Having scanned the list of winners (or 'laureates', as they call themselves), it would appear that Obama is in good bad company.
So I've set up a Fun Online Poll, vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
------------------------------------
Last week's Fun Online Poll asked "Would you be happy for more homes to be built if it meant you could afford to buy a large or nicer one?" To my great relief only 39% of people voted "No", so maybe there's hope for us yet.
Are you all set?
5 hours ago
11 comments:
I have done an brief resume of them back to 1968 http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-would-accept-nobel-peace-prize.html
I am going for Gore ae the most wholly & completely dishonest & destructive but would give disgonourable mentions to Medicins sans Frontieres 1999 who acted as propagandists for all openly genocidal ex-Nazi friends of ours in former Yugoslavia & International Atomic Energy Commission 2005 which has made a living by actively promoting false fear claims about nuclear power.
I am sorry that as many as 39% were so keen to prevent the Jones's catching up that they would put up with worse housing just to prevents others getting it too.
Just like to say something about Henry Kissinger...
He's often cited as the worst example, but he got it for negotiating peace in the Vietnam war.
@OC I'm confused. I thought the US and the South Vietnamese lost the war fair and square, there wasn't any peace as such, or are you talking about one or more of the interludes in the fighting?
@neil The poll was badly worded. I don't want a nicer or larger house. Indeed the one I have is too large. I am not against house building per se, but I still voted against the proposal.
Tricky. Carter didn't get a mention for...er, actually what did he do for his? Then there was the Arafat/Rabin/Peres one - yeah, peaceful bunch of lads there. Of the ones you mention Al Gore stands out, but then Obama gets one in barely the time it takes to learn his way around the White House. Probably the right answer is that it's been political for so long that just about all recipients are unworthy these days.
O/T: Now they're getting better at disguising their intentions...
I specify Bono.
Whaddaya mean he hasn't got one yet? Shssh, don't tell HIM that.
NC, you can nominate MSF and IAEA over at the poll in 'other', if we get enough 'others' I'll have to re-run it.
OC, Bayard. USA lost the war fair and square, that's why the Vietnamese guy refused to share the prize with Kissinger - the Vietnamese guy wanted a Nobel War Prize for winning.
Bayard, how would you have worded the previous poll?
AE, I quite liked Jimmy C (until recently). The other three you mention didn't create 'peace' (which is impossible) but they certainly slowed down the rate of killing for a while, so fair do's.
JuliaM, brilliant, I shall add to the series.
WOAR, he's not Pope yet either, but let's keep schtum on that as well.
Ah, the papacy. I suppose that'll come down to a battle between O and the Loathsome Wee Twat. So I wish a long life to Papa Ratzi.
Mark "Would you be happy for more homes to be built if you knew it would bring house prices down?"
Quick correction, Kissinger DID negotiate a peace deal with the North Vietnamese who then turned round and broke it when the US army had left and they had been rearmed by the Russians.
Angry Exile, there are many things Carter could have the peace prize for:
1) Helping the Khemer Rouge whilst they killed 10-25% of the population
2) Sponsoring an agreement with the North Koreans that not only gave them the bomb but gave them time to proliferate to some of the worst regimes
3) Coming up with a peace agreement in Rwanda that a few weeks later would lead to one of the quickest genocides in recent history
4) Allowing Pakistan to get the bomb
5) Setting up the funding of Mujahideen to be via the ISI guaranteeing the craziest of the crazy where funded.
When you are directly responsible for the death of millions of people then Al Gore lying about warming doesn't really cut it.
Post a Comment