[SweetEmbraceMan]

Martin Luther King: 9 years from the Montgomery Bus Boycotts to NPP
Mother Theresa: 31 years from starting her mission in Indai to NPP
Nelson Mandela: 41 years from begining his political work against apartheid to NPP (27 of those years were in prison)
Barack Obama: Was President for less than 2 weeks before he got his NPP nomination.

[Roosh]

I come back from vacation to this news and the first thing i thought was "isn't he currently escalating the war in afghanistan?"

[Kona]

The Nobel Peace Prize doesn't make sense to me.

Ask some South Africans about some of the things Nelson Mandela really did. Read about necklacing. Creepy.

Aloha!

[torchbearer]

Yeah, they should've waited. Obama hasn't even had enough time to kill people yet. He's only killed a few thousand at best. If they had waited, he could've joined all the other mass murderers who got the Nobel Peace Prize (e.g., Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger, and Al Gore [who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq even in the mid-1990's]).

Nobel instructed that the Prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Obama should have been disqualified based on the "reduction of standing armies" consideration alone.

[speakeasy]

(10-11-2009 10:28 PM)torchbearer Wrote:  

Yeah, they should've waited. Obama hasn't even had enough time to kill people yet. He's only killed a few thousand at best. If they had waited, he could've joined all the other mass murderers who got the Nobel Peace Prize (e.g., Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger, and Al Gore [who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq even in the mid-1990's]).

Nobel instructed that the Prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Obama should have been disqualified based on the "reduction of standing armies" consideration alone.

I think there's a difference between wanting peace and being a pacifist. People can want peace but still believe that war is a necessity if all other options have failed and it is either in self-defense or for the better good of the world(such as stopping genocidal assholes like Hitler or Pol Pot). Pacifist are the extremist of the peace movement, the people who don't believe any war is justified under any circumstance and won't even bother to weight out whether a war is justified or not, it's simply wrong from the get go because it's war. I think for these people, their opposition is on emotional grounds, not something thought out. I don't understand these types of people very much. I don't think one has to fall in the latter category in order to qualify for a peace prize.

Anyway, I'm not even sure what the point of these prizes are. Peace is great, but it's not an end in itself. If a guy walks up and punches me in the face, and I don't take his friggin head off, I can say I'm a man of peace since I didn't attack anyone, but who the fuck cares. If someone punches me, he's going to get it back, if that means I'm unpeaceful or warlike, then so be it.

[SweetEmbraceMan]

(10-11-2009 10:28 PM)torchbearer Wrote:  

Nobel instructed that the Prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Funny how the criteria changed over the decades. Now the Peace Prize is like a miscellanies category: if do good for the world that wasn't in science, literature or economics, you get the peace prize.