Join 3,556 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


As war looms, a Peace Prize is awarded.
October 11, 2002 2:55 AM   Subscribe

As war looms, a Peace Prize is awarded. But not to Hamid Karzai, valiantly attempting to rebuild Afghanistan, or 154 other candidates, (a list which will be largely secret until 2052) individuals and groups which are working worldwide. Instead, the Nobel Institute has chosen former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The award is not just for his (largely unheralded) work in the last year, but for his "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." Deserved? More so than others? Care to second guess the Norwegians on this one?
posted by Dreama (68 comments total)

 
Gladly, Dreama: Deserved. (Thank you! Good night!!)
posted by allaboutgeorge at 3:20 AM on October 11, 2002


Every time I watch the news, I see him in some other country monitoring, talking, intervening. He deserves it.

Americans should be ashamed of having voted for the idiot not the intellectual ( again ).
posted by godidog at 3:23 AM on October 11, 2002


I say deserved as well. He's also a big supporter of Habitats For Humanity if I remember correctly.
posted by PenDevil at 3:34 AM on October 11, 2002


He single handedly invented the peanut!
posted by Postroad at 3:43 AM on October 11, 2002


You know, the prize could've gone to Karzai. Lovely gesture about faith in democracy's prospects in strife-torn Muslim countries. At issue is Karzai's success, as well as Afghanistan's, stilll dependent on aid from other countries and on American soldiers' might to secure Kabul. (I'd hand him a Nobel Prize for Survival, were there such an award, in a heartbeat.)

Marney Rich Keenan reminds me of Carter's amazing visit to Cuba earlier this year.

Dreama: How say you? Would you've gone with Karzai, the families of Tiananmen Square survivors, Bush/Blair?
posted by allaboutgeorge at 3:49 AM on October 11, 2002


Carter is the next in a series of fatuous asses who have received the "peace prize" in recent years, leading to speculation that the "peace prize" can be bought as easily as a border prostitute and with about as much integrity.

Here's the hall of shame.

Of special interest:

1984: Desmond Tutu. Please.
1992: Rigoberta Menchu. Imposter and Marxist fraud.
1994: Yasser Arafat. Why bother with the dress?
2000: Kim Dae-Jung. Leftist cowtowing to a terrorist/fascist regime.
2002: Carter. Castro derriere-smoocher and utterly inconsequential blathering leftist pontificator. He should stick to carpentry.

The worst part is, the inclusion of these hucksters and Marxist frauds vandalizes and cheapens the *real* contributions of deserved recipients like:

1999: DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), Brussels, Belgium.
posted by hama7 at 3:50 AM on October 11, 2002


Hama7: Just asking, what's your beef with Desmond Tutu?
posted by PenDevil at 4:00 AM on October 11, 2002


hama7? Be peace.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 4:02 AM on October 11, 2002


1999: DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES),

- thanks for the translation.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:03 AM on October 11, 2002


People still care about this "award"? It was given to Arafat, for crying out loud; a known terrorist and practically the inventor of airplane hi-jacking.
posted by dagny at 4:03 AM on October 11, 2002


Hama7: Just asking, what's your beef with Desmond Tutu?

He means well, but, like Carter, is the epitome of moral ineptitude.
posted by hama7 at 4:15 AM on October 11, 2002


hama7

I see that you're a Kissinger fan
posted by matteo at 4:16 AM on October 11, 2002


Americans should be ashamed of having voted for the idiot not the intellectual ( again ).

Godidog: Since Al Gore left office, he has had every opportunity to do work similar to Jimmy Carter. Instead, he works for a financial services company. And what makes him an intellectual? The semester of divinity school? Jimmy Carter has championed housing (Habitat for Humanity), clean water, cheap eyeglasses and fair elections through his Carter Center. Al Gore is no Jimmy Carter.
posted by Frank Grimes at 4:34 AM on October 11, 2002


I see that you're a Kissinger fan

Nobel Peace Prize 1973: Kissinger.
posted by hama7 at 4:38 AM on October 11, 2002


It's tragic that the Award has lost all credibility. Nonetheless, congrads to President Carter.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:39 AM on October 11, 2002


Frank Grimes: You left out "I served with Jimmy Carter. I knew Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter was a friend of mine. ..."
posted by allaboutgeorge at 4:44 AM on October 11, 2002


Hama7: those two articles aren't really indicative of anything. Tutu got (and deserved) his Peace prize for his work in South Africa, particularly leading the Anglican church and the South African Council of Churches and making them active in the anti-Apartheid movement.

