 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 1:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ron Pulliam
(Member)
|
Perhaps those with questions about Jimmy Carter's worthiness will read this report from CBS:
(CBS) Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee cited Mr. Carter's "vital contribution" to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt and his efforts in conflict resolution on several continents and the promotion of human rights after his presidency.
"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development," the citation said.
The award is worth $1 million.
"I don't think there's any doubt that the Nobel Prize itself encourages people to think about peace and human rights," Mr. Carter, the 39th president, told CNN.
He said his most significant work has been through the Carter Center, an ambitious, Atlanta-based think tank and activist policy center he and wife Rosalynn founded in 1982 and which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year.
"When I was at the White House I was a fairly young man and I realized I would have maybe 25 more years of active life," said the former president, adding that he decided to "capitalize on the influence I had as the former president of the greatest nation of the world and decided to fill vacuums."
Perhaps his crowning achievement as president was the peace treaty he negotiated as president between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Premier Menachem Begin. Mr. Carter kept them at the Camp David presidential retreat for 13 days in 1978 to reach the accord, and Sadat and Begin shared the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel committee said Mr. Carter, who was in the White House from 1977 to 1981, did not share in the prize because he was not nominated in time.
The secretive, five-member committee made its decision last week after months of secret deliberations as it sought the right message for a world still dazed by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the war on terrorism that followed and concern about a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq.
Last year's award was shared by the United Nations and its secretary-general, Kofi Annan.
The peace prize announcement capped a week of Nobel prizes, with the awards for literature, medicine, physics, chemistry and economics already announced in Sweden's capital, Stockholm.
The Norwegian Nobel committee received a record 156 nominations — 117 individuals and 39 groups — by the Feb. 1 deadline. The list remains secret for 50 years, but those who nominate sometimes announce their choice.
Many known nominees, including former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, reflected the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and their aftermath.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were nominated, but their chances for winning seemed doubtful at a time when they are poised to launch a military strike against Iraq.
"It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee, said. "It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
The first Nobel Peace Prize, in 1901, honored Jean Henry Dunant, the Swiss founder of the Red Cross.
Nobel Peace Prize winners are a very diverse group, ranging from obvious crowd-pleasers such as Mother Teresa and The Dalai Lama, to groups with an altruistic but political bent, such as the Campaign to Ban Landmines and Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and flat-out controversial choices, such as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger.
Here's a look at the Peace Prize winners in the past three decades:
2001 - United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
2000 - Kim Dae-jung, South Korea.
1999 - Medecins Sans Frontieres, known in English as Doctors Without Borders.
1998 - David Trimble and John Hume, Northern Ireland.
1997 - Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, United States.
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, East Timor.
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Britain, and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.
1994 - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat; Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Israel.
1993 - Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, South Africa.
1992 - Rigoberta Menchu, Guatemala.
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma (also known as Myanmar).
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet Union.
1989 - The Dalai Lama, Tibet.
1988 - The U.N. Peacekeeping Forces.
1987 - Oscar Arias Sanchez, Costa Rica.
1986 - Elie Wiesel, United States.
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, United States.
1984 - Desmond Mpilo Tutu, South Africa.
1983 - Lech Walesa, Poland.
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Sweden; Alfonso Garcia Robles, Mexico.
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR.
1980 - Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina.
1979 - Mother Teresa, India.
1978 - Anwar Sadat, Egypt; Menachem Begin, Israel.
1977 - Amnesty International, Britain.
1976 - Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, Northern Ireland.
1975 - Andrei Sakharov, Soviet Union.
1974 - Sean MacBride, Ireland; Eisaku Sato, Japan.
1973 - Henry A. Kissinger, United States; Le Duc Tho, Democratic Republic of Vietnam, who declined the prize.
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 3:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Donna
(Member)
|
Just another opinion....
The Nobel Thing To Do
The Nobel committee is using Jimmy Carter to attack the current president of the United States. The former president should give back the Peace Prize.
by David Skinner
10/11/2002 12:11:00 PM
David Skinner, assistant managing editor
SOMEONE TELL Jimmy Carter to give back the Nobel prize. Since the million-dollar Peace Prize was awarded to the former president as an expression of anti-American pique, Carter should politely decline.
Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee, said giving the award to Carter "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. . . . It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
A statement posted on the website of the Carter Center from the former president says "My concept of human rights has grown to include not only the rights to live in peace, but also to adequate health care, shelter, food, and to economic opportunity. I hope this award reflects a universal acceptance and even embrace of this broad-based concept of human rights."
If it were the case that the Nobel committee had indeed awarded Carter the prize as a celebration of his tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and human dignity, there would be nothing to gainsay. And compared to some of the savages who have received the Nobel prize in the past, Carter seems is arguably not a terrible choice. Only it's all too clear the Nobel committee meant the prize to be a publicity shot across the bow of the Bush administration.
It is simply amazing that the Nobel committee would be so bold as to use a former American president to take a shot at the current administration. According to the Washington Post: "The five-member committee made its decision last week after months of secret deliberations as it sought the right message for a world still dazed by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the war on terrorism that followed and concern about a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq."
So, America is attacked on September 11. Thousands die, all sorts of chaos ensues, despite which the American president pulls off an historic show of statesmanship, pulling together an international coalition of partners to support an ultimately successful operation polishing off one of the planet's worst regimes, the Taliban. And now our country is staring eye to eye with another horrible regime, one with an astonishing record of bad behavior and disregard for international norms, human rights, and practically every definition of decency around. And the message the Nobel committee wants to send is "a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
Jimmy Carter is a big baseball fan, so he should know what to do. Like a home-run ball from the opposing team, this award should be thrown back.
David Skinner is an assistant managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 4:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Well if we want to know the real reason why this award was given, the cat's now out of the bag:
Nobel Committee Admits Carter Award a Slap at U.S.
A spokesman for the organization that awarded Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Peace Prize late yesterday has admitted the decision was intended to be a slap at the Bush administration for its policy against Iraq.
The unidentified official told reporters on Friday that questions had arisen about whether the Carter award was directed against "the administration in the United States because of the plans they have taken in the Iraqi conflict."
"My answer is simply, yes," the Nobel Committee spokesman said in audio broadcast by ABC Radio network news.
The committee's anti-American snub comes less than 24-hours after both houses of Congress granted President Bush the authority to make war in Iraq.
Ex-president Carter, a harsh critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, is expected to accept the award, despite the insult to his country.
Odd that the article author (and headline writer, if someone else) calls the award "A Slap at U.S.," "anti-American" and an "insult to his (Carter's) country," when Carter is indeed an American himself and yet obviously simply disagrees with he Bush administration's views (the implication being that the Bush administration and America collectively are indistinguishable). I think the article does America a disservice by implying it's simplistically of a single mindset, with no room for alternative views. Judging from the quotes in the article, the Nobel official didn't equate the administration with the nation, and didn't intend to represent Carter's selection as some kind of slap against the U.S., just its current policy on this one issue. The author appears to be distorting the Nobel committee's views.
Eric, where is this article from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
www.newsmax.com Their title is an editorial thrust but the substance is quite accurate.
But lest we have any doubts about it, kindly consult the AP.
Criticism of Bush Causes Nobel Flap
By DOUG MELLGREN
Associated Press Writer
October 11, 2002
OSLO, Norway (AP) - In a rare show of discord, members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee criticized their chairman for using the award Friday to former President Jimmy Carter to speak out against the Bush administration's threats of war against Iraq.
The secretive, five-member committee is appointed by parliament based on the strengths of the parties represented in the legislature, so they range from the far-left to the far-right of Norwegian politics. Committee decisions are made by consensus.
At a news conference, Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge said that, in addition to honoring Carter, the 2002 prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (U.S.) administration has taken."
"It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," he added.
