View Full Version : What is going on with the Nobel Peace Prize
I can not believe it. The nobel Peace Committee has nominated Bradley Manning for the NPP.
---------------------------
Bill Clinton, Kohl, EU among 231 Nobel candidates
AFP – 1 hr 50 mins ago
A total of 231 nominees are up for the Nobel Peace Prize this year, the Nobel Institute said Monday, with Bill Clinton, Helmut Kohl, the EU and US soldier and WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning known to be on the list.
"As always, there are the usual 'nominees' and some newcomers, some famous and some unknowns, hailing from the four corners of the world," the head of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, told AFP.
With 188 individuals and 43 organisations, the number of candidates comes close to last year's record of 241, when the prestigious award went to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian activist Leymah Gbowee, and Yemeni "Arab Spring" activist Tawakkol Karman.
Thousands of people are eligible to submit nominations, including members of parliaments and governments worldwide, university professors, past laureates and members of several international institutes, who had until February 1 to propose candidates.
The Nobel Institute keeps the names of nominees secret for 50 years, but those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organisation they have proposed.
Among the people known to have been nominated for this year's prize are former US president Bill Clinton, ex-German chancellor Helmut Kohl who led his country's reunification process, and Ukraine's ex-premier and now jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko.
Also on the list is jailed US soldier Manning, who has been charged with 22 counts in a US military court for turning over a massive cache of classified US documents to anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks.
Despite its current crisis the European Union is also among the candidates, as are Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege, Cuban dissidents Oswaldo Paya and Yoani Sanchez, and Russian rights group Memorial and its founder Svetlana Gannushkina.
Yet others include US political scientist Gene Sharp, known for his theory of non-violent resistance which inspired some of the key figures behind the Arab Spring, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki who was brought to power in 2011 by the revolution in his country, and television news channel Al-Jazeera.
The winner or winners will be announced in October.
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-kohl-eu-among-231-nobel-candidates-101242673.html
It is totally believable. They gave it to Obama for doing nothing. after that anything is possible.
I submitted TS's name for the culinary prize,, but was told Paula Dean nix'd it as he doesn't use enough butter.. :D
Seriously,, I think if you look at prior lists, you will find that every year the most outrageous "15 minutes of fame" boob gets nominated.
Mohandas Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before his death in January 1948,, but didn't get picked.
Al Gore got it the 1st time...
I see no value in an award that is so politicized by the left as to be useless..
:munchin
PedOncoDoc
02-27-2012, 06:37
It is totally believable. They gave it to Obama for doing nothing. after that anything is possible.
And the fact that they gave the award to Obama discredits the Nobel awards for me entirely, and tarnishes the accomplishments of those who received the award before him.
How in the hell does someone like Manning get put on this list?! :mad:
CPTAUSRET
02-27-2012, 08:25
The Nobel Peace Prize has been rife with liberal politics for quite awhile...
The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine (in my opinion), has been, and still is an award worthy of the name, one notable exception being Moniz for prefrontal leucotomy.
From the article, "Thousands of people are eligible to submit nominations, including members of parliaments and governments worldwide, university professors, past laureates and members of several international institutes, who had until February 1 to propose candidates."
The commitee itself does not decide who is nominated and who is not. All it takes is a liberal Political Science professor who views Manning as a "freedom fighter".
greenberetTFS
02-27-2012, 14:04
I cannot believe it. The Nobel Peace Committee has nominated Bradley Manning for the NPP./Quote/SF BHT
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.............:rolleyes::(:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Yes it is Big Teddy. That is why I wanted people to know he was nominated....
When the Big O got his I lost any respect for that institution.
Airbornelawyer
02-27-2012, 18:55
From the article, "Thousands of people are eligible to submit nominations, including members of parliaments and governments worldwide, university professors, past laureates and members of several international institutes, who had until February 1 to propose candidates."
The commitee itself does not decide who is nominated and who is not. All it takes is a liberal Political Science professor who views Manning as a "freedom fighter".
Still, this demonstrates that there is something wrong with the process.
For example, for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences takes nominations from its own members, from past Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, and from select professors of chemistry. Similar processes apply to other science awards.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, by contrast, takes nominations from:
Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
Members of international courts;
University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee;
Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/
In other words, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences takes nominations from people who are usually subject-matter experts in their fields (even the Nobel Prize in Literature, while obviously more subjective a field than Physics or Chemistry, requires some background in literature to make a nomination).
By contrast, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's standard of what makes one a subject-matter expert in "Peace" is a little overbroad and subjective, to say the least. :rolleyes:
It is almost as if the process is designed for "garbage in/garbage out" and thus you are lucky if the committee manages to ever get it right and find a real deserving treasure among all the trash.
Oldrotorhead
02-27-2012, 19:58
Bradley can used the money for K-Y jelly in prison and he will not be going to Norway to collect.:D
Yes it is Big Teddy. That is why I wanted people to know he was nominated....
When the Big O got his I lost any respect for that institution.
I lost respect for the organization many years ago.
