Announcement

**DinoDoc** · October 13, 2006, 10:22

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 13, 2006, 10:28

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't see anything wrong in creating a new category for fighting poverty. It seems like a good issue to me, worthy of its own category and prize....

Ditto. Leave the Peace Prize for peace.

**Pekka** · October 13, 2006, 10:30

Right. Because all prizes should be handed out to candidates with direct relationship to the ... well what the prize is about.

Poverty is arguably not directly any form of peace process.

**lord of the mark** · October 13, 2006, 10:30

Originally posted by DinoDoc
None of the 9/11 hijackers were from poor backgrounds. I'd wager that none pf the Bader Meinhof gang were particularly poor either.

No, the 9/11 hijackers werent poor. Many AQ types are either from Saudi, or live in the West. Its been noted that many muslims living in the West find the poverty and backwardness of their home countries humiliating, and deal with it by turning to extremism. And of course AQ trained, financed and organized 9/11 from it base in Afghanistan. Which was quite poor, and whose status as a failed state, which let the Taliban take power, was not unrelated to its poverty. Similarly the AQ position in Pakistans NWFP is not unrelated to the lack of development in that province.

Radical Islamic terrorism is driven by a number of factors, of which poverty is only one, and often a very indirect effect.

Poverty and lack of development have contributed to conflicts in other areas, both directly and indirectly.

**Jon Miller** · October 13, 2006, 10:31

Umm, but economic wellbeing has a direct correlation with warfare.

Germany had a terrible economy, which in part led to facism being popular there.

Somolia and all those are countries with serious peace issues have seious economy issues also.

If you plotted richest nations versus how at peace their citizens were you would see a direct correlation. Citizens like peace (at least for them), they like security. And if they are have higher income, they will buy it.

If they are starving, they care about the fact that they are starving, not about peace.

JM

**lord of the mark** · October 13, 2006, 10:31

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ditto. Leave the Peace Prize for peace.

So they shouldnt have given it to Borlaug?

Look at the list of peace prize recipients, from Aristide Briand, to Yasser Arafat. Id say the ones who got it for "making peace" are much more embarrasments to the prize, than the ones who made the indirect contributions.

**Pekka** · October 13, 2006, 10:32

No, they should have given it to Ahtisaari

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · October 13, 2006, 10:33

As an red blooded American capitalists we should take partial credit for this peace prize as it helps the spread capitalism.

Our streak continues.

**lord of the mark** · October 13, 2006, 10:34

exterme poverty, absolute and relative, makes it difficult to support stable govt, and almost impossible to support democracy. The lack of these two imperils peace. Additionaly resource conflicts, on the part of states with little to lose, imperil peace.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · October 13, 2006, 10:35

Re: Re: Micro-loan pioneer and bank win Nobel Peace Prize

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Like Einstein?

Did anyone mention Arafats lasting contributions to a Middle East peace solution yet?

**Pekka** · October 13, 2006, 10:36

And those are still indirect reasons. It should be direct in this one. Well at least that's what I think, obviously most disagreed.

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 13, 2006, 10:44

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So they shouldnt have given it to Borlaug?

Nope.

Look at the list of peace prize recipients, from Aristide Briand, to Yasser Arafat. Id say the ones who got it for "making peace" are much more embarrasments to the prize, than the ones who made the indirect contributions.

At the time of the award they were engaged in discussions for peace. Arafat and Rabin for the Oslo Accords really created some hope for peace. Simply because it didn't work out doesn't diminish that.

**RGBVideo** · October 13, 2006, 10:45

For those of you who don't know who's Martti Ahtisaari, he's Jimmy Carter without the hippie part -- a guy who's work on peace actually creates results. Ex-president who's been silently working on peace deals and complex negotiations since the 1970s. Results include peace and democracy in Namibia, peace and democracy in East Timor, peace and democracy in Kosovo. He would've probably brought some balls to the UN team during the whole Serbians massacring minorities thing in the mid-90s, but he was too busy being our President.

But I doubt he'll ever get a Nobel, since the peace prize committee is too busy trying to find out brown people in order to prove their "multiculturalism" (or whatever the current PC-word with a positive connotation for that is) to elect a white guy. Well, unless he's the former President of the US who criticizes Bush publicly.

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 13, 2006, 10:47

Actually I think Ahtisaari would have been a great choice. And if they wanted to give another posthumous prize, Pope John Paul II.

**Kidlicious** · October 13, 2006, 10:50

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As an red blooded American capitalists we should take partial credit for this peace prize as it helps the spread capitalism.

Our streak continues.

Why is your heart so cold?

Announcement

Micro-loan pioneer and bank win Nobel Peace Prize

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment