much to do with peace, science and maybe even economics but not peace. Couldn't someone involved in either the Darfur conflict or Myanmar be worthy?
Doesn't the Pentagon have this issue in their sights?

http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

pikesome

10-12-2007, 10:32 AM

Yeah if the killing in Darfur or Myanmar were to be at least decreased.

Look at the 1994 (Arafat, Peres, Rabin) and 1996 (Belo & Ramos-Horta). None of them "fixed" anything.

I'm not saying it had to be someone from those crisis but there had to be someone more deserving then Gore on the topic of a "Peace" prize.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 10:40 AM

How about this guy:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44114000/jpg/_44114642_abdulsattarap203b.jpg

Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was one of the early pioneers of the so-called Anbar Awakening. He reconsidered his insurgency against the new Iraq and reached out to the US military in an effort to drive al Qeada from his territory. He paid for this effort to bring peace to his people with his life when an al Qaeda bomb destroyed his car outside his home in Ramadi.

tiptap

10-12-2007, 10:40 AM

Look at the 1994 (Arafat, Peres, Rabin) and 1996 (Belo & Ramos-Horta). None of them "fixed" anything.

I'm not saying it had to be someone from those crisis but there had to be someone more deserving then Gore on the topic of a "Peace" prize.

This is representative of the deniers view of Global Warming. "It isn't true, it isn't that bad, it will be good to be warmer, it has no deleterious effects on economies or lives," and on and on. The Nobel winners in science this year and many previous winners are presently part of a forum that is lending its voice to the real concern for the reality and effects of Global Warming. What experts on climate and science are you listening too? They are really, really in the small, small minority.

tiptap

10-12-2007, 10:43 AM

patteeu

10-12-2007, 10:47 AM

He brought security to his people and should be praised for that. That is different then peace.

So is a sensationalized weather forecast.

tiptap

10-12-2007, 10:50 AM

Ok it is clear that from now on, on this thread, the postings will reflect, as in the starting thread, that the Nobel Peace Prize is irrelevant. As such I am through with this thread.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 10:53 AM

This is representative of the deniers view of Global Warming. "It isn't true, it isn't that bad, it will be good to be warmer, it has no deleterious effects on economies or lives," and on and on. The Nobel winners in science this year and many previous winners are presently part of a forum that is lending its voice to the real concern for the reality and effects of Global Warming. What experts on climate and science are you listening too? They are really, really in the small, small minority.

????

This post makes little sense. The accuracy of Gore's movie isn't important to this discussion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, his movie is 100% right. There was no one working for peace more deserving of the award than Gore? I find that somewhat hard to believe. The man patteeu mentioned sounds like a good candidate. Not giving Gore this award isn't an attack on GW, it's a recognition of someone else's work for peace. We can continue to celebrate Gore (if you want) while handing the award to someone who is making a difference in regards to peace.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 10:56 AM

He brought security to his people and should be praised for that. That is different then peace.

WTF? I'd look up "peace" in the dictionary.

noa

10-12-2007, 11:24 AM

There's got to be someone who worked for peace that could have gotten the award. The issue with Gore is 1. GW isn't 100% agreed on, especially how it was portrayed in his movie 2. It really doesn't have much to do with peace, science and maybe even economics but not peace.

If we're all huddled up in a corner afraid of the same thing, then maybe the world will have a shared sense of purpose and we'll all finally see through our differences to recognize that we are members of one race -- the human race, and from that moment on, there will be perpetual peace. Kind of like when all the humans banded together to defeat the aliens in Independence Day.

Radar Chief

10-12-2007, 11:33 AM

Kind of like when all the humans banded together to defeat the aliens in Independence Day.

Never happen without Bill Pullman to lead the way.
Now there's who should've won. ;)

Nightwish

10-12-2007, 12:12 PM

WTF? I'd look up "peace" in the dictionary.I agree with tiptap on this one. He helped to bring some measure of at least temporary security to his province, but "peace" has yet to show it's mug in any part of Iraq, including Anbar. Ostensibly, the Nobel Peace Prize is intended to recognize those whose efforts have been profound in the pursuit of peace and an end to conflict, not those whose efforts have been profound merely in changing the focus of a conflict.

