Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 10 of 57 (529443)
10-09-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
10-09-2009 9:06 AM


Nobels and Nukes
I agree that he's a bad nomination, but how could the Nobel Peace Prize drop any lower in your estimation. It's long ago since the concept was stamped into the ground and urinated on. Look at some of the murderers, terrorists and warmogers who have one of these sat on their mantelpiece - Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger are two that spring immediately to mind.
First of all, we can't undo nuclear weaponry. It is here and no country who has the capability to possess them will ever not have them at the ready.
Well that's clearly untrue. What's the major difference between Germany and France that means the Germans are incapable of maintaining a nuclear arsenal? What practical constraint limits Japan's capacity to do the same? When South Africa abolished its nuclear weapons, is this because it was incapable of maintaining them or just because they chose not to keep them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-09-2009 9:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-09-2009 6:12 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 18 of 57 (529479)
10-09-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by bluescat48
10-09-2009 11:26 AM


One stupid question: Has the Nobel committee ever refused to give a prize in a given year since it thought there were no viable candidates?
Yes - there was no prize given in 1972, 1967, 1966, 1956, 1955, 1948, 1939-43, 1932, 1928, 1924, 1923, 1918 or 1914-1916. As you can see though, it's been almost 4 decades since they last neglected to hand out a prize. The year after that they apparently decided to start giving them out to names pulled out of a hat, and symbolised this new regime by giving Kissinger the award for failed and insincere peace negotiations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 11:26 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 44 of 57 (530133)
10-12-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
10-09-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Nobels and Nukes
Aren't they bound by international treaty and armistice after WWII not to? Japan and Germany have been tied down for more than half a century due to their aspirations of world domination. Personally I think they've payed their debts to the world.
Japan is bound by it’s own constitution, Germany has no such constraints. Both are probably bound by international treaty not to build any nukes, but then the nuclear powers are bound not to design and buld a new generation too — this has no effect on their behavior.
Either way though, all the Japanese need to do if they wanted nukes is change the constitution — this isn’t a practical constraint on their ability to build nuclear weaponry. It’s not true, then, that every nation capable of maintaining a nuclear arsenal will do so. There isn’t enough public or political support for the Japanese, or the Germans, or the Australians (and so on) to build nukes, so they don’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-09-2009 6:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 45 of 57 (530137)
10-12-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
10-09-2009 4:24 PM


Refused peace prizes
He's also a politician. If he refuses, the message the rest of the world will get is either "I'm too good for the nobel peace prize" or "the committee is stupid..." This is why nobody, and that's a big NOBODY, has ever refused a nobel peace prize. And likewise, nobody will ever refuse a nobel peace prize.
That's not true - several people have refused the Nobel Peace prize. Even though he's still listed by the committee as a joint recipient, Le Duc Tho (the Vietnamese negotiator awarded the prize for the Paris Peace Accords along with Kissinger) turned it down on the basis that the accords were a failure and the US was still bombing Vietnam. Jean-Paul Sartre turned it down, though I'm not sure of his reasons. A couple of Russians awarded the prize turned it down under pressure from the Soviet government (names and details escape me at the moment - sorry). There might have been others, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 10-09-2009 4:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024