NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, even the Nobel Committee makes mistakes. I can think of one right off the bat - but I'll let you all suggest who should NEVER have received a Nobel Peace Prize.

For those of you who want to peruse the list of winners:

http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/

In addition to your suggested revocation, please supply some notes on why you think their prize was wrongfully awarded.

1994
The prize was awarded joinly to:

YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.

SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel.

YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel.

for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

effort was nice but lacking, perhaps if Rabin had not been murdered....

Revoke the Arafat-Peres Nobel Prize, because they both failed in the most thorough sense of the word failed.

But let Rabin keep his, because he died in the same time frame and didn't start any crappy Intifada's after he won the prize.

My prediction for this thread. Everyone says Afafat/Peres/Rabin. A few throw in Kissinger.

Mine was this one:

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

In my opinion, they haven't done jack shit.

Oh, and revoke Willi Brandt's as well. He gets an award for Kow-towing to the East-Bloc nations. What a crappy idea.

Revoke the Arafat-Peres Nobel Prize, because they both failed in the most thorough sense of the word failed.

But let Rabin keep his, because he died in the same time frame and didn't start any crappy Intifada's after he won the prize.

Agreed, if I had the power I would do as you suggest ;)

Oh, and revoke Willi Brandt's as well. He gets an award for Kow-towing to the East-Bloc nations. What a crappy idea.

Might have been good for reducing the tension...

I imagine Arafat will catch a lot of shit for his prize on this board, and rightly so, but the most undeserving in my opinion, is Henry Kissinger's in 1973. It's not even close.

Mine was this one:

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

In my opinion, they haven't done jack shit.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

i'd like to win Nobel's prize ! ... for Literature ! :(

I've got another good one, this one's reaching back though...
Frank Billings Kellogg. The Kellogg-Briand Pact is a great way to define failure in international politics.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

He did such a great job in North Korea, didn't he?

I imagine Arafat will catch a lot of shit for his prize on this board, and rightly so, but the most undeserving in my opinion, is Henry Kissinger's in 1973. It's not even close.

I think the Nobel Committee was drunk when they voted for Henry.

I think the Nobel Committee was drunk when they voted for Henry.

On liquor provided by Hank too, nonetheless.

He did such a great job in North Korea, didn't he?

The UN could do everything right and you'd still never give them credit for anything.

The UN could do everything right and you'd still never give them credit for anything.

He also did such a great job with Pakistan.

I imagine Arafat will catch a lot of shit for his prize on this board, and rightly so, but the most undeserving in my opinion, is Henry Kissinger's in 1973. It's not even close.


I entirely agree. I went through the list, just to make sure I wasn't forgetting someone equally hideous. I wasn't.

You could argue that giving the prize to Mideast heads of state is an effort to reward peaceful behaviour, but Kissinger's award does not have even that grace. It's simply nauseating.

He also did such a great job with Pakistan.
For starters, Pakistan officially went nuclear in 1998, the same year al Baradei took over, so it's hardly fair to "blame" him for that. But more importantly, the IAEA and the UN are fundamentally limited in their ability to control who becomes a nuclear power. Considering how limited their ability is, I'd say they've done wonders.

For starters, Pakistan officially went nuclear in 1998, the same year al Baradei took over, so it's hardly fair to "blame" him for that. But more importantly, the IAEA and the UN are fundamentally limited in their ability to control who becomes a nuclear power. Considering how limited their ability is, I'd say they've done wonders.

Well, now that North Korea and Iran have officially told the IAEA to fuck off, IMHO the NNPT is now a completely moribund treaty, and the IAEA a useless appendix.

I entirely agree. I went through the list, just to make sure I wasn't forgetting someone equally hideous. I wasn't.

You could argue that giving the prize to Mideast heads of state is an effort to reward peaceful behaviour, but Kissinger's award does not have even that grace. It's simply nauseating.

And it's not like the world didn't know, by that time, what an utter piece of shit Kissinger was.

He also did such a great job with Pakistan.

Since the NNPT was signed there have been what? 4 countries to get the bomb? Out of 190+ in the world?

I'd say that the IAEA has done a pretty spiffy job of preventing the spread of nuclear technology.

Oh, and revoke Willi Brandt's as well. He gets an award for Kow-towing to the East-Bloc nations. What a crappy idea.

Oh, he deserves the prize for it. But I'd rather he didn't do it all the same.

Kofi Annan, the only peace he's made is with his bankers.

I also question Gorbachev's award. I mean, you can argue that he deserves it for keeping the Soviet Union from trying to go out in a blaze of glory, I guess, but really he just oversaw the demise of a decaying giant.

Since the NNPT was signed there have been what? 4 countries to get the bomb? Out of 190+ in the world?

I'd say that the IAEA has done a pretty spiffy job of preventing the spread of nuclear technology.

Several more could easily get bombs if they wanted to. Germany and Japan come to mind.

I also question Gorbachev's award. I mean, you can argue that he deserves it for keeping the Soviet Union from trying to go out in a blaze of glory, I guess, but really he just oversaw the demise of a decaying giant.