Still think the newsmax article is "unfair" since we now even have the gent's name?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 9:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ANZALDIMAN
(Member)
|
Mr. "spare parts".. Jimmy, "I'll neva lie to ya" Carter.He forgot he was not reparing an old pickup behind the barn in Plains, a BIG reason why those helicopters failed..A total incompetent..And just like his "good ol' boy" Clinton, he stripped the military of it's morale, and capability..A boneheaded, and ill concieved plan..I woke up that morning, and heard his speech to the nation, about the failure..It was not those men who failed this country, and those hostages, it was the outdated equipment and him..And his administration.. And he was booted..Thank God..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 10:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dragon53
(Member)
|
ANZALDIMAN: I've read three books on Desert One. One was based entirely on the Holloway Commission which investigated the mission failure and the last by an Air Force officer who helped plan and participated in the rescue attempt. There are a myriad of reasons for its failure, some but not all, can be attributed to the Carter administration. Concerning the failure of the RH-53 helicopters, they were Navy helicopters being flown by mostly Marine aircrews not entirely familiar with the helicopter. During the planning and training phases, it was decided, mainly by Delta Force Commander Beckwith, that a minimum of six helicopters would be needed to carry out the mission. It was decided to use eight RH-53's with two as backups. During the flight to Desert One, one of the helicopters returned to the aircraft carrier it took off from because of a sandstorm---common in Iran, but the pilots were never briefed about them by the mission planners and meteoroligists. A second helicopter aborted the mission and landed in the desert because of a rotor blade problem warning light. The Marine pilots were never told that the Navy pilots were told by the helicopter's manufacturer, Sikorsky, to ignore the lights because they were usually faulty. The remaining six helicopters arrived at Desert One where one of them developed a hydraulic problem in a backup system. The Marine pilots felt the helicopter was unsuitable to complete the mission, so that left only five helicopters available---one below the minimum six. It was then decided to abort the mission. As the helicopters were starting to takeoff to return to the aircraft carrier, one of them collided with the C-130 cargo plane which led to the inferno. Later, it was determined that the RH-53 could be safely flown using only one hydraulic system. As I said before, there are many, many reasons for the Desert One disaster---military, political, etc.,---too many to go into here. Carter deserved the blame, but not all of it. If you want to blame a president for a military disaster, read the book BLACKHAWK DOWN (which was from a series of articles in THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER) and a series in NEWSDAY. I haven't seen the movie, but the reasons described in the book and the news articles attribute the mission failure in Somalia to Bill Clinton and company. Clinton ordered the mission over the objections of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense Les Aspin and commander of U.S. forces in Somalia. The movie decided to concentrate on the mission itself and omitted the political aspect of the doomed raid. Maybe when Clinton gets his talk show, BLACKHAWK DOWN will be discussed---right after Monica, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 13, 2002 - 1:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
www.newsmax.com Their title is an editorial thrust but the substance is quite accurate.
But lest we have any doubts about it, kindly consult the AP.
Criticism of Bush Causes Nobel Flap
By DOUG MELLGREN
Associated Press Writer
October 11, 2002
OSLO, Norway (AP) - In a rare show of discord, members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee criticized their chairman for using the award Friday to former President Jimmy Carter to speak out against the Bush administration's threats of war against Iraq.
The secretive, five-member committee is appointed by parliament based on the strengths of the parties represented in the legislature, so they range from the far-left to the far-right of Norwegian politics. Committee decisions are made by consensus.
At a news conference, Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge said that, in addition to honoring Carter, the 2002 prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (U.S.) administration has taken."
"It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," he added.
Still think the newsmax article is "unfair" since we now even have the gent's name?
I never called it "unfair" - look again at my original post and find that word. As it happens, I think it may very well be unfair, but I didn't say that before this post.
The reason I say here the first article you posted may be unfair isn't that it says the committee's selection is also a criticism of Bush; it's that it says the selection is a criticism of America, which I went to some trouble to make clear is not necessarily equatable with the Bush administration - that's the whole point of my post. If you go back and attentively read what I said, you'll see I was noting the article said the selection was "A Slap at U.S.," "anti-American" and an "insult to his (Carter's) country," when the spokesman's quotes in the article talked only about the selection criticizing the Bush administration (specifically, its current policy on Iraq), not the U.S. nation as a whole.
My point was that the article writer was apparently inflating the target of the Nobel committee's criticism from the Bush administration's policy to the entire nation. Even the follow-up article you posted (the one I've quoted here) is consistent with the narrow target I was getting at. My post was questioning the original article writer - (s)he appears to be exaggerating the Nobel committee's selection for the sake of sensationalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