For the record, I also agree that it is kind of ridiculous to give this award to Al Gore. Wrong category, plain and simple. He may be deserving of a Nobel Prize in some other category, because of his work on Global Warming (not saying he is or isn't). But Peace isn't the right category. I fail to see what Peace and Global Warming have to do with each other.

And last but not least - Rush Limbaugh? Why? Because he apologized to Michael J. Fox?

patteeu

10-12-2007, 12:15 PM

I agree with tiptap on this one. He helped to bring some measure of at least temporary security to his province, but "peace" has yet to show it's mug in any part of Iraq, including Anbar. Ostensibly, the Nobel Peace Prize is intended to recognize those whose efforts have been profound in the pursuit of peace and an end to conflict, not those whose efforts have been profound merely in changing the focus of a conflict.

For the record, I also agree that it is kind of ridiculous to give this award to Al Gore. Wrong category, plain and simple. He may be deserving of a Nobel Prize in some other category, because of his work on Global Warming (not saying he is or isn't). But Peace isn't the right category. I fail to see what Peace and Global Warming have to do with each other.

And last but not least - Rush Limbaugh? Why? Because he apologized to Michael J. Fox?

For tip tap to make that particular argument against the Anbar Sheik's worthiness is ironic given his support for giving the award on the basis of the far more speculative impacts of global warming, IMO.

Nightwish

10-12-2007, 12:24 PM

For tip tap to make that particular argument against the Anbar Sheik's worthiness is ironic given his support for giving the award on the basis of the far more speculative impacts of global warming, IMO.
That's true. Like I said (and others), I don't see what Global Warming and Peace have to do with each other. Even if the GW argument is dead-on-balls accurate (yeah, I watched "My Cousin Vinny" for the gazillionth time the other day) and his conclusions aren't unduly alarmist, it's still the wrong category of Nobel Prize, IMO.

Laz

10-12-2007, 12:29 PM

It's been a joke for many years. This just makes it official.

That is all.
translation ....

the nobel peace prize shouldn't go to a democrat damnit! :cuss:

banyon

10-12-2007, 12:35 PM

I agree with tiptap on this one. He helped to bring some measure of at least temporary security to his province, but "peace" has yet to show it's mug in any part of Iraq, including Anbar. Ostensibly, the Nobel Peace Prize is intended to recognize those whose efforts have been profound in the pursuit of peace and an end to conflict, not those whose efforts have been profound merely in changing the focus of a conflict.

For the record, I also agree that it is kind of ridiculous to give this award to Al Gore. Wrong category, plain and simple. He may be deserving of a Nobel Prize in some other category, because of his work on Global Warming (not saying he is or isn't). But Peace isn't the right category. I fail to see what Peace and Global Warming have to do with each other.

And last but not least - Rush Limbaugh? Why? Because he apologized to Michael J. Fox?

Agree, Al Gore's movie was useful in the GW debate, but did little to advance peace.

These people were nominated and much more deserving:http://www.savethechildren.org/

GoBobDole

10-12-2007, 12:35 PM

I I fail to see what Peace and Global Warming have to do with each other.

Isn't it obvious?

Let's say global warming is real, and a couple hundred years or so from now the ocean levels rise to a point significant enough to displace entire populations, and then let's assume that those displaced populations move in to someone else's territory uninvited, and then let's assume that the two populations don't play well with each other and start killing each other for the finite resources available, and then let's assume that all of the violence could have been avoided if all you stubborn bastards had simply walked to work instead of driving your giant SUVs.

That's how Al Gore worked toward peace in our time.

jAZ

10-12-2007, 12:42 PM

Al Gore's has done more for pushing global warming discussion to the front of everyone's minds than anyone ever.

Agree or disagree with him on the science, you have to give him that.

The Nobel Peace Prize is given out for the purpose of prompting "reflection and debate on issues relating to war, peace and conflict resolution."

That's from their website. (http://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/?did=9074829)

Given those two things... Giving Gore the Peace Prize (or objecting to it) really comes down to two details.