I'd actually like to stick him and a whole list of other people together for the prize that he got. The end of the Cold War was not the work of one man, but of many, many people all around the world.

Several more could easily get bombs if they wanted to. Germany and Japan come to mind.

Could but haven't, hence the IAEA has been doing it's job well.

Several more could easily get bombs if they wanted to. Germany and Japan come to mind.

But they've been convinced not to. Is it any wonder that the countries who have either gotten the bomb or are actively working toward it are ones who feel threatened by their neighbors?

But they've been convinced not to. Is it any wonder that the countries who have either gotten the bomb or are actively working toward it are ones who feel threatened by their neighbors?

ooooh, so North Korea getting the bomb is whose fault?

ooooh, so North Korea getting the bomb is whose fault?

The batshit insane government's, that's who. Sooner or later, with China having been buddy-buddy with them for a while (not so much now) nuclear information was going to get to the North Koreans, and the minute they have nuclear technology, all their available resources are going into this spiffy new toy that they can wave at the world. I don't claim to know how the North Koreans got their hands on nuclear secrets, but that's probably not a half-bad way.

ooooh, so North Korea getting the bomb is whose fault?

Well China gave it to them so I'd have to go with them.

ooooh, so North Korea getting the bomb is whose fault?

Fault? Don't think I tried to assert blame, though I'm sure you'll find some way to twist something I wrote earlier on this thread to make it seem that way.

Fault? Don't think I tried to assert blame, though I'm sure you'll find some way to twist something I wrote earlier on this thread to make it seem that way.

Is it any wonder that the countries who have either gotten the bomb or are actively working toward it are ones who feel threatened by their neighbors?

So, who is threatening North Korea?

So, who is threatening North Korea?

No one has to be. Not with the totalitarian nut job that's in power now. Besides, technically the two Koreas are still at war, so there's always that angle to play up.

So, who is threatening North Korea?

When you're as paranoid as Kim Jong Il, you see threats everywhere, although Bush sure didn't help much with his "Axis of Evil" comments. And no--just so we're clear on this--I'm not saying that Bush is responsible, even though that's what you're no doubt hoping for.

When you're as paranoid as Kim Jong Il, you see threats everywhere, although Bush sure didn't help much with his "Axis of Evil" comments. And no--just so we're clear on this--I'm not saying that Bush is responsible, even though that's what you're no doubt hoping for.

Just as long as we're clear on that.

No one has to be. Not with the totalitarian nut job that's in power now. Besides, technically the two Koreas are still at war, so there's always that angle to play up.

Technically the UN is still at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, if I remember correctly.

So, who is threatening North Korea?

Kim Jong Il is just like Hugo Chavez, he sees shadows of lamps and thinks the Americans are trying to kill him.

Technically the UN is still at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, if I remember correctly.

OK, so someone's still at war with them, despite having left them alone for 53 years, by and large. If the UN is at war with the DPRK, a name after George Orwell's own heart, then that's more than enough ammo for Kim Jong Il to claim the world's against the North Koreans and to build nukes "for their protection." Never mind that it comes at the expense of just about everything else, and I'm pretty sure that many North Koreans have had to resort to eating tree bark for sustenance.

OK, so someone's still at war with them, despite having left them alone for 53 years, by and large. If the UN is at war with the DPRK, a name after George Orwell's own heart, then that's more than enough ammo for Kim Jong Il to claim the world's against the North Koreans and to build nukes "for their protection." Never mind that it comes at the expense of just about everything else, and I'm pretty sure that many North Koreans have had to resort to eating tree bark for sustenance.

Several million have died of starvation. Obviously not enough tree bark to go around.

Mother Teresa: religion based poverty conselling doesn't really count as peace work in my book. Instead it is just a palliative to social injustice (never mind teh fact that she viewed human suffering on Earth as a good thing as it brought people closer to God).

Nelson Mandela: not that I don't entirely understand why he turned to violence, but giving the peace prize to a man heavily involved in paramilitarism leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Several million have died of starvation. Obviously not enough tree bark to go around.

Not that I imagine planting trees is high on their list of priorities...

Jimmy Carter.

'Nuff said.

Other notables: Arafat, Kissinger, de Klerk (myriad human rights abuses were committed by the security forces while he was in power, often with the tacit approval of the government) and Mandela (membership in a terrorist organization), and Teddy Roosevelt.

Jimmy Carter.

'Nuff said.

Other notables: Arafat, Kissinger, de Klerk (myriad human rights abuses were committed by the security forces while he was in power, often with the tacit approval of the government) and Mandela (membership in a terrorist organization), and Teddy Roosevelt.

Sounds like the prize is for people who excel at being international dickheads.

1. Henry Kissinger.
2. Frank Billings Kellogg/ Aristide Briand (1929 and 1926 respectively)
3. Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzkak Rabin.

In that order.

I do not think that Irene Curie would have won her Nobel prize in physics if her parents had not been Pierre and Marie Curie.

I imagine Arafat will catch a lot of shit for his prize on this board, and rightly so, but the most undeserving in my opinion, is Henry Kissinger's in 1973. It's not even close.

Seconded. Responsible for more deaths than certain parties muslim bashing threads....