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2002 - Jimmy Carter
1994 - Yasser Arafat
1992 - Rigoberta Menchu Tum
Source (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/)
John_Chrichton
02-27-2012, 21:13
Well I hope that treasonous little bastard is hanged before he could be presented the "award". Although, judging by its historical recipients, he wouldn't be entirely out of place in the line up.
Still, this demonstrates that there is something wrong with the process.
For example, for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences takes nominations from its own members, from past Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, and from select professors of chemistry. Similar processes apply to other science awards.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, by contrast, takes nominations from:
Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
Members of international courts;
University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee;
Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/
In other words, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences takes nominations from people who are usually subject-matter experts in their fields (even the Nobel Prize in Literature, while obviously more subjective a field than Physics or Chemistry, requires some background in literature to make a nomination).
By contrast, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's standard of what makes one a subject-matter expert in "Peace" is a little overbroad and subjective, to say the least. :rolleyes:
It is almost as if the process is designed for "garbage in/garbage out" and thus you are lucky if the committee manages to ever get it right and find a real deserving treasure among all the trash.
Completely agree. As others have already said, the Nobel Committee is not undeserving of being castigated for some of their choices of recipient. However, the specific case of Bradley Manning being nominated is something they do not have control over. That being said, I would not be surprised in the least to learn that no one on the committee objects to his nomination.
Whats the difference between the winner of the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize winner and the 2012 Nobel Peace prize winner?
............Thats what I say: whats the f##king difference !!
I worry more about the consistency of my stool than who gets one of those trophies.
Utah Bob
03-01-2012, 13:13
The Nobel Peace Prize has been rife with liberal politics for quite awhile...
Exactly!
greenberetTFS
05-28-2012, 15:04
Yes it is Big Teddy. That is why I wanted people to know he was nominated....
When the Big O got his I lost any respect for that institution.
Brian,
Check out my post on why Bush didn't win the Nobel Peace prize........;););)
Big Teddy :munchin
It is totally believable. They gave it to Obama for doing nothing. after that anything is possible.
He got his on credit. Should be reposessed.
Badger52
05-28-2012, 16:01
He got his on credit. Should be reposessed.He was upside down on his payments because they facilitated him getting in over his ego; but it didn't stop him from accepting anyway. They've forgiven him the debt on this one and have started afresh with a new set of lunatic criteria funded by a new stimulus package. "FDR for Dummies" is on their committee's required reading list. When the EU goes TU they'll probably just award it to everyone within a certain blast radius.
Actually I'm surprised that Julian Assange wasn't listed...
Actually I'm surprised that Julian Assange wasn't listed...
Seriously; I am, too.
Mahatma Gandhi, 0
Barrack Obama, 1
How can this thing be anything other than a hood ornament?
longrange1947
05-28-2012, 17:49
Mahatma Gandhi, 0
Barrack Obama, 1
How can this thing be anything other than a hood ornament?
And a bad one at that.
Airbornelawyer
05-28-2012, 22:46
Mahatma Gandhi, 0
Barrack Obama, 1
How can this thing be anything other than a hood ornament?
I'm sorry, but I would give the Peace Prize to Obama long before I would give it to Gandhi. For all his flaws, Obama at least recognizes that sometimes peace does require strength, and that the exercise of US power to those ends is necessary. You can, and I do, disagree with the specifics of lots of Administration policies, but we are not having our soldiers put flowers into the gun barrels of the Taliban or AQAP.
Gandhi would have built his peaceful world on piles of millions of corpses of those who took his advice to peacefully resist totalitarian regimes the same way they would engage in civil disobedience against democracies. But don't take my word for it, take Gandhi's:
Gandhi's advice to German Jews in 1938:
If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant.
Gandhi's advice to the British in 1940:
I appeal for cessation of hostilities, not because you are too exhausted to fight, but because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. You will never kill it by its indifferent adoption. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans. If that be so, yours will soon acquire the same thoroughness as theirs, if not much greater. On no other condition can you win the war. In other words, you will have to be more ruthless than the Nazis. No cause, however just, can warrant the indiscriminate slaughter that is going on minute by minute. I suggest that a cause that demands the inhumanities that are being perpetrated today cannot be called just
...
I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
And after the war, when the horrors of the Nazi regime were fully revealed, Gandhi held firm. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife". "The Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly." He reserved his criticism for the Jews who rose up violently in Treblinka and in the Warsaw Ghetto, and of course, the Zionists.
Worse, Gandhi was a bit of a hypocrite. His conviction that his stance was a moral imperative and unassailably correct in the long run, no matter the circumstances, is credited even by those who viewed him as naive, such as George Orwell. But Gandhi's pure principles often bent. In South Africa, he fought non-violently on behalf of Indians, but was effectively indifferent to the plight of Africans. In India, he compromised his principles and accomodated himself to the caste system to win the support of Indian politicians who defended the system. And in 1947, Gandhi compromised on war: "Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice." (The Times, September 27, 1947). To the Jews and other peoples of Europe, you should die rather than fight or otherwise you are no better than Nazis yourself. To the Indians, fight!
I'm sorry, but I would give the Peace Prize to Obama long before I would give it to Gandhi.
