Nobel for peace laureates

[Rhymes]

These are all modern Nobel prize (peace) laureates that brought some controversy. Is their any of them that you think should be taken off that list and why?

Else, who deserves it the less.

Edit: Kim Dae-Jung was in 2000

 

[h4ppy]

Whoops, I voted Nelson Mandela since I thought that you were asking who most deserved it. I would be all for just discontinuing the peace prize, it's quite worthless in my opinion since its been given to a lot of bad people, for a very abstract concept. Now physics, there's a nobel prize that is truely great.

 

[Rhymes]

I would be all for just discontinuing the peace prize, it's quite worthless in my opinion since its been given to a lot of bad people, for a very abstract concept.

Thats exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread

 

[Hundegesicht]

Yassar Arafat... the idea of a terrorist winning the noble peace prize proves how absolutely rediculous it is.

And I don't know who Kin Dae-Jung is.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yassar Arafat... the idea of a terrorist winning the noble peace prize proves how absolutely rediculous it is.

He was neither the first (Henry Kissinger comes to mind) nor the last. And yes, the Nobel Peace prize is pretty compromised.

And I don't know who Kin Dae-Jung is.

Perhaps you should have found that out before you voted? He is the president in South Korea since 1997.

I voted for Jimmy Carter. One of the most peaceful of US presidents, but still.... From the top of my head I mention increased US aid to Indonesia (I believe 1978) when the atrocities on East Timor peaked and the making of Taliban.

 

[h4ppy]

But he didn't get the prize for those, he got them for the peace talks. (one of the many reasons why the prize should be abolished, it doesn't take into accout everything a guy did in his life or everything he will do, whereas you can't undo something in lets say the literature catagory)

 

[Keirador]

Yitzhak Rabin. Because

the idea of a terrorist winning the noble peace prize proves how absolutely rediculous it is.

Just because this particular terrorist has the backing of a popular aggressor state does not mean his actions are any less terroristy.

 

[Richard Cribb]

But he didn't get the prize for those, he got them for the peace talks. (one of the many reasons why the prize should be abolished, it doesn't take into accout everything a guy did in his life or everything he will do, whereas you can't undo something in lets say the literature catagory)

Not so.
According to the will of Alfred Nobel the NPP should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

The commitee motivation for giving it to Jimmy Carter was :"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"

Obviously not on East-Timor, then...
Anyway, I see no reason to elaborate on this, as I find it rather more difficult to find a truly worthy NPP laureate than an unworthy one.

 

[Peri]

Yassar Arafat... the idea of a terrorist winning the noble peace prize proves how absolutely rediculous it is.

And I don't know who Kin Dae-Jung is.

Mandela was also a terrorist or did you not know that either?

 

[Rammstein]

If you exclude Arafat, you have to exclude Peres as well, since they shared it, and both Israel and the palestine people share a responsibility for the failed peace attempt.

I think the 1994 prize was awarded way too prematurely.

 

[G-Man]

Arafat. Giving him a peace prize is an insult to the families of the thousands of innocent people he left dead. Every leader is responsible for the deaths of innocent people - be it by accidents or by lack of fundings to different parts of his goverment or by dozens of other reasons. But Arafat is the kind of leader who deliberately killed civilians, who deliberately tried to kill as many of them and who then celebrated their deaths. Furthermore, giving a peace prize to the man who delayed the peace process by decades, who stopped the peace talks in favor of war and who broke the peace agreements which he had signed is just about as wrong as it gets.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Very few of the recent winners actually deserved it. Carter perhaps did, but it was clear his selection was a political statement. The Iranian woman certainly did not deserve it; she has accomplished nothing and the Iranian regime has regressed significantly since then. The whacko who got it this year certainly didn't deserve it, and arguments about the unworthiness of Arafat can already be found in this thread in abundance.

Much like a lot of internatonal institutions, the nobel peace prize grows less relevant every year.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Tell me when it was relevant.

 

[Rhymes]

Arafat. Giving him a peace prize is an insult to the families of the thousands of innocent people he left dead. Every leader is responsible for the deaths of innocent people - be it by accidents or by lack of fundings to different parts of his goverment or by dozens of other reasons. But Arafat is the kind of leader who deliberately killed civilians, who deliberately tried to kill as many of them and who then celebrated their deaths. Furthermore, giving a peace prize to the man who delayed the peace process by decades, who stopped the peace talks in favor of war and who broke the peace agreements which he had signed is just about as wrong as it gets.

This sure is some brainwashed propaganda! (demi-joke)

How About Koffi Anan?????

 

[G-Man]

This sure is some brainwashed propaganda! (demi-joke)

Why demi?

How About Koffi Anan?????

Certainly another low point for the peace prize.

 

[Mapache]

Another candidate for not really worthy:

Menachem Begin

who was quite conflictive when he was in war with Egypt. Later he signed a peace treaty with Sadat when it was convenient and got the award.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Mandela was also a terrorist or did you not know that either?

True, as were the French resistants to the Nazi occupation in WW2

 

[King Alexander]

Yeah, everyone who fights for his rights is labeled "terrorist" in these days. Goverments who use the same(or worse) methods are always good. Whom are we joking, ourselves?

 

[AVN]

Yeah, everyone who fights for his rights is labeled "terrorist" in these days. Goverments who use the same(or worse) methods are always good. Whom are we joking, ourselves?

Good question, and I think we are joking ourselves or at least unnecessary simplifying difficult problems.

If we shouldn't do that the world would be a much better place to live in.

 

[The Last Conformist]

True, as were the French resistants to the Nazi occupation in WW2

Well, I suppose some of them were.