Gore wins the Nobel peace prize...how much more

[Pawn Power]

Gore and the UN share the Nobel peace prize (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/climatechange.internationalnews)

What does the envoirment have to do with peace? What does microcredit have to do with peace? How much more proof do people need to understand that the prize is a shame?

[bolshevik butcher]

Of course its a sham. It's a bourgoirse liberal insituttion that awards prizes for benefiting capitalism and imperialism. Al Gore gets his award for doing next to nothing for the environment but managing to do some damage to the left within envrionmentalism with his watered down ideas about the environment. Gerry Adams got his shot for cementing the end of militant republicanism, Yasser Arrafat for capitulating to Isreali impieralism etc.

[Jazzratt]

Way to cheapen the nobel prize.

[Cult of Reason]

The Peace Prize is presented by a different (Norwegian) body, and I think it is younger than the other prizes too.

Besides, everyone must know by now that it has been sham at least since Kissinger won it. As Tom Lehrer once said: on that day, satire died.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

Just a thought on Pawn's statement
What does the environment have to do with peace? This statement is ignorant at best, for if one was to look at and analyze history, one would realize that the environment has a great impact on peace. Whether groups and tribes fight over land for access to resources and the like, or in the future if as the sea levels rise, groups fight for arable land to live on. The environment is the world in which we live, and a majority of wars are fought of territory or resources, which just so happen to be part of the world we live in, so they are a part of the environment. If it is viewed as such, than the environment and peace go hand in hand.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:47 am
Just a thought on Pawn's statement
As indicated by the question mark the sentence was a question and not a statement. I did not say the “environment” had nothing to do with “peace,” two ambiguous words to be sure.


Whether groups and tribes fight over land for access to resources and the like, or in the future if as the sea levels rise, groups fight for arable land to live on.

This comment is ignorant at best. What is the difference between a group and a tribe, may I ask? Surely one is not more “primitive” the other.

Anywho, the whole premise of you ignorant accusation is unsubstantial and dull. Okay…if the environment is “the world in which we live” and anything, of this world, is its relation…duh. One doesn’t even need to take ecology 101 to understand that. With this “logic” anything that done in support of “the world in which we live” is for peace. That could mean countless things, from technological innovations (even physics, chemistry, and economics) to recycling is a contributer to peace. Disregard that they are not done for such a reason or that they actually contribute to the battement of peoples lives.

This is the same logic that Nobel committee uses…that’s why it is a sham!

[Pawn Power]

Of course its a sham. It's a bourgoirse liberal insituttion that awards prizes for benefiting capitalism and imperialism. Al Gore gets his award for doing next to nothing for the environment but managing to do some damage to the left within envrionmentalism with his watered down ideas about the environment. Gerry Adams got his shot for cementing the end of militant republicanism, Yasser Arrafat for capitulating to Isreali impieralism etc.


Way to cheapen the nobel prize.




Besides, everyone must know by now that it has been sham at least since Kissinger won it. As Tom Lehrer once said: on that day, satire died.

Of course you folks already new it was a sham!

Wasn't Slobodan Milošević and Hitler also nominated?

[cyu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:39 am
The Peace Prize is presented by a different (Norwegian) body, and I think it is younger than the other prizes too.

Besides, everyone must know by now that it has been sham at least since Kissinger won it. As Tom Lehrer once said: on that day, satire died.
I think you're thinking of the Nobel Economics Prize, which is given out by a different body - the economics prize is usually the biggest load of pro-capitalist crap among all the Nobel prizes.

Totally agree with you about Kissinger.

[Faux Real]

This is insane!

Gore was VP while never taking a stand against foreign interventions. That negates all meaning of the word 'peace' in this 'prize'.

His mainstream calling to attention of global warming may be admirable but I don't agree with this (nor the UNs) award, as it was simply for being an environmentalist and a former vice president/presidential candidate.

[RedStarOverChina]

Even Hitler was nominated.

[LSD]

Even Hitler was nominated.

And he should have won too. He did more for peace in Europe than anyone since Charlemagne.

The idea that peace in and of itself is an unequivocal moral good is one of the great myths of the liberal age. There's nothing good or laudible about an unjust peace, nor anything imoral about a nescessary war.

Granted there haven't been that many nescessary wars, not with the bourgeoisie pulling all the strings for their own purposes. But neither has the peace been so wonderful, certainly not for those of us on the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy.

