It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2011

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2011


www.nobelprize.org

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 is to be divided in three equal parts between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work. We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
The Nobel Peace Prize has the last two years been heavily criticized for various of reasons. Last years recipient, Liu Xiaobo, didn't exactly hit home with China. It resulted in strong efforts in censoring news, and as many as 15 countries declined to participate in the ceremony due to lobbying by China.

In 2009 the prize was awarded to Barack Obama, and that choice wasn't exactly without controversy either. Largely, the criticism was simply due to the fact that the newly elected president hadn't made any contributions thus far. Many will argue that this critique is still valid.

So, did the Nobel committee make the safe and uncontroversial choice this year? Looks like it. They've focused on womens rights to participate in peace-building work, which may not be considered controversial in western countries, but in the mid-east it's entirely another matter though.



www.nobelprize.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie
In 2009 the prize was awarded to Barack Obama, and that choice wasn't exactly without controversy either. Largely, the criticism was simply due to the fact that the newly elected president hadn't made any contributions thus far. Many will argue that this critique is still valid.


it's even more valid now, since he actually escalated conflicts, US drones are now operating above Pakistan, Yemen and Syria. Oh, and Somalia.
Nobel Peace Prize is a laugh, a tool to boost the ratings, credibility and popularity, even by nominating.
Bush and Blair were nominated in 2005 for liberation of afghanistan and iraq (they terminally liberated over 1mln people)
The decision about awarding Obama with Peace Nobel was just another blatant proof, that this prize is absolutely meaningless. Kissinger got one too, how come McCloy never got one, he would fit well.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
There has been some mistakes when it comes to peace-prices. I don't think Obama should have gotten one, but giving the peace-price to a Chinese probably didn't pan out the way they though it would. And the Indian guy probably shouldn't have gotten it either. He was only a money-man who made loans to the poor. And today all the things he got the peace-price for is gone. But, he is still rich.

This years peace-price seems fair, though. Liberia is in bad shape, I hope something good comes out of this for the country.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
yeah, its lost all it's credibility long ago/

im still trying to figure out why Al Gore has one



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stainlesssteelrat
Nobel Peace Prize is a laugh, a tool to boost the ratings, credibility and popularity, even by nominating.
Bush and Blair were nominated in 2005 for liberation of afghanistan and iraq (they terminally liberated over 1mln people)
The decision about awarding Obama with Peace Nobel was just another blatant proof, that this prize is absolutely meaningless. Kissinger got one too, how come McCloy never got one, he would fit well.


It's not only the Nobel Committee that puts forward nominees. So the fact that Bush and Blair were nominated doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the peace prize itself, it would have if they actually won though. You can read more on who can submit nominations here.

As far as I've gathered, nominees are not divulged until 50 years after the fact, at least from the NPP itself, so I can't be entirely sure that Bush and Blair were nominated in the first place.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Cant believe Ben Bernanke wasn't nominated or Dick Chaney... The last couple of years have been a joke...

I wish I had more to say but you know that the system is as rigged as The Oscars.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Droogie
 


Well I'm still waiting for them to

give the prize to Jesus !

THE Prince of Perfect Peace .

( I think He'd come back for that one )




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Damn .. I expected Sarkozy , Cameron or even again Obama ... so many peace bombs dropped this year ..award commitee making a big mistake.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
After they awarded Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, I decided to investigate the Nobel Peace Prize. When I looked at the list of nominations and recipients, I soon realized that the Nobel prize was just another tool of psychological warfare and manipulation. It's surprising that Adolf Hitler wasn't a recipient, just a nominee. If I were offered the Nobel Peace Prize, I'd turn it down. It's like a stamp of achievement from The Powers That Shouldn't Be.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


I agree. Many reacted with disbelief when both Gore and Obama were announced as recipients of the prize. Sometimes I really do wonder what the nobel committee is thinking, frankly it was a bit embarrassing when they announced the reasons for why they chose Obama.

By the way, here's the wikipedia articles on the recipients, for those that are interested:

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
Leymah Gbowee
Tawakel Karman



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Droogie
 


We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.

Great point.

Unfortunately, in the "West" and excepting for Iceland, the only women who get to play are those who develop a psychopathic pathology equivalent to the male CEO's. ...Not a benefit, imho.

Good catch. S&F



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
After giving it to Obama last year for all of his peaceful actions, I'm thinking they'll give it to Ghadaffi or posthumously to Sadam Hussein.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Droogie
 
Another dead in the water* nomination, it looks like.
The first two people named are connected to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that investigated the goings on under the former president, Charles Taylor. This is like the 911 Commission where they put on a show rather than conduct an actual criminal investigation. They come up with a list of 70 names of people who worked for Taylor, who should never be allowed to hold public office. Their Supreme Court overturned the finding and its implementation, on the grounds that it violated due process.
So, that would be like giving the Peace Prize to Warren for his commission on the JFK assassination for preventing a war with Cuba by pinning it on a lone gunman.

*not the nomination dead in the water, but a nomination for people who are dead in the water, meaning they put on a good show but end up doing nothing.


edit on 7-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join