Nobel peace prize

Wookster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Do you truly believe this?

Absolutely! 25% unemployment in Spain and Greece. Demands for independence by Catalonia, rise of the far right in Greece...

War does not break out overnight, the conditions are created over many years.

Generali

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9608484/Dont-honour-a-Brussels-office-block-give-the-Nobel-to-Maggie.html

To understand why Baroness Thatcher deserves the Nobel prize for peace in Europe, you only have to think about the absurdity of giving the gong to the EU. It wasn’t the Common Market that brought peace to Europe in 1945. I am afraid it was a series of other institutions: the Red Army, the US Marines, the Royal Air Force Bomber Command. They genuinely helped to pacify the continent, though you wouldn’t think of nominating them for a peace prize.

It wasn’t as if the EU was the body that helped to keep the peace during the Cold War. Most people would agree that was the work of Nato, and the threat of retaliation against Soviet aggression.

It wasn’t the EU that went toe to toe with Russia over the stationing of Soviet missiles in Europe. It was Reagan and Thatcher. It was her ideas of free market democracy that inspired the peoples and politicians of Eastern Europe – and in some cases still do. Why not honour her, rather than a bureaucracy?

FTBFun

Wookster wrote: »

Conditions in the periphery today are quite similar to those in Germany after WW1.

What - hyperinflation? Armed gangs and authoritiation putsches every few months?

I think you're exaggerating a tad.

vivatifosi

Interesting article Gen. Fwiw, I think the peace price should rarely be in the domain of politicians or political organisations that form the mainstream. It should go to people who have against all odds have made a difference: the people we all think of when considering the prize's prestige such as Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Aung Sun Suu Kyi.

There has clearly always been a political motive to the prize, but this year's recipient, particularly following hot on the heels of the nomination of Obama, strikes me as the Nobel committee being too concerned with its own political domain and not the larger world view.

On a different note, anyone interested in the history of the cold war should look up the newly released tape that has been issued in the US today. It shows Kennedy discussing the missiles in Cuba and where they are and what type they are. Obviously only part of the story, but interesting nevertheless.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

On a different note, anyone interested in the history of the cold war should look up the newly released tape that has been issued in the US today. It shows Kennedy discussing the missiles in Cuba and where they are and what type they are. Obviously only part of the story, but interesting nevertheless.

On a slightly more on topic note, but only slightly, the history of Alfred Nobel is fascinating too.

Apparently his brother died and his own obit was printed by mistake under the headline, "The Merchant of Death is Dead". He decided that he wanted to be remembered as a better person than that.

FTBFun

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting article Gen. Fwiw, I think the peace price should rarely be in the domain of politicians or political organisations that form the mainstream. It should go to people who have against all odds have made a difference: the people we all think of when considering the prize's prestige such as Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Aung Sun Suu Kyi.

With hindsight I'm not convinced the former of these should have got it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Apparently abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace today....:think:

BenjaG

Even if some people on our islands don't like it, the EU is a union of 500 million people, living peacefully together, enjoying the highest average standard of living in the world.

Jennifer_Jane

OK, it seems that Mother Theresa was actually no Mother Theresa. Also, of course, Mandela rightly received the Nobel Peace Prize (jointly with F.W. de Klerk). The Country would doubtless have been a blood-bath without his charisma, forgiveness, intelligence and charm.

But he was also no Mother Theresa - had he taken the advice of the time, South Africa would not have had the huge HIV/AIDs problems that occurred. At one time (I don't have current statistics and it's beyond my energy levels to look them up), it was 1 in 12 people in South Africa that had HIV/AIDs. Practically a whole generation of people wiped out, leaving old, infirm people to look after grandchildren. The sadness, the poverty, the pain is heartbreaking. Between Mandela, Mbeki, and the denialists, it has been described as "Genocide by sloth".

Bear in mind that South Africa was pretty isolated before 1990 and opened up leading up to the 1994 elections, when Mandela became President. Something that (I understand) had the beneficial effect of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDs.

Mandela lated apologised for his denial and said: "AIDS today in Africa is claiming more lives than the sum total of all wars, famines and floods and the ravages of such deadly diseases as malaria ... We must act now for the sake of the world."— Nelson Mandela, in a closing address at the 14th International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Spain, 2002.

Nevertheless, when he was in power (1994-1999, IIRC), he did nothing despite being lobbied by HIV/AIDs quangos.