1) Do you agree with the majority of the science commuity that see Climate Change as an urgent priority requiring human action or not?

and

2) Do you see the link between climate destabilzation forecasted by those in #1 leading to conflict and those antithetical to "peace"?

If you object to #1, no one expects you to accept #2.

But if you accept #1 as at least a real possibility, then #2, while not certain, is a real threat.

Obviously Nobel oranization, being one of science, has little problem accepting the science related to #1. And thus #2 makes sense fairly easily to them.

banyon

10-12-2007, 12:45 PM

Isn't it obvious?

Let's say global warming is real, and a couple hundred years or so from now the ocean levels rise to a point significant enough to displace entire populations, and then let's assume that those displaced populations move in to someone else's territory uninvited, and then let's assume that the two populations don't play well with each other and start killing each other for the finite resources available, and then let's assume that all of the violence could have been avoided if all you stubborn bastards had simply walked to work instead of driving your giant SUVs.

That's how Al Gore worked toward peace in our time.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think the award should be handed out on speculative future scenarios but rather accomplishments with an impact that has already been felt. I think you'd have a hard time going down the list of winners and finding someone who got the award based on the type of contingent-type scenario that you suggest.

jAZ

10-12-2007, 12:50 PM

I see what you are saying, but I don't think the award should be handed out on speculative future scenarios but rather accomplishments with an impact that has already been felt. I think you'd have a hard time going down the list of winners and finding someone who got the award based on the type of contingent-type scenario that you suggest.
I think you misunderstand the objective of The Nobel Organizations.

http://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/?did=9074829

"Our objective is to promote familiarity with the lives and work of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates and Alfred Nobel, and encourage reflection and debate on issues relating to war, peace and conflict resolution."

Baby Lee

10-12-2007, 12:51 PM

Jaysus, didn't anyone see 'Do the Right Thing?'
Hot weather makes people cranky, cranky enough to bust up a pizzeria.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 12:51 PM

That's true. Like I said (and others), I don't see what Global Warming and Peace have to do with each other. Even if the GW argument is dead-on-balls accurate (yeah, I watched "My Cousin Vinny" for the gazillionth time the other day) and his conclusions aren't unduly alarmist, it's still the wrong category of Nobel Prize, IMO.

If the alarmist view of climate change is accurate, I could see how preventing the catastrophic impacts of that change from driving people to make war over limited resources and shifting arable territories is related to peace, but it's so speculative that you could probably find a ton of other people who are doing something in a science-related field just as closely connected to reducing the likelihood of warfare in the distant future.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with Gore winning the NPP. I think it became something of a joke quite a while ago. Occassionally they give it to someone who I think deserves it, but more often than not I end up scratching my head.

I loved "My Cousin Vinny".

GoBobDole

10-12-2007, 12:58 PM

I see what you are saying, but I don't think the award should be handed out on speculative future scenarios but rather accomplishments with an impact that has already been felt. I think you'd have a hard time going down the list of winners and finding someone who got the award based on the type of contingent-type scenario that you suggest.

Just wait until Bob Dole wins next year because of his work that will address the likely scenario when Earth is visited by intergallactic invaders who are after our tomato crops.

JBucc

10-12-2007, 01:06 PM

Just wait until Bob Dole wins next year because of his work that will address the likely scenario when Earth is visited by intergallactic invaders who are after our tomato crops.You'll have to beat out The History Channel and Bruce Willis for all their work in promoting awareness of asteroids and ways in which we can stop them from destroying the Earth.

Radar Chief

10-12-2007, 01:09 PM

And last but not least - Rush Limbaugh? Why? Because he apologized to Michael J. Fox?

Well, I was just name dropping, but why not? Seems the bar is set pretty low as to what constitutes the advancement of peace.
Rush’s supporters would probably tell you, without flinching, that “Rush is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today”.

Linky (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE=)

banyon

10-12-2007, 02:35 PM

I think you misunderstand the objective of The Nobel Organizations.

http://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/?did=9074829

"Our objective is to promote familiarity with the lives and work of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates and Alfred Nobel, and encourage reflection and debate on issues relating to war, peace and conflict resolution."

I don't think GW relates to those goals unless you are just taking the word "conflict" out of context. The meaning of the word "conflict" in your quote is derived from looking at how it relates to the other words it is associated with (viz. "war" and "peace"). I think stretching the meaning in the way that you do suggests that someone should be elibigle for the prize based on breaking up a bar fight or interjecting at an English tea party to resolve a dispute about whether Sir Alec Guinness is a better actor than Sir Richard Burton. It's not about settling arguments it's about settling actual physical conflicts between nations and/or ameliorating the horrific consequences of war.

CRONUS

10-12-2007, 02:58 PM

May I just say that I appreciate sincerely all the humor provided in this thread. Well done.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 03:52 PM

Well, I was just name dropping, but why not? Seems the bar is set pretty low as to what constitutes the advancement of peace.
Rush’s supporters would probably tell you, without flinching, that “Rush is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today”.

Linky (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE=)

Someone nominated Adolf Hitler once upon a time. There is no better example of "perspective" (heavy sarcasm in case it's unclear) than the idea of Dur Fuhrer with a Peace Prize. Luckily it didn't turn out that way.

jAZ

10-12-2007, 04:10 PM

I don't think GW relates to those goals unless you are just taking the word "conflict" out of context. The meaning of the word "conflict" in your quote is derived from looking at how it relates to the other words it is associated with (viz. "war" and "peace"). I think stretching the meaning in the way that you do suggests that someone should be elibigle for the prize based on breaking up a bar fight or interjecting at an English tea party to resolve a dispute about whether Sir Alec Guinness is a better actor than Sir Richard Burton. It's not about settling arguments it's about settling actual physical conflicts between nations and/or ameliorating the horrific consequences of war.
I think the objection you raised before was more justifiable. The idea that you see the award as one of working to fight on-going war vs. expected war.

The term "conflict" that I quoted is exactly the sort that leads to war, not the sort akin to a bar fight. Bob Dole was being sarcastic, but he basically outlined the connection.

Whether, you agree with the connection... that's all over the map in this forum. However, the logic given that you agree with the prediction of chaos leaves a reasonable connection and leaves only your existing war vs. projected war... objections.

BucEyedPea

10-12-2007, 04:18 PM

Someone nominated Adolf Hitler once upon a time. There is no better example of "perspective" (heavy sarcasm in case it's unclear) than the idea of Dur Fuhrer with a Peace Prize. Luckily it didn't turn out that way.
But Adolf did win the "Man of the Year" designation from Time magazine, and featured on its cover in his day...as did Mussolini.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 04:21 PM

But Adolf did win the "Man of the Year" designation from Time magazine, and featured on its cover in his day...as did Mussolini.

They probably got to bang the head cheerleader too. :(

GoBobDole

10-12-2007, 04:49 PM

Bob Dole was being sarcastic, but he basically outlined the connection.

Bob Dole wasn't being sarcastic. Bob Dole honestly believes that is the "logic" they used to make the selection.

penchief

10-12-2007, 09:58 PM

Just out of curiosity... Who else deserved it?

Bush. Because his treatment of the environment has been an invitation to those who leach off it. And because of his commitment to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (but they're not like us) in the name of corporate imperialism. And because he likes bombs better than he likes agreements that always get broken.

Bush should win because everything he's doing is going to make us realize in a hurry how ****ed-up we are and leave us no choice but to clean up our act before we self-destruct.

Bush is a blessing in disguise and even though he doesn't mean it, he should still get the Nobel Peace Prize simply because he's going to leave us with no other choice but to save ourselves from ourselves.

StcChief

10-15-2007, 08:59 PM

Bush. Because his treatment of the environment has been an invitation to those who leach off it. And because of his commitment to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (but they're not like us) in the name of corporate imperialism. And because he likes bombs better than he likes agreements that always get broken.

Bush should win because everything he's doing is going to make us realize in a hurry how ****ed-up we are and leave us no choice but to clean up our act before we self-destruct.

Bush is a blessing in disguise and even though he doesn't mean it, he should still get the Nobel Peace Prize simply because he's going to leave us with no other choice but to save ourselves from ourselves.
it's Bushies fault because because because :)