Can they take back Nobels?(Should we?)

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-25 10:40am

Came to me just a mintue ago, Old Jimmy Carter Won this Years Nobel Peace Prize in large part for his work in North Korea in 94 that Conviced them to stop thier Nuclear Weapons Program

Now we have word that North Korea infact not only did not stop thier program, it succeded and now they reportedy have two and three stage nuclear devices

Can we should we if inchange of that commity take it back?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-10-25 10:51am

I thought Carter won it for his work with Egypt and Israel. The Camp David accords certainly set the groundwork for a lot of diplomacy in the Middle East.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-25 10:54am

I say take back Carter's and take back Arafat's.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-10-25 11:00am

I voted yes because it was obvious that Carter's noble was awarded strictly as a political dig at President Bush and his current policy against Iraq. It's disgusting that a prize that is supposed to be awarded based solely on merit and accomplishment was awarded because a bunch of elitist Europeans disagreed with Bush's policies and wanted to make a statement about it. The Europeans in general have been suffering from foot inmouth disease about this whole affair for some time, the other incident that stands out in my mind is the German justice minister that compared Bush to Hitler...BZZZTTT Sorry, Georgie Bush is not marching Iraqis off into death camps with the complicit approval of the GERMAN PEOPLE. If ANYONE has to watch it when they throw Hitler references around its the FUCKING GERMANS.

Carter has done many wonderful things in the search for peace, his biggest accomplishment being the Camp David Acoords but there was also Haiti and his work with making sure there are fair elections in Central and South America, but it is obvious that the Korean mission was a failure.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-25 11:09am

I thought Carter won it for his work with Egypt and Israel. The Camp David accords certainly set the groundwork for a lot of diplomacy in the Middle East.

In the press realse I have it around here it puts Korea first, and may I point out his Isreal work failed to? The only thing he acutaly succfucly did was Egypt...

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-25 11:37am

I don't see how they could give him one for Egypt/Israel since his envolvment in that was so long ago. Besides, Began and Sadat split the prize for that peace accord.

I would say that in general Jimmy Carter probably does deserve a "Life Time" peace prize.

I do think that Arafat should give his back.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-10-25 11:41am

Sure you can say that Egypt/Israel was a long time ago, but the fact remains that the Camp David accords Carter brokered serve as the foundation for much of the diplomacy in the middle east that has taken place since. While there is still much left to be done in the Middle East as far as peace goes, the Camp David accords were essential in getting the ball rolling and paving the way for normalized relations between the arab world and Israel. For that alone I say Carter is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I just wish the nobel committe didn't use the opportunity to swipe at Bush. That was pretty uncalled for, in my opinion.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-10-25 11:43am

It's called the Nobel peace prize, not the Nobel make-a-treaty-that-people-abide-to prize. He got it, he keeps it.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-25 11:44am

I agree that Carter was deserving because of the Camp David accords but unless they were giving the prize to him because of his overall efforts towards world peace they shouldn't have waited 20years to give it to him.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-25 11:53am

Crown wrote:It's called the Nobel peace prize, not the Nobel make-a-treaty-that-people-abide-to prize. He got it, he keeps it.

So where is the peace he brokered. I say take it back and say, good try bud better luck next time.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-10-25 11:56am

Stravo wrote:I voted yes because it was obvious that Carter's noble was awarded strictly as a political dig at President Bush and his current policy against Iraq. It's disgusting that a prize that is supposed to be awarded based solely on merit and accomplishment was awarded because a bunch of elitist Europeans disagreed with Bush's policies and wanted to make a statement about it. The Europeans in general have been suffering from foot inmouth disease about this whole affair for some time, the other incident that stands out in my mind is the German justice minister that compared Bush to Hitler...BZZZTTT Sorry, Georgie Bush is not marching Iraqis off into death camps with the complicit approval of the GERMAN PEOPLE. If ANYONE has to watch it when they throw Hitler references around its the FUCKING GERMANS.

