Latest Nobel Peace Prize winner

[Ripsnort]

Even the NPP cannot escape political motives (rolls eyes here)

After announcing the winner, committee      chairman Gunnar Berge said the award to Mr
Carter "should be interpreted as a criticism" of
President George W Bush's policy on Iraq.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2321295.stm

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Udie
hehe knew I'd turn some heads

 Seriously though this guy has done A LOT for the homeless and needy since he's been out of office.  Anybody here have a clue how many houses for the poor he has built with his own hands?  His wife too....

 Doesn't mean I always agree with him when he gets on one of his political missions, but you know at least he does put his money where his mouth is.  It doesn't mean I agree with his methods of gaining peace either,  it's just that I believe that he does actually believe all that stuff and he has the integrity to work for it....

You called it Udie....Integrity.  If ALL the world's leaders had his integrity, intelligence, and compassion, this world would be a safer, better place IMHO (Yeah, I know - rose-colored glasses and all).  

Quoted from the article:
The secretive five-member prize committee praised Carter, 78, for "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

The prize, named after Swedish philanthropist Alfred Nobel, was widely hailed abroad as honoring an elder statesman who has been praised more since leaving office than when president.

"It's great. He deserves it," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who shared the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations.

The committee praised Carter for an "outstanding commitment" to human rights and for everything from his battle against tropical diseases to his help for developing nations. The prize will be handed over on December 10 in Oslo.

End quote.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Even the NPP cannot escape political motives (rolls eyes here)

 

Gotta agree with you Rip,
Berge is outta line. Unprofessional and trying to put his personal spin against Bush. That wasn't the reason that Carter got the award.

Quote from article:
The chairman of the committee, Gunnar Berge, used the prize to make a scathing attack on President Bush's campaign to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

U.S. lawmakers gave Bush solid bipartisan support on Thursday for a strike on Iraq. Carter said last month it would be a "tragic mistake" for the United States to attack Iraq without U.N. backing.

"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Berge, a former Labour cabinet minister, told reporters after announcing the award.

Asked if it was a "kick in the leg" at Washington, Berge said: "Yes, the answer is an unconditional 'yes."' A "kick in the leg" is a Norwegian phrase meaning "a slap in the face."

But two committee members said Berge had gone too far. Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, an ex-parliamentarian of a far-right party, said Berge had acted "unprofessionally" in going beyond the official citation that only made a veiled reference to Iraq.

Berge defended his interpretation. "I expressed myself as leader of the committee...not on behalf of all of the members," he told Norwegian NRK radio.

End quote.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by babek-
Hey Mister.

I was there and know what I am speaking about.

Because of this weak idiot Carter parts of my family have been killed and others had to flee and now live in the USA , Canada and Europe.

Carter had got control of the imperial iranian forces when the Shah left Iran. He didnt allowed any military actiosn against the islamics and so the chance was lost to avaoid Khomeini and his terror.

And maybe the Shah was a dictator - but at least under his rule the iraquis around this monkey Saddam wouldnt dare to attack Iran, which was one of the strongest and best equipped military powers in the region.

Because of the revolution and the loss of imperial officers who were executed or went to exile Saddam thought he could win.
The consequence was that Iraq was loosing soon the war and had to get all these high tech weapons to hold the line against the islamic iranian forces.

And after Gulf War One this Frankenstein Saddam with all his new toy-weapons attacked Kuwait - so the USA had to intervene and stop Saddam.

Even today this conflict hasnt been solved and Bush jr. had to finish the job.

This bastard peanut farmer is responsible for the death of millions in the region - but when they gave the nobel price to terrorists like Arafat or Begin its absolutely OK that they also give it to someone like Carter.

LOL! Let me get this straight. So you're saying that once Carter bacame the President of the United States, only then did the Iranian populace start to hate the Shah? So Carter is responsible for the Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah? Under which three administrations gave Sadaam Hussein the most support (before Desert Storm obviously)? Carter's, Reagan's, or Bush Sr's?
I don't know whether to feel laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Get a grip.

[midnight Target]

OK, maybe one of you accounting types out there can answer this one.

The Nobel prize is worth about 1 million dollars this year. This is about 5 times more than it was worth in the 70's. It is my understanding that the prize money is from Nobel's estate. If they give away 5-6 million a year, (Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Economics.. am I forgetting any?) when will the money run out?
Or, did the Nobel committe make some verrrry good investments? If so, can I get in on that mutual fund?

[babek-]

Originally posted by SaburoS

So Carter is responsible for the Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah?

Yes. He is responsible for the success of this revolution.
Without his orders the revolution would have been crushed in the early stage and Khomeini would have been eliminated too before he could set his feet on iranian territory.

Its a fact that Carter had got the control of the Imperial Iranian Forces by the Shah who left Iran in the hope that he could return after the crisis would be settled.

It worked before in the 50ties where the CIA deposed prime minister Mossadegh, who deposed before the Shah.

Maybe Carter had bad advisors who totally failed in the situation. They ignored the reports of the Mossad how dangerous Khomeini was and that he had to allow the imperial forces to act immediately against the growing revolution.
But Carter - believing the reports that Khomeini was a second Ghandi - gave the strict order that the imperial military was not allowed to act.

And this order allowed the revolutionary forces to win.

With all the consequences which we still today have to see.

Its not the question if Carter, Reagon or Bush sr. supported Saddam most with weapons.
If Carter hasnt allowed the success of the Islamic revolution this question wouldnt exist.

[john9001]

the nobel prizes are total BS ..ignore them

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by babek-


Yes. He is responsible for the success of this revolution.
Without his orders the revolution would have been crushed in the early stage and Khomeini would have been eliminated too before he could set his feet on iranian territory.

Its a fact that Carter had got the control of the Imperial Iranian Forces by the Shah who left Iran in the hope that he could return after the crisis would be settled.

It worked before in the 50ties where the CIA deposed prime minister Mossadegh, who deposed before the Shah.

Maybe Carter had bad advisors who totally failed in the situation. They ignored the reports of the Mossad how dangerous Khomeini was and that he had to allow the imperial forces to act immediately against the growing revolution.
But Carter - believing the reports that Khomeini was a second Ghandi - gave the strict order that the imperial military was not allowed to act.

And this order allowed the revolutionary forces to win.

With all the consequences which we still today have to see.

Its not the question if Carter, Reagon or Bush sr. supported Saddam most with weapons.
If Carter hasnt allowed the success of the Islamic revolution this question wouldnt exist.

The Shah's treatment of his people (cause and effect) is what made ripe the conditions of the Islamic revolution, not whether Carter 'allowed' it to happen or not. Why would the Shah need to have the CIA and Mossad-trained SAVAK? Killing Khomeini would have made him a martyr in the eyes of his followers which both the Shah and Carter knew. That's why the Shah had Khomeini exiled to France. The winds of change were blowing way before Carter became President. Carter may have slowed the Revolution but he wouldn't be able to stop it. LOL, we are wasting out words on each other. You blame Carter for Iran's woes and because of that Sadaam's 'success.' I'll continue to agree to disagree.

[Kieran]

Carter is as deserving as any former US president. He may not have always been right, but he always tried to do what was right as he saw it, and for that I respect him. He didn't watch the polls to see if his decisions would fly, he made his choices and stuck with them. That's leadership.

Of course none of this has anything to do with Bush, Clinton, or Bush.

[Mighty1]

I saw this on AGW and had to post it here. Thanks No. 6

[fd ski]

Babek, i hear Stalin wasn't all that bad either.
I'm sorry for what happend to your family, but on the evil scale religious iran is just about as bad as Shah's Iran was.

Udie, we finally agree on something. Who would have thought ?

[Udie]

Originally posted by fd ski
Udie, we finally agree on something. Who would have thought ?

 Did you ever see Ace Ventura Pet Detective?  Remember the scene when he realizes that the girl he kissed was a girl?  That's me now

 Seriously though,  I'd bet we (all of us here) agree on a lot more than we disagree on.  I like to think that we pretty much agree on the big picture, just think we need to take diferent routes to get there.  I know that's over-simplification but I think overall this holds true....

[Udie]

babek,

 I was just wondering are you Pharsie?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Udie
Seriously though,  I'd bet we (all of us here) agree on a lot more than we disagree on.  I like to think that we pretty much agree on the big picture, just think we need to take diferent routes to get there.  I know that's over-simplification but I think overall this holds true....

but agreeing won't produce as many thread

in fact I gotta disagree with you just to piss you off

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
He must be close to death.

you mean its a sort of 'rest in peace' prize? lol