And life under Hitler was pretty damn peaceful! 1933-1939 was the longest period of social quet that Germany had experienced in a long time. Things generally are much more peaceful when you don't have to worry about the working class agitating and causing trouble.

Which is why, of course, the "peace prize" actually has very little to do with peace. It's more of a way to congratulate public figures seen as promoting a public "good" of some sort.

That's why groups like Medecins Sans Frontieres or The President's Commission on the Holocaust have previously won. Neither actually did anything to promote peace per se, but were still seen as promulgators of human good and so deserving of recognition.

[Mkultra]

President-in-Exile Gore richly earned this Reward and I congratulate him

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:20 pm


The idea that peace in and of itself is an unequivocal moral good is one of the great myths of the liberal age. There's nothing good or laudible about an unjust peace, nor anything imoral about a nescessary war.

Granted there haven't been that many nescessary wars, not with the bourgeoisie pulling all the strings for their own purposes. But neither has the peace been so wonderful, certainly not for those of us on the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy.


Thanks for clearing that all up. Unjust peace is an important and common functional form of 'social cohesion' to keep in mind when people plea for 'peace.'

As the chant goes: No Justice, No Peace!

[Goatse]

lol, go to conservapedia, it claims the Nobel Prize has a liberal bias because Al Gore won.

I think the Nobel Prize has a male bias too. And an Al bias.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sartre Awarded Nobel Prize, but Rejects It (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/nobel-Sartre.pdf)

That is what should be done with those prizes. :wub:

[Mkultra]

Gore speaks truth to power in the face of Oil Terrorism--I will not ally with the neocons in bashing him in anyway

[Janitor]

I think you're thinking of the Nobel Economics Prize, which is given out by a different body - the economics prize is usually the biggest load of pro-capitalist crap among all the Nobel prizes.

Not so. The Nobel Peace Prize is indeed presented by a Norwegian body, while the candidates are nominated by Norwegian parlamentarians, which is why Dubya has been a candidate for years now... :wacko:
As for that Economy Prize, which indeed is a horseload of crap, that one is not one of the original ones created by Nobel:http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chinobel.htm


Totally agree with you about Kissinger.
Yes, but the first outrageous one was really Teddy Roosevelt. Later came Kissinger, Begin, Sakharov, and now the vice-President of Clinton...
No self-respecting person with at least one radical bone in her/his body takes this so-called peace prize seriously here.

[LogicalPimp]

I smell some jealousy :)

Good for Gore. He should pat himself on the back.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:14 pm
I smell some jealousy :)

Good for Gore. He should pat himself on the back.
or shoot himself in the head.

[Mkultra]

Gore is a Hero in the war against Oil Terrorism---he needs to be replicated

[We'reTheFirstToDie]

Camus won the nobel prize.
does this make him a capitalist bastard for accepting it.
methinks not.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by We'[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 am
Camus won the nobel prize.
does this make him a capitalist bastard for accepting it.
methinks not.
No, it just makes Sartre a better person. :P

[Mkultra]

its sad that anyone would join Bill Oreilly and other hate- freaks of his ilk in bashing Gore for trying to do something relevant

[Janitor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:29 pm
its sad that anyone would join Bill Oreilly and other hate- freaks of his ilk in bashing Gore for trying to do something relevant
I resent such a statement.
Obviously it is possible to critique Al Gore from a radical position.
I regard him as a corporate toady, a warmonger and a hypocrite, and I couldn't care less about what mr.O'Reilly is spouting.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:42 pm
Gore is a Hero in the war against Oil Terrorism---he needs to be replicated
Incorrect. Gore should be an hero.

He's just another corporate mouthpiece bourgeois politician and I couldn't give a shit for what he's "done" - especially as most of that has been to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by Janitor+October 15, 2007 08:37 pm--> (Janitor @ October 15, 2007 08:37 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 01:29 pm
its sad that anyone would join Bill Oreilly and other hate- freaks of his ilk in bashing Gore for trying to do something relevant
I resent such a statement.
Obviously it is possible to critique Al Gore from a radical position.
I regard him as a corporate toady, a warmonger and a hypocrite, and I couldn't care less about what mr.O'Reilly is spouting. [/b]
well he used to be that way when he served under Clinton but hes not anything like that anymore--since he had the election stolen from him hes become increasingly righteus--your thinking of the old Gore

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 15, 2007 09:24 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 15, 2007 09:24 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 08:42 pm
Gore is a Hero in the war against Oil Terrorism---he needs to be replicated
Incorrect. Gore should be an hero.

He's just another corporate mouthpiece bourgeois politician and I couldn't give a shit for what he's "done" - especially as most of that has been to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. [/b]
by Bashing Gore we play into the hands of the oil terrorists and the corporations dont like Gore either-- they thinnk hes a crazed enviro-whacko--Also since Gore went thru that 2000 experience hes come out a MUCH better man and hasnt done ONE Bourgouise thing--you can lay this line down on Hillary but Gores a new man--just listen to one of his speeches

[Faux Real]

To extend on PP's point:

There is an enslaved peace, there is also a free peace.

I refuse to live peacefully while enslaved. Sadly many in the 'states forgot how relatively peaceful the US was during slavery.

Until there is a free peace there's no reason to advocate non-violence or pacifism if it's directed towards the bourgeoisie.

[Mkultra]

I think we should try to advance our goals by any means necessary but we shouldnt alienate liberals like Gore who are at a more infantile stage of development by being too purist--we should only focus on the enemy with a laser like vision and do everything in our power to stop them from destroying the world

[Ultra-Violence]

Why you defending Gore for? cuase he made a god damm movie if he was put as president in the 2000 election i bet you A MILLION DOLLARS! we would still be in iraq no doubt about it. He just a fucking douche like Bill gates

[MarxSchmarx]

Besides, everyone must know by now that it has been sham at least since Kissinger won it. As Tom Lehrer once said: on that day, satire died.

How about at least since TEDDY ROOSEVELT :o, butcher of the Philippines, won it way the hell back in 1906?

[Janitor]

Originally posted by Mkultra+October 15, 2007 01:29 pm--> (Mkultra @ October 15, 2007 01:29 pm) well he used to be that way when he served under Clinton but hes not anything like that anymore--since he had the election stolen from him hes become increasingly righteus--your thinking of the old Gore[/b]
Is it to much asking for that you back up that claim with something substantial?
I admit not being an expert on the man, but my impression is that he his still a mainstream Democrat.

I think we should try to advance our goals by any means necessary but we shouldnt alienate liberals like Gore who are at a more infantile stage of development by being too purist--we should only focus on the enemy with a laser like vision and do everything in our power to stop them from destroying the world
Yes, that is a very sensible way of thinking, sometimes one has to seek strange allies to achieve important political goals.
I see no reason why one can't work together with certain bourgeoise elements on an ad-hoc basis like we did here in Norway to win the EU referendum in '94, but this is not the topic here.
The relevant question is whether Al Gore deserves a peace prize or not, and in my opinion he doesn't. But as already mentioned, the Nobel is totally compromised anyway, so it is no big deal.


[email protected] 16, 2007 05:40 am

How about at least since TEDDY ROOSEVELT :o, butcher of the Philippines, won it way the hell back in 1906?
I pointed that out in my first post on this very thread. :D

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 15, 2007 12:51 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 15, 2007 12:51 am)
We'[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 am
Camus won the nobel prize.
does this make him a capitalist bastard for accepting it.
methinks not.
No, it just makes Sartre a better person. :P [/b]
Sartre supported Stalin. Camus winz.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+October 16, 2007 08:49 am--> (black coffee black metal @ October 16, 2007 08:49 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 15, 2007 12:51 am

We'[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 am
Camus won the nobel prize.
does this make him a capitalist bastard for accepting it.
methinks not.
No, it just makes Sartre a better person. :P
Sartre supported Stalin. Camus winz. [/b]
Haha nah, he didn't really support Stalin. He just didn't say much on him in his early years. Later on he wrote "Critique of Dialectical Reason" which attacks bureaucratic socialism. :)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 16, 2007 02:55 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 16, 2007 02:55 am)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 16, 2007 08:49 am

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 15, 2007 12:51 am

We'[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 am
Camus won the nobel prize.
does this make him a capitalist bastard for accepting it.
methinks not.
No, it just makes Sartre a better person. :P
Sartre supported Stalin. Camus winz.
Haha nah, he didn't really support Stalin. He just didn't say much on him in his early years. Later on he wrote "Critique of Dialectical Reason" which attacks bureaucratic socialism. :) [/b]
Camus still wins.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 16, 2007 04:19 am
Why you defending Gore for? cuase he made a god damm movie if he was put as president in the 2000 election i bet you A MILLION DOLLARS! we would still be in iraq no doubt about it. He just a fucking douche like Bill gates
I dont believe Gore woulda got us trapped in Iraqmire but I agree Gates is a douche