The Nobel Peace Prize

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Dec 18, 2004.

  1. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was sitting around and thinking about the Nobel Peace prize who awards honors to terrorists like Yasser Arafat and to terrorists appeasers like Jimmy Carter, and was wondering if it would be possible to have a society that honored people who actually did good things in the world to spread democracy and advance human rights in the world. People like Ronald Reagan, Natan Sharansky, George W. Bush, etc...

    Any ideas? Is there a society such as this that exists today and why don't they get as much publicity and legitimacy in the world as Nobel which honors terrorists and supporters of detente? Is there anything that could be done ti give true peace makers and advocates of human rights more legitimacy and exposure in the world?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  2. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    You could go to work and start one with the money of the rich folks whose pictures are on the walls at the Southern Baptist colleges and universitites.
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are these people? I generally don't have time to travel the country and see all the pictures of rich folks on the walls of Southern Baptist Colleges and Universities. Perhaps, you could name some of them for me and I can research them and see if we have some common beliefs.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. Turpius

    Turpius
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you keep this new peace prize from getting as politisized as the Nobel?
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Set a standard that they supported Democracy, took some tangible action that helped free oppressed peoples, and took a stand that confronted evil in the world. That is just off the top of my head. That could change. What are your thoughts?

    One of the problems that I see with Nobel and other so-called human rights organizations is that they like to talk about peace and human rights in an theoretical abstract manner, but support leaders and ideas that directly contradict human rights and peace (Arafat and detente). My contention would be that the Democratic political system is superior to communism and dictatorships when it comes to human rights and peace because it makes the leaders accountable for the conditions of those who they lead. If a leader is leading a group of people who are living in squaller while they are hording money to themselves, sending it to terrorists groups that oppress their own people, or if the leader himself is trying to create a fear society and oppress the people himself, the democratic society will vote that person out. A Dictator has no such fear and therefore, has no real incentive to respect human rights and strive for peace. This is why democracy, although not perfect, is superior as a form of government. This is also why detente does not lead to peace and human rights.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  7. Turpius

    Turpius
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph,

    I agree that there should be some sort of standards that can be enforced, not some generic nebulous idea of "peace" left to whatever the judges intend it to mean. Of course I have never read the instructions that Alfred Nobel left for setting up the Peace Prize, so I'm not sure if the panel is following his wishes or ignoring them.
     
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

    That peace still stands, while other ceasefires, peace treaties, etc. have crumbled in months or just a few years. Bush's "roadmap" fell apart in short order.

    But Carter knew a secret that Bush does not.

    And that is what leads to peace. And because he used the road that leads to lasting peace, some call him an "appeaser."

    But Egypt and Israel remain at peace, mocking such foolish insults, and the efforts of foolish men who hope to force people to live in peace with each other.

    In this Christmas holiday, let's remember with gratitude Carter, and Begin, and Sadat (who died for his courageous act of peace).

    And let's pray the current leaders of nations come to their senses.
     
  9. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok...I give him credit for that. However, his policies of detente and appeasement with the Soviet Union kept political prisoner under the thumb of the Communists for several more years. He also did not do too well, IMO, with the Iranian hostage standoff. It seems to me that his record of appeasement made it easier for them to keep holding them. It wasn't till the cowboy (Reagan) was elected did they get a little worried about releasing the hostages. The truth is, I really don't like Carter very much. I thought his anti-war crusade was dispicable and his support for the liberal CBF made him a pariah in my eyes. I used to think he was a nice guy, but a bad president. I don't even think he is a nice guy anymore and just wish he would stop calling himself a Southern Baptist and go away...perhaps to France.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  10. Priscilla Ann

    Priscilla Ann
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether you like Carter or not, he did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. He was not a great president, but he is a good Christian and yes, a peacemaker. I guess it's impossible for you to believe that a Democrat could be a Christian. There are some of us out here! Get over it!
     
  11. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that he was not a great president. I, however, disagree that he us a good Christian. And yes, there are some Democrats out there who are Christians. I don't think Carter is one of them. Zell Miller would be a good example of a Democrat who I think is probably a Christian. If you allign yourself with the CBF and liberal theology, then I would put you in the same boat as Carter. I have nothing to get over. But thanks for your "Christian" concern.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  12. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph admits what this is really all about:

    It is better to think rationally, than depend on your personal dislikes, when evaluating presidents.

    Carter, dealing with Iran, sent a military mission to get the hostages. It failed, but that is what he chose.

    Reagan, during Iran/contra, sent tribute to them in a vain hope that they might use their influence to get some hostages back, such as the CIA station chief who was captured in Beruit.

    They took the aid, and sneered at Reagan. Later, we discovered that the CIA chief had been taken to Iran, and was being tortured to death at the very time the Reagan administration was supplying them with weapons.

    A humiliating episode in American history. Maybe you should learn a little of it, and find out who the "appeasers" were.
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Galatian. That is not all this is about. It also has to do with Nobel honoring terrorists as peacemakers while ignoring true peacemakers like Sharansky, Reagan, and Bush.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  14. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Judging by the standards of most of the current regulars of the Baptist Board something like 90% of the Nobel prizes ever awarded for both Peace and Literature have gone to undeserving candidates.
    Using those standards in the other categories, a significant number of Nobel prizes would have been given to different folks as well.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph, the Peace Prize is given to someone who advances the cause of peace. Generally, speaking, starting wars is not considered to be a way of advancing peace.

    Let's break this down a little simpler...

    a. Carter was responsible for ending a decades-long conflict between Israel and Egypt. His remains the only peace process in the Middle East that actually worked. Hence the Nobel.

    b. Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq that has killed thousands, with no end in sight.

    c. Reagan helped arm the dictator who Bush overthrew, and the terrorist who blew up the World Trade Towers.

    That pretty much rules him out, as well. His attempted appeasement of the Iranians didn't have much to do with it either way.

    Remember, it's called the "Peace Prize" because it's given for advancing peace, not ending it.
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh yeah, but Arafat is totally legitimate, right? Get real, man.

    Reagan freed millions of people in Russian and Europe. Sharansky was a political dissident in the Soviet Union who fought to make it a free society and gain the freedom to emigrate for the Jewish Refuseniks. He continues to fight today for Democracy and human rights all around the world, including for the Palestinian people. Bush did not start the war. The terrorists did. However, Bush has freed million of people from tyranny and terror and is building Democracy in Iraq. This more than qualifies him as a peacemaker. Your mistake is to think that lasting peace only comes through detente and peace treaties. Ask Israel how well that policy has worked for them. Peacemakers will confront evil regimes and overthrow them and replace them with Free societies. This is what Reagan did. This is what Bush is doing. This is what America did in Japan and Germany.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.

    C'mon, Joseph. Remember who you're talking to. Reagan's advisors had the good sense to continue the policy of containment that (as George Marshall predicted) would eventually bring down the Soviet State. That's about it. In the end, the people of the Warsaw pact freed themselves, because the Soviets during the 70s bankrupted the system.

    Sharansky is a fine man. But he has not been as successful as Carter in promoting peace.

    You've confused Iraq and Afghanistan, again.

    As you learned earlier, he has made it impossible for the Christian community in Iraq, and they are fleeing in droves. He has also made it possible for terrorism to gain a foothold in Iraq, to the point that elections may have to be delayed.

    People who start wars are never going to be regarded as peacemakers. No matter how much spin goes into it.

    I never said that, but then your specialty is strawmen.

    It's been an extraordinarily successful process. Egypt continues to be at peace with Israel. They trade, and visit each other's countries. Recently, when an Israeli patrol mistook some Egyptian soldiers for terrorists, and shot them, the two governments handled it with calmness and reason. Of course, you have to remember, that the Bush agreements were not handled with the same degree of skill that the Camp David agreements were.

    C'mon, Joseph. We were there at the time. Reagan's guys were saying that the revolution in Eastern Europe was a Soviet ploy. They couldn't believe that the peoples of the Warsaw pact could free themselves. But that's what they did.

    Reagan did nothing but talk. Even the wild spending on $800 toilet seats and whatever was wasted. The Soviets had given up trying to keep up with us, and had resorted to setting up paper divisions in Europe to fool us. They did a pretty good job. We incurred all that debt and a severe recession for no reason at all.
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.</font>[/QUOTE]I was being sarcastic. You left that part of my quote out. I am glad you agree that it was stupid for Nobel to offer a terrorist a peace prize. It was equally stupid for the United States under Clinton to think they could achieve peace by strengthening a brutal dictator and providing money and weapons to him.

    C'mon, Joseph. Remember who you're talking to. Reagan's advisors had the good sense to continue the policy of containment that (as George Marshall predicted) would eventually bring down the Soviet State. That's about it. In the end, the people of the Warsaw pact freed themselves, because the Soviets during the 70s bankrupted the system.
    [/QUOTE]

    Nope. You are wrong. Containment didn't bring down the Soviet Union. Reagan confronting the evil empire and giving an international voice to the millions of double thinkers, dissidents, and political prisoners in the USSR did.

    Sharansky is a fine man. But he has not been as successful as Carter in promoting peace.
    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, he has been quite successful working as a dissident in the Soviet Union in promoting peace.

    You've confused Iraq and Afghanistan, again.
    [/QUOTE]

    You have mistakenly separated the war on international terror, again. It is not just an issue in Afganistan. As has been discussed before, it is very clear that Saddam harbored and supported terrorists linked to Al Quaeda like Abu Nidal before the war in Iraq began. I know you really don't like to focus on that reality because it doesn't help your pacifist detente ideology, and also helps justify your willingness to turn a blind eye to the human rights atrocities under Saddam. But, I will continue to bring it up as long as you try to ignore it.

    As you learned earlier, he has made it impossible for the Christian community in Iraq, and they are fleeing in droves. He has also made it possible for terrorism to gain a foothold in Iraq, to the point that elections may have to be delayed.
    [/QUOTE]


    Elections will not be delayed and a fear society will fall and give way to a free society. Democracy will overcome tyranny and terror in Iraq just as it did (under Bush's watch) in Afganistan. If you would like to debate the Iraqi Christian situation, perhaps you might consider going back to that thread and answering the several posts which have recently been made by others and myself. Or, are you avoiding that thread for some reason?

    People who start wars are never going to be regarded as peacemakers. No matter how much spin goes into it.
    [/QUOTE]

    Once again, that is your opinion. However, I would argue America brought about peace in Germany by going to war with them. Lincoln brought about the beginning of civil rights for Black Americans with the Civil War. Today, even you cannot dispute the fact that millions of people who were once oppressed by the Taliban and Saddam are now building free societies. Afganistan just held free elections where for the first time in a long time, women were allowed to vote. I know this doesn't seem like such a great thing here in America where we take many things for granted. But in Afganistan, it is tremendous. Freedom is overcoming tyranny and terror in Afganistan. Further, Iraqis no longer are filling millions of mass graves. There are no more rape rooms sponsored by the Iraqi government. There are no more people have their tongues cut out, or being put feet first in a shredder machine so the thug government officials could listen to them scream as they were being chopped to bits. No. As bad as you might like us to believe things are right now under the evil Americans, your message really doesn't ring very true to reality. Your message has about as much basis in reality as the message of Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and John Kerry. And finally, free elections will occur on time, or possibly even early (as we witnessed back in June with the handover of power) in Iraq and democracy will take root and will grow from there. And your theories of containment will hopefully be consigned to the ash heap of history along with Communism and the tyranny and terror of the fear societies that the Taliban and Saddam worked so hard to maintain.

    I never said that, but then your specialty is strawmen.
    [/QUOTE]

    If peace is not achieved through confronting evil and defeating it, then how do you think it is achieved? Containment? Relaxation of strained relations? This is detente. It doesn't work BTW.

    It's been an extraordinarily successful process. Egypt continues to be at peace with Israel. They trade, and visit each other's countries. Recently, when an Israeli patrol mistook some Egyptian soldiers for terrorists, and shot them, the two governments handled it with calmness and reason. Of course, you have to remember, that the Bush agreements were not handled with the same degree of skill that the Camp David agreements were.
    [/QUOTE]

    Yes Camp David. Gave the Palestinians 90% of what they wanted with no call for democratic reforms in human rights for the people of the Palestinians. Let's see. What was the outcome of those negotiations? I believe Arafat referred to it as the second intifada. Only a fool or pro-terrorist supporter believes that agreement was a success.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the collapse of the Soviet Union:

    The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror by Natan Sharansky, pp. 132-138
     
  20. liebeskind

    liebeskind
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I really don't get it!

    TRUTH OR LIE?

    Didn't Reagan order police to attack civil right and student free speech protesters?

    Didn't condemned busing for school integration?

    Didn't he opposed affirmative action? Didn't he threatened to veto a proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation)?

    Didn't he try to allow Bob Jones University, a segregated Southern school, to reclaim federal tax credits that had long been denied to racially discriminatory institutions?

    "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so." Ronald Reagan

    The Europeans would not give an awards to hypocrites that claim peace but wanted to segragate its own citizen. Like I stated clearly in one post. The reason Johnson did a lot of signing was because a man name "King" recieved a Peace Prize which ratified his peaceful cause, which intern was a slap in the face to the President.

    Trust me Bush will never recieve this prize (not from Europe, and for good reasons)!

    Ron
     

Share This Page

Loading...