Carter should have realized this and declined the award. I don't have any respect for him.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-10-25 12:01pm

It's relative peace. If this infatah took place thirty years ago, before the accords, Israel would be looking at a potential war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Because of the Camp David accords and the resulting diplomacy, Egypt and Jordan now have somwhat normal relations to Israel, and situations that would have started a war thirty years ago now get resolved peacefully. Granted, they're still not the best of friends, but at least they're willing to talk to each other for the most part now.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-25 12:14pm

No, I don't think the prize should be rescinded, regardless of if he deserved it or not.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-25 02:54pm

They shouldn't.

There are two thoughts in the attribution of the Nobel prizes

Firstly, many Nobel prizes are usually given a long time after the achievement they're rewarding ocurred. This year Nobel of physics was for a discovery made twenty years ago. The reason for that is simple, many discoveries/achievements only become clear and important many years after.

It's a lot better to give the prize many years latter than to award a hoax.

On the other hand, the Nobel is also given to encourage the people/movement who get them. So, D. Ximenes Belo received it for his efforts for peace in East Timor before the talks with Indonesia ocurred.
As we know, the independence movement eventually achieved success and the only parties at fault were the Indonesian militias/army.

But, if it all had ended in a bloodshed, should the prize have been taken away?
The intentions were still there, and that's what was rewarded. If anything, the prize would serve to remember, to show that peace is still possible.

In the same way, the prizes given to Arafat and Rabin serve to remember that peace is possible, that the leaders of both states once shook hands, regardless the actual conditions.

Regarding Carter, I don't know a lot about him. But he was the one who started making amends in the M.E, and made many important deals of peace. These days, it's important to remember that.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-10-25 03:04pm

They didn't take back Teddy Rosevelt's peace prize even though his arbitration of the Russo-Japanese war of 1907 left only seething hatred between the two countries that didn't find release until the tail end of WWII. For the record that award was even MORE political than this one, Carter has actually done a lot to try and promote peaceful solutions to conflicts unliek Rosevelt who just pulled a bigtime publicity stunt.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-10-25 05:04pm

When did Arafat win the Nobel? I say don't take it back, it's history. They just didn't know anyone else that was "peaceful enough". That's a sign we're running out of good people.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-25 05:42pm

The point I'm trying to make is that unlike people who did things that where only later apprent theres a diffrence in Carters case

The Major reason according to the Nobel Press realse he got the Nobel Peace Prize ACCORDING TO THE COMMITY was for his work in "stoping north korea's nuclear devolpment"

Now then if the major reason that he got the award later turns out to be faulty, does he desever it?

Infact it seems now he AIDED the NK Nuclear program as the Aid we sent them in exchange for stoping the program(Which it seems now they never did) was used FOR the exact program it was reward for to stop!

So that is the sitaution

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-10-27 11:07pm

Mr Bean wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that unlike people who did things that where only later apprent theres a diffrence in Carters case

The Major reason according to the Nobel Press realse he got the Nobel Peace Prize ACCORDING TO THE COMMITY was for his work in "stoping north korea's nuclear devolpment"

Now then if the major reason that he got the award later turns out to be faulty, does he desever it?

Infact it seems now he AIDED the NK Nuclear program as the Aid we sent them in exchange for stoping the program(Which it seems now they never did) was used FOR the exact program it was reward for to stop!

So that is the sitaution

He worked towards a peacful solution to the conflict and he saved the world from a possible war if the US decided to attack DPRK over the program. The fact that the US may do so now has no bearing on Carter's wrok to stop a war in the first place.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-10-27 11:26pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:They didn't take back Teddy Rosevelt's peace prize even though his arbitration of the Russo-Japanese war of 1907 left only seething hatred between the two countries that didn't find release until the tail end of WWII. For the record that award was even MORE political than this one, Carter has actually done a lot to try and promote peaceful solutions to conflicts unliek Rosevelt who just pulled a bigtime publicity stunt.

Actually, bringing about peace in that situation was a relatively big feat; the Tsar was quite prepared to continue fighting, and the result could have been a revolution that overthrew him earlier than historical (Or maybe the Russians would have pulled it off if the Tsar weathered the storm). But the fact that Teddy brought peace in that situation was actually rather surprising - The conditions for it didn't exist. The fact that war broke out again was inevitable, really.

So, if the Nobel Peace Prize can be rewarded for "Imposing Peace by force of Will when the war should really keep on going", Teddy deserved it. Since the committee seems devoted to pacifism, I'm sure they agree with that evaluation.