Those articles deal with comments he made about the Middle East situation nearly 20 years after he was awarded and that doesn't somehow make all his past achivements irrelevant.
posted by PenDevil at 4:45 AM on October 11, 2002


I agree completely with Hama7: there should be no dubious achievements taken into account when awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, even though it's often (well, sometimes) used as more of a peace-prompting award than one which actually rewards actual achievement. That said, I diverge with him on Jimmy Carter: he's a well-meaning, hard-working and an all-round nice guy. Only a naive view of foreign policy would make him out to be a maverick. I believe he's a very able diplomat, completely tuned to America's interests, as opposed, say, to Jesse Jackson. His speech in Cuba was obviously conciliatory (he had to be) but still stuck up for democracy.

As for Desmond Tutu I'm glad he mentioned the long-winded buffoon - so it more than makes up for it. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:46 AM on October 11, 2002


Dont forget that Begin belongs on any list of former terrorists who won a Nobel Peace Prize.

The trouble is that most of the people in a position to make peace reached that position by keeping wars going. MSF has not stopped a single war, partly because it never started one. Jimmy Carter, ditto.

Don't get me wrong. I think both MSF and Carter deserve one. But there do seem to be two types of potential recipients of the prize, and nothing one can do to reconcile them.
posted by alloneword at 5:06 AM on October 11, 2002


Don't get me wrong, (and you're right, PenDevil) I criticize out of respect for the Nobel Peace Prize and its rightful recipients.

As MiguelCardoso aptly put it: [the Prize is] "used as more of a peace-prompting award than one which actually rewards actual achievement."

I may be confusing this prize with a kind of "lifetime achievement award", and I know Carter is a really nice guy, but sometimes he's just so damn nice that the bad guys take advantage of him. See the Iran hostage crisis in the late seventies.

Carter did not win more of my sympathies by playing baseball with Castro either.

His charity work is exemplary, however.
posted by hama7 at 5:10 AM on October 11, 2002


If anyone deserves the award, it'd be mister Carter. He's a genuinely caring, compassionate, Christian (in the best sense of the word), active ex-president who puts all of the others in that rarified category to shame.

hama7... let me guess, you're a republican, right? Listen... read up on the man, and what's he's done since his term in office, and don't just mouth the ramblings of the right-wing hate mongers of the American conservatives. This guy has actually worked for peace in the world.
posted by jpburns at 5:11 AM on October 11, 2002


This is truly delicious irony; Carter winning the Peace Prize and Bush winning his own War Prize in the space of hours.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:15 AM on October 11, 2002


Carter deserved? YES!!!

Kissinger? A war criminal deserves not the prize but prosecution. Extradite him to Chile!

Hama7? There are more appropriate weblogs for such bitter partisanship.
posted by nofundy at 5:20 AM on October 11, 2002


Carter did not win more of my sympathies by playing baseball with Castro either.

Bah. It's only rightist American foreign policy and the inordinate clout of the exiled Cuban aristocracy in South Florida that give Castro any power at all. Leninism has been tried, folks. Nobody save the North Koreans takes it seriously anymore. We can drop the Truman-era containment rulebook now and stop strangling Cuba with our pompous unilateral sanctions.

That said, as I survey the long-term damage Bush is doing to our economy with this reckless war he seems to have such a woody for, and the absolute contemptible spinelessness of the Yesman, I mean, Democratic Party, I note that Carter is eligible for one more go in the Big Chair... :)
posted by Vetinari at 5:50 AM on October 11, 2002


"It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in Norwegian. "It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."-from the yahoo news story

Even when Carter wins, he loses by being used as an anti-Bush statement....but I think he's done enormous good in the world and at home.
posted by amberglow at 6:00 AM on October 11, 2002


> I may be confusing this prize with a kind of "lifetime
> achievement award", and I know Carter is a really nice
> guy, but sometimes he's just so damn nice that the bad
> guys take advantage of him. See the Iran hostage crisis
> in the late seventies.

Yep, contrasts very badly with the way Nixon and Kissinger would have handled it.

