Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or 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."
DOES HE DESERVE THE PEACE PRIZE?
Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd
2007-10-14 12:03:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He did jump on the America bashing bandwagon and even better he again showed how hypocrisy for hypocrisy's sake can make you a winner. It's funny that he's one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases yet wins an award for narrating a movie that people smarter than him made.
2007-10-15 09:27:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I suppose one could call his campaign to blame all the world's problem's on America working for a sort of fraternity. Though it hardly seems very peaceful. I can actually understand why Yasser Arafat won the award, he actually promoted a peace congress with Israel after years of conflict. And Martin Luther King certainly promoted peace and fraternity, if not between the nations then within his own nation. But I just don't see how Al's slide show fits the definition.
2007-10-14 15:35:52 · answer #2 · answered by James L 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The judges praised "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
What's world peace got to do with global warming? Perhaps everything. Or it will if things don't change fast -- if, in 10 or 20 or 40 years devastating floods and droughts displace millions of refugees and spur nations and tribes to desperate bloodletting. At which point, no one will have the slightest doubt why members of the renowned Scandinavian foundation thought former U.S. Vice President Al Gore was an obvious choice for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Gore is, quite simply, the indispensable player in the drama of mankind's encounter with the possibility of destroying the climatic balance within which our civilization emerged and developed.
2007-10-14 12:11:45 · answer #3 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The best thing about Al Gore's winning the Nobel Peace Prize is how it is driving the right-wingers absolutely nuts! I have no doubt that the definition you have given is right out of the Nobel rule book, but in the past the prize has been given to people who did not specifically do any of those things. Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King are two examples that come to mind. Unless you don't think they should have gotten it, either. And you probably don't.
Hey, maybe they can take this to the Supreme Court and they'll give this to Bush, too.
2007-10-14 12:08:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
No he doesnt. Him getting that award made me realize (after I spent the morning throwing up) that the Peace Prize is a worthless award that can be earned by spreading lies and half truths.
I'll bet Rosie Odonnell or Cindy Sheehan are next in line...
2007-10-14 12:35:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Are you trying to say that the condition of the planet upon which we live is inconsequential? If God gave us this planet to care for, then what do you have against Al Gore promoting that same message?
To any 'bad answer' voters...
What planet do you call home??
2007-10-14 13:16:17 · answer #6 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
,Since most intelligent people recognize mans contribution to green house gas emission, he has worked to unify human beings in the fight to limit emissions, that unity is across National borders and continents and unification of purpose is a cornerstone of building peace.
You will not believe that as your ability to understand any logic based non talk radio rhetorical sophistry is severly limited
2007-10-14 12:17:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
They also gave one to Yasar Arafat and Jimmy Carter. Neither of them did anything either. Perhaps in Jimmy;s Case, allowing Americans to be held captive 444 days was a peaceful gesture.
2007-10-14 12:07:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Don't be jealous. If bush were to write the sequel to "My Pet Goat", perhaps he could win the Nobel Prize in literature?
2007-10-14 12:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by Ted F 1 · 6⤊ 6⤋
He will abolish our borders and sovereignty and make us join
the living standard of the 3rd world!
2007-10-14 12:12:36 · answer #10 · answered by realitycheck 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