Let's look objectively at the criteria for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, which is 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." Whoever has satisfied those criteria most effectively deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Accordingly, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, is singularly qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as he is the only leader of whom I'm aware to have abolished a standing army (Saddam Hussein's), promoted fraternity between nations (Iran and Iraq by allowing Shiites to dominate post-Hussein Iraqi politics -- quite a contrast to the Iran-Iraq War), and promoted peace congresses (diplomacy concerning Iraq's future and multilateral negotiations with North Korea). Of course, in practice, the stated criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize are completely disregarded, and the Prize is arbitrarily awarded to people who've done nothing to promote pacifism, such as Al Gore, so, as a practical matter, the Prize has lost whatever respect it once had, and there's really no one for whom an argument couldn't be made that they are deserving of the Prize.
2007-10-12 18:47:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rationality Personified 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A Yahoo solutions seek for became up over 1500 questions concerning the challenge of Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize. i'm particular that in case you've been truly fascinated in an answer you've found many sturdy ones between the 1000's which have already been given. in spite of everything, the Nobel Peace Prize committee reported its motives quite eloquently. I presume that you do not agree.
2016-10-09 03:04:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
well thats hard to answer i mean we have made peace and we have made war but i would say no because we do not have a government that can make peace all it seems is that we just want war violence and death Al Gore is a man i truly do respect because of his choice for stopping global warming unlike most politicians for example hillary clinton wants to show us that women have rights (yeah we didnt know that already) and obama wants to prove african americans should be more respected and have more votes oh did i say that. But my country does not diserve this prize
i think gore though a democrat supports the war because he wants the oil
2007-10-12 14:30:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by half-jaw 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're confusing Gore's achievements with global warming to a political decision made by the current administration, and frankly, one has nothing to do with the other.
Al Gore does not represent the US regarding his stance on global warming, so why should he be held accountable for the war effort made by an opposing political party to that of Al Gore.. Your attempt to punish Gore for the actions of the President, makes no sense at all!
2007-10-12 14:27:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Nobel Peace Prize does not go to countries. It goes to individuals and organizations. Often it goes to individuals or organizations who oppose the policies of their own government. The U.S. did not get this Peace Prize. Al Gore did. And like many recipients, he got it for espousing changes to the current policy of his country.
2007-10-12 14:23:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I do not believe countries are eligible to win Nobel Prizes. If you're suggesting that Al Gore should not win because he is American, then you are judging him by his nationality. That's generally referred to as bigotry and doesn't usually factor into who wins the Nobel Prizes.
2007-10-12 14:23:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by wdstraube 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
The Nobel Peace prize is awarded to individuals not countries.
God Bless... Thanks for telling me that Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Henry Kissinger, Yitshak Rabin, Albert Schweitzer, and Nelson Mandela are or were liberal, anti-American, communist/ dictator lovers, white male haters, and a traditional family haters. Well maybe I knew about Kissinger.
2007-10-12 14:24:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hahahahahaha!
2007-10-12 14:22:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Still Standing 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
To group an entire nation together with it's leaders is ridiculous. Noone would deserve anything if we did things that way.
2007-10-12 14:22:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kimberly B 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes. There are plenty of us inside the states who do not support the War.
2007-10-12 14:22:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Meep, the Kind Wolf 3
·
1⤊
2⤋