1) N+K announce "we will do nothing that places the hostages' lives at risk."
2) N+K do something specifically designed to enrage Ayatollahs; hostages executed.
3) N+K piously deny they did "anything whatever to justify this horrendous action by Iran"
4) Hostages are a moot point, N+K's hands are no longer tied, Iran becomes nuclear glass.
5) N+K national heros; live long and prosper.
posted by jfuller at 6:12 AM on October 11, 2002


hama7

I know that Kissinger won it, thank you
I was actually making fun of your weird choices, but I should have made myslef clearer (you know, when you weren't on MeFi yet, I've discussed that scandal with other users here, nevermind)
My point was: you shit on Tutu, Carter et al
But you don't find anything wrong in giving the award to the man who bombed Cambodia
Who's your Peace Prize candidate, John Ashcroft?
posted by matteo at 6:13 AM on October 11, 2002


What has Karzai done? In a few years, maybe he'll deserve it. Now? He's in charge of a country which in no way, shape or form can be descrbed as peaceful. Good intentions or bad, he's had zero chance to produce either. Giving him the Nobel Peace Prize would be wish fulfillment rather than recognising an achievement.
posted by vbfg at 6:34 AM on October 11, 2002


What has Karzai done? In a few years, maybe he'll deserve it.

You give him a few years? I'll give you 10 to 1 he's a dead man walking.
posted by niceness at 6:37 AM on October 11, 2002


Carter wasn't chosen because he was the dreamiest candidate. They want to reward him for some of his actions that they feel have helped the cause of peace, and it's an off year.

It's not really a recognition of the person, it's a pat on the back to encourage others to take notice and play nice. You can get the prize just for deciding you're tired of fighting. Kind of a sad commentary on the state of the world, but there it is.
posted by Isamu Noguchi at 6:45 AM on October 11, 2002


Jimmy Carter is one of my favorite people in the world. I suspect he may have been the only honest president we've ever had.

Good on him.
posted by frykitty at 6:49 AM on October 11, 2002


Frank Grimes:

:-), but I wasn't trying to argue that Al Gore was as good as Jimmy Carter, only that Americans, when given a choice of an idiot or someone slightly less challenged, seem to keep chosing the idiot to be president. This I do not understand.
posted by godidog at 6:52 AM on October 11, 2002


Arafat even deserved his reward. Recall that Arafat was part of a set of 3 in 1994. I think we were all pretty encouraged.

From the Nobel Press release:


In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel wrote that the Peace Prize could be awarded to the person who, in the preceding year, "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations". The award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1994 to Arafat, Peres and Rabin is intended by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to honour a political act which called for great courage on both sides, and which has opened up opportunities for a new development towards fraternity in the Middle East.
posted by putzface_dickman at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2002


Just last night I was speaking about how Carter is our greatest former president. I wake up to find he has deservedly won the Noble Peace Prize.

He also still has 4 more years of presidential "eligibility" :)

Carter in 2004!
posted by terrapin at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2002


Americans, when given a choice of an idiot or someone slightly less challenged, seem to keep chosing the idiot to be president. This I do not understand.

They (average Joe American and wife) do this because they fear Mr. SmartypantsTM.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:08 AM on October 11, 2002


Jimmy Carter: The only president to go to the nut farm before the White House. ;-)

Congratulations to Carter. He deserves it.
posted by salmacis at 7:32 AM on October 11, 2002


Regardless of the reasons the Committee decided to award Carter the prize, I delighted he's received it. I can't think of another American politician who so deserves it and not many more world-wide right now.

And unlike Henry K., Carter can actually leave the country without the fear of arrest when he steps off the plane.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:51 AM on October 11, 2002


Dreama: How say you? Would you've gone with Karzai, the families of Tiananmen Square survivors, Bush/Blair?

None of the above, more like. In fact, I'm not sure that the Peace Prize has any relevance at all at this point. There are 6 billion people in the world, many of whom are just trying to make it through the next 24 hours of time without starving to death, becoming a victim of a horrifying targeted, sneak attack or worse, a pawn in a madman's game. I think everyone has a responsibility to do something to increase peace, to reach out to those around them, to stop violence and harm and suffering as much as possible, and fortunately, many do.

Instead of picking out politicians, accolading jobs nowhere near done or giving undeserved honor to tyrants who have finally been forced to bend to the will of the people they've gladly oppressed for years, why not put that money towards efforts to improve humanity as a whole, at the level which will make the most difference: with the common people?

"Statesmen" are all well and good. But it's individuals, regular people, who need support and encouragement and strengthening who are going to have the most success in stopping their children and their friends and their neighbors from strapping on bombs. It's individuals who become emboldened who are going to stand up and say "No! We aren't going to kill some Hindus/Moslems/Christians/Jews today, we aren't going to go rip babies from their mothers' wombs for sport, we're going to stop this insane conflict." They may end up becoming leaders, statespeople, but every successful effort toward creating peace without war preceeding has started with a handful of ordinary citizens who simply had enough and started to make some efforts toward change, and where is the support for that when the most prestigious recognition of "peace" work goes to politicians and people whose names are on everybody's lips already?

Credit, I say, and nurturing and support and applause and accolades and aid and succor, ought to be handed out with a generous hand, not to the people who have the power to oversee elections and sign meaningless treaties that they can violate the next day, but instead to those who put everything that they are on the line because everything within them tells them that they must for the sake of their own lives, for their children, for their homes, not their agendas or lofty ideals.
posted by Dreama at 8:31 AM on October 11, 2002


The Nobel committee doesn't read Meftafilter?! Come on, folks, Carter says nuke-yu-ler!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:48 AM on October 11, 2002


A hometown (sort of) reaction. This piece points to Carter's efforts to address the very real issues Dreama points out.

I think this well deserved.
posted by trox at 8:49 AM on October 11, 2002


sometimes he's just so damn nice that the bad guys take advantage of him. See the Iran hostage crisis in the late seventies.

Yeah, and the Reagan campaign had nothing to do with prolonging it. (Unless, of course, you are referring to Bill Casey as one of the bad guys, in which case I'd agree.)
posted by MegoSteve at 9:01 AM on October 11, 2002


There are more appropriate weblogs for such bitter partisanship.
LeftFilter Police
posted by HTuttle at 9:09 AM on October 11, 2002


why not put that money towards efforts to improve humanity as a whole, at the level which will make the most difference: with the common people?

Because, Dreama, the money must be awarded according to Nobel's will. That's why.

Although, I think that the winners usually do put the award money toward their cause, not their own personal use. And the winners are usually rewarded for some type of "efforts to improve humanity as a whole". So, basically the money is going towards those efforts.

And, Carter was not solely honored for his work as President of the United States of America. And, he has openly and strongly disagreed with Bush's tendency to "resolve" by force rather than mediation.
posted by valval22 at 9:11 AM on October 11, 2002


> Carter says nuke-yu-ler!

Citation for this? Carter is a US Navy trained and certified nuclear engineer (he went to Annapolis, and served on nuclear subs.) "Nuke-yu-ler" from Jimmy the C is hard to believe, considering his background in the field.

If it did happen, suppose he just had a moment when the ole South Jawja just popped out, the way Texas occasionally pops out through William F. Buckley's various overlayers of Yale.
posted by jfuller at 9:45 AM on October 11, 2002


*wildly applauds Dreama*
posted by languagehat at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2002


But you don't find anything wrong in giving the award to the man who bombed Cambodia
Who's your Peace Prize candidate, John Ashcroft?


Listen mateo. I knew exactly your import when you said it the first time, but you were being purposefully vague and baiting. I didn't buy it then, and I won't now. You are making quite a grave and blatant logical error, sir.

Saying that Kissinger was responsible for bombing Cambodia is like saying that Truman was responsible for gassing Jews in Auschwitz, or that Gerald Ford was responsible for Idi Amin's pogroms. Or that murderous Stalin was just misunderstood. Where's the logic?
posted by hama7 at 10:17 AM on October 11, 2002


Saying that Kissinger was responsible for bombing Cambodia is like saying that Truman was responsible for gassing Jews in Auschwitz

You are making quite a grave and blatant logical error, sir.
posted by niceness at 10:26 AM on October 11, 2002


jfuller -- my citation is me, because I distinctly remember it. And knowing his background, as you note, it was jarring to me at the time.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:28 AM on October 11, 2002


Because, Dreama, the money must be awarded according to Nobel's will. That's why.

Hooray. That doesn't change my view: this award has become so ridiculous and short-sighted as to be rendered wholly moot. There have been years when the award wasn't given, perhaps that should be the choice from here on out. No one is served by this award but its winners.

Although, I think that the winners usually do put the award money toward their cause, not their own personal use. And the winners are usually rewarded for some type of "efforts to improve humanity as a whole". So, basically the money is going towards those efforts.

No, the money is going towards the personal pet causes of the individual winners. Arafat no doubt put his prize money right into PLO coffers. That's going toward "improving humanity as a whole?" Tell that to the family of Se'ada Aharon.

And, Carter was not solely honored for his work as President of the United States of America.

At the risk of seeming petulant, duh.

And, he has openly and strongly disagreed with Bush's tendency to "resolve" by force rather than mediation.

Right, like I said, a politician. This deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? Then let's give one to all of the protesters who were outside of Bush's speech in Cincinnati the other night, too.
posted by Dreama at 10:28 AM on October 11, 2002


someone infinitely more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because this man not only talked peace, he actually fought for it and won - and all in a peaceful manner. Of course he's not nearly as good a candidate since he doesn't belong squarely in either the Left or the Right camp, unlike Carter.
posted by bokononito at 10:34 AM on October 11, 2002


Perhaps the Nobel Prize for Peace should be given to those who, after the bloody fact of war, actually minimize its consequences, helping the impoverished, the sick, the wounded and the victims of death.

I think that peace-making (in our time and before) is an impossible task. Better encourage the doctors without borders or the anti-landmine organizations than shilly-shally those who have actually condoned violence at any one time.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:35 AM on October 11, 2002


jfuller: ample references in this thread; it's not some wild attempt at a slur.

I'm happy Carter (and by extension the Carter Center) got this award. Among other things, his grandkids grew up in my church. Still, it's hard not to be critical of the poor choices the Nobel committee has made over the years, the deliberate politicization at least in recent decades, and the carefree attitude toward the original rules that made both possible. There are roughly four types of award they seem to give, depending: lifetime achievement awards (Carter); organizational merit badges (MSF); activist awards irrespective of actual peace achievement (Menchu); and "peace-prompting" awards (Rabin-Arafat): not for what was achieved, but as a fillip in the frequently vain hope that the parties will continue to be peaceful. In fact, the awards given for a specific peace achievement in the last year are, at least recently, uncommon. Add into that the Euroleft sneers by the committee, as documented above, and you have an organization that has descended into mediocrity, lost much of its sense of purpose, and most astonishing, takes sides. It's very disappointing.
posted by dhartung at 10:36 AM on October 11, 2002


Congratulations to Carter - I agree a good choice.

Here's my additional entry for the Nobel Poor Choice Hall of Shame - Lech Walesa, a virulently anti-gay, embittered and down right nasty politician.
posted by Kaslo at 10:45 AM on October 11, 2002


No, the money is going towards the personal pet causes of the individual winners. Arafat no doubt put his prize money right into PLO coffers. That's going toward "improving humanity as a whole?" Tell that to the family of Se'ada Aharon.

Since when did Hamas and the PLO share a bank account?
posted by laz-e-boy at 11:07 AM on October 11, 2002


Last year i would have given it to Phil Collins for not releasing an album. And this year i would have said that he deserved it again for the same reasons. But not only is he coming out with a new record, but he already sold the rights to the first single to a car company to sell a car.

so yes, i agree with the panel, Carter it is.
posted by tsarfan at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2002


Arafat no doubt put his prize money right into PLO coffers

That was then..... There's absolutely nothing to be done about it now, except disagree with the choice, which you are emphatically doing.

Right, like I said, a politician. This deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? Then let's give one to all of the protesters who were outside of Bush's speech in Cincinnati the other night, too.

If a person with a political opinion is your definition of a politician, then all of the protesters in Cincinnati are also politicians. With that definition, you'd be hard-pressed NOT to award a politician.

Perhaps a new view? We understand that you disagree with the awarding of this prize. However, if this evil must take place, I (and others, see above) agree with the choice of Carter for two reasons: 1 - His body of charitable work is worthy of an award. 2 - His receipt of the award is a sweet little kick in the pants to American foreign policy.
posted by valval22 at 12:06 PM on October 11, 2002


Saying that Kissinger was responsible for bombing Cambodia is like saying that Truman was responsible for gassing Jews in Auschwitz, or that Gerald Ford was responsible for Idi Amin's pogroms. Or that murderous Stalin was just misunderstood. Where's the logic?

Actually, it's nothing like any of those things. Care to expand on that ridiculous analogy?

Here's a decent archive of the case against Kissinger, for anybody who's interested.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:07 PM on October 11, 2002


Here's Carter's WaPo opinion column from last month which created a bit of a stir.
posted by homunculus at 1:09 PM on October 11, 2002


Ty Webb: thanks for the link to the archive on Kissinger. Here are also two excerpts of two earlier books regarding Kissinger/Nixon/Cambodia.