I wouldn't give it to Obama, but I have to agree with your assessment of Ghandi. He basically wanted everyone else to do "the dirty work" for him, and his cause of freedom for India.
We had a very long discussion on this during one of my ethics classes at NPS. You would be surprised how many folks in my class thought this way after they dug into Ghandi's life, past the rhetoric that is often espoused about him and his life's work.
greenberetTFS
05-29-2012, 08:31
He's the MAN.........;) No peace prize for him.......:D Yeah I know it wasn't real,But....:cool:
http://youtu.be/hZjpCK02s3A
Big Teddy :munchin
Airborne Lawyer,
Sir, while I have great respect for your intellect and thoughts, in this particular instance I respectfully disagree, Gandhi's views examined in detail are far more complex than stipulated. There are any number of quotes from him dispelling the myth of non violence at all costs. A pragmatist might say he looked at the resources at his disposal, ( a large unarmed populace) as well as the moral compass of his adversary ( The British weren't the Nazis) and used the only tools available, at the end of the day folks can compare quotes but his actions, specifically leading a movement of independence for millions by non-violent means speak louder than words. Martin Luther King was similarly awarded the NPP for adopting Gandhi's methods, was he equally undeserving? I think we agree on Obama in general, but at the time he was awarded the NPP what specific actions had he taken to merit this award?
enclosed are some additional Gandhi quotes on violence from the Young India Journal;
Self-defence by Violence
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully. (YI, 11-10-1928, p342)
Violence the Choice
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....
But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.(YI, 11-8-1920, p3)
Between Cowardice And Violence
I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race. (YI, 4-8-1920, p5)
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap28.htm
I'm sorry, but I would give the Peace Prize to Obama long before I would give it to Gandhi. For all his flaws, Obama at least recognizes that sometimes peace does require strength, and that the exercise of US power to those ends is necessary. You can, and I do, disagree with the specifics of lots of Administration policies, but we are not having our soldiers put flowers into the gun barrels of the Taliban or AQAP.
Gandhi would have built his peaceful world on piles of millions of corpses of those who took his advice to peacefully resist totalitarian regimes the same way they would engage in civil disobedience against democracies. But don't take my word for it, take Gandhi's:
Gandhi's advice to German Jews in 1938:
Gandhi's advice to the British in 1940:
And after the war, when the horrors of the Nazi regime were fully revealed, Gandhi held firm. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife". "The Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly." He reserved his criticism for the Jews who rose up violently in Treblinka and in the Warsaw Ghetto, and of course, the Zionists.
Worse, Gandhi was a bit of a hypocrite. His conviction that his stance was a moral imperative and unassailably correct in the long run, no matter the circumstances, is credited even by those who viewed him as naive, such as George Orwell. But Gandhi's pure principles often bent. In South Africa, he fought non-violently on behalf of Indians, but was effectively indifferent to the plight of Africans. In India, he compromised his principles and accomodated himself to the caste system to win the support of Indian politicians who defended the system. And in 1947, Gandhi compromised on war: "Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice." (The Times, September 27, 1947). To the Jews and other peoples of Europe, you should die rather than fight or otherwise you are no better than Nazis yourself. To the Indians, fight!
As an Indian I completely agree with you.In 1947 the British General assigned to India had an attack plan ready to push Pakistani forces and tribals out of Kashmir but both Nehru and Gandhi replied "We will use non-violence not the military" and today that area that we could have claimed back is held by Pakistan as POK and the Kashmir issue is still on.
Not all Indians totally love Gandhi.Though most love him some on the other hand are smart enough to realize that the reason the British left was due to pressure from other world powers and the aftermath of WW2 due to which it wasn't easy for them to govern India.Gandhi was very lucky that his movement was against the British who were a tolerant bunch had it been Stalin or Hitler he would have been facing a firing squad.
In today's world strength,power and shutting down the enemy is required for good to win over evil.People criticize the US for using its military power but they do not realize that not just for the US but for any country that is the only option one can use in today's world against terrorists and dictators.The US,UK use their military to win peace on the other hand 20 years ago Pakistan could have used theirs to shut down Afghan rebels to bring peace to the region but in the end they sent their troops to help the Taliban.
PedOncoDoc
05-31-2012, 04:59
Gandhi would have built his peaceful world on piles of millions of corpses of those who took his advice to peacefully resist totalitarian regimes the same way they would engage in civil disobedience against democracies.
You apparently haven't seen Ghandi II. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE) :D
greenberetTFS
05-31-2012, 15:23
You apparently haven't seen Ghandi II. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE)
;) :D :cool:
Big Teddy :munchin
Alfred Nobel. The inventor of dynamite and an arms manufacture. Indirectly responsible for millions of deaths and he has a peace prize named after him. Ironic isn't it.
How many lives were saved?
Case in point; snipers.
I'm not saying anything against the guy. I think it is funny the anti war candy ass non violent hippies spout the greatness of the Nobel prize and he was actually an arms manufacturer. The same people bitch about the capitalist making money on arms manufacture being the biggest evil ever to walk the earth. It just strikes me as funny as in humorous not odd.
Concur. One of the many facets of the sick joke that is liberalism.