China, you're a disgrace.

[I want teh kotor 3]

This guy deserves it more than obama, that's for sure.

[Aram]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

These days we'll take what we can get.

[Oblarg]

This guy deserves it more than obama, that's for sure.

 

No one's going to argue with that. Obama receiving the peace price was a gigantic ****ing joke.

[Guest The Architect]

I ****ing love Chinese food, though.

[Walsingham]

And I love Chinese military science. What's your point?

 

Going back a step, it's all very well to say it's worth it. WORTH IT? WORTH IT?

 

1. Why this guy and not hundreds of others, as I asked earlier? This guy's not even dead! Which surely might qualify one for having tried and failed. Trying, but not so much you actually die seems rather limp to me. Not by my own standards, but by the standards of human activism.

 

2. The peace prize was supposed (correct me if I'm wrong) as a form of secular beatification. It's like the Victoria ****ing Cross for hippies. You can't hand it out to people just to make a point that a situation is rubbish. Do so and the allure of getting one is diluted like a Zimbabwean dollar.

 

These are not idle points. What about Morgan Tsvangirai, just to pick one I know about? He struggled, came close to unseating Mugabe, and could have triggered a civil war when the election was so obviously rigged. But he backed off and sat down with a man who had had him beaten, and his supporters raped and tortured. Out of a belief in peace. Or so I've read.

 

The Nobel committee are scoring political points which denase the Nobel, and duplicating efforts that are far more meaningful when made by someone like Amnesty, who actually go the distance by highlighting people, agitating on their behalf, and keeping people informed.

 

You might just as well give the man an oscar.

[Orogun01]

<I'm a filthy spammer>

And this has to do with China how?! Mr. Bot.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Gorth
Quoted message removed

[Gorth]

And this has to do with China how?! Mr. Bot.

Some forum spammers operate from there?

[Humodour]

And I love Chinese military science. What's your point?

 

Going back a step, it's all very well to say it's worth it. WORTH IT? WORTH IT?

 

1. Why this guy and not hundreds of others, as I asked earlier? This guy's not even dead! Which surely might qualify one for having tried and failed. Trying, but not so much you actually die seems rather limp to me. Not by my own standards, but by the standards of human activism.

 

2. The peace prize was supposed (correct me if I'm wrong) as a form of secular beatification. It's like the Victoria ****ing Cross for hippies. You can't hand it out to people just to make a point that a situation is rubbish. Do so and the allure of getting one is diluted like a Zimbabwean dollar.

 

These are not idle points. What about Morgan Tsvangirai, just to pick one I know about? He struggled, came close to unseating Mugabe, and could have triggered a civil war when the election was so obviously rigged. But he backed off and sat down with a man who had had him beaten, and his supporters raped and tortured. Out of a belief in peace. Or so I've read.

 

The Nobel committee are scoring political points which denase the Nobel, and duplicating efforts that are far more meaningful when made by someone like Amnesty, who actually go the distance by highlighting people, agitating on their behalf, and keeping people informed.

 

You might just as well give the man an oscar.

 

I would prefer the Nobel peace prizes existed as a force for good in the world (as is its intended purpose) - e.g. to rally support for human rights and democracy in China (whose instability is the biggest threat to peace in the next few decades), rather than exist to 'beatify' somebody who is dead.

 

So your accusation that the Nobel prizes are being used for 'political' purposes moves me none. Although I strongly take issue with your characterisation of human rights as a political issue - no, it's a human rights issue. Human rights are only a political issue insofar as certain violent political regimes like China disallow them. As long as we disagree on this point we'll continue to disagree about Liu being awarded the Peace Prize.

[Walsingham]

Unless I'm just being thick I don't think you've engaged with my main point, Krez. To clarify, it comes in three parts:

 

1. As the highest award for peace the Nobel should be handed out to persons in power who turn from violence to peace.

2. Handing a Nobel to issues that are still 'live' can actually confuse and exacerbate the situation rather than promoting peace.

3. If live campaigners need support then it is better handled by bodies who will take a sustained and dynamic interest, not simply parachute an award in.