Saying that Kissinger was responsible for bombing Cambodia is like saying that Truman was responsible for gassing Jews in Auschwitz

This analogy is so jaw-droppingly asinine that my lower mandible just now fell out of my head and bounced under my desk.
posted by scody at 1:26 PM on October 11, 2002


Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, p340:

"Sihanouk ... privately invited American attacks on the Communist sanctuaries ... in 1969 the Nixon Administration took the hint..."

p. 356:

"I was desperate. A bombing cutoff would destroy our only bargaining chip." - discussing efforts in Congress to stop bombing in Cambodia.

P. 358:

"Everything is just going to come apart in Cambodia if we stop bombing."

I don't know about your definition of responsible, but you'd have to admit that as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Kissinger would have been involved in the initial discussions, and also by lobbying the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committe to continue the bombing (p. 358), Kissinger shared some responsibility for it. This is a far more reasonable assertion than "Gerald Ford was responsible for Idi Amin's pogroms."

It's obvious you have not read this book, as almost every time Kissinger expresses an opinion about the Cambodia bombings, he is positive about them and considers them diplomatically expedient.
posted by alex_reno at 3:55 PM on October 11, 2002


Hama7, in case no one has pointed out to you exactly why the Kissinger:Bombing Cambodia :: Truman:Gassing of Jews analogy is a terrible one: Truman was never a high-ranking official in Hitler's regime. Kissinger, however, was a high-ranking official in the Nixon Administration, and in fact helped plan the (secret and illegal) bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and 1970. This is not to be confused with the Khmer Rouge's blood-drenched campaign of social transformation a few years later, although many observers credit the bombing with fueling the KR's rise to power (sort of like how Al-Qaeda's bombings of the United States have been fueling the Bush Administration's rise in power recently).

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread: I think that Dreama has a point here, and the Nobel Committee has in recent years made its choices too often based on wishful thinking or symbolic support rather than actual achievements. However, I believe that Carter's prize is well-deserved, if for no other reason than that there has been no war between Egypt and Israel since the signing of the Camp David Accords that he made possible.
posted by skoosh at 4:12 PM on October 11, 2002


We need a Nobel Prize in Evil.
posted by homunculus at 4:56 PM on October 11, 2002


One can talk about it like it's oh-so-clear, but: I'm hope nasty Dictator Musharaf stays in power, I sympathise with Dictator Castro and I abhor Dictator Hussein.

And ( yes, I'm trying to come back to my previous point ) they are all much better choices for president than the person that the *free citizens* of the United States of America *chose to be their president*.

This I do not understand.

--

Dhartung's bit about the Nobels was inspiring but I think one has to realise that it's too late. They chose, people believe their choice means something -> selection process fulfilled. Grammys/Oscars/You're the best Metafilter poster I've ever read/Circlejerks.
posted by godidog at 5:52 PM on October 11, 2002


i like carter, he's made good use of his influence and deserves the award. besides, how can you not like a president that believes in killer bunnies...?!
posted by t r a c y at 9:04 PM on October 11, 2002


the Nobel Committee has in recent years made its choices too often based on wishful thinking or symbolic support rather than actual achievements.

You're right. But the next question becomes: What's the point? I want a prize too then, based on the belief that I will someday solve the Palestine-Israel conflict peacefully. I can do it! Gimme prize!

But that doesn't make much sense, does it?
posted by hama7 at 4:50 AM on October 12, 2002


Isn't Hamid Karzai nothing but a corporate puppet of the US? He was placed in power (forget any illusions as to the democratic mechanism of the loya jirga) by the Bush administration and only really has control over Kabul. He is merely our ex-Unocal pretender to the throne. He is the 'president' while the other more independent Afghan strongmen are 'warlords'. Ah, language is a beautiful thing. Once his American mercenarial bodyguards slip up the Afghans will probably put a quick end to this Karzai stooge. They've dealt with similar insults in a similar fashion since time immemorial. Don't believe all the warm fuzzies you've been getting from the media about this guy. The real goal of our Afghan plan is not democracy and independence for the Afghan people.
posted by letterneversent at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2002


Here's the REAL reason:

Peace Prize sends rebuke to Bush
posted by hama7 at 8:25 PM on October 13, 2002


And Jay Nordlinger's:

Flashback
posted by hama7 at 4:43 AM on October 14, 2002


« Older Bush Science: more lead for children and the heali...  |  Tiny camera reveals the inside... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments