EU Nobel Peace Prize

[Ophiolite]

Surely tis like saying, you deserve to be applauded for beating up the bully at school even though your brother knee'd him in the nuts.

If you had a simplistic, atavistic, agenda driven perception of the part played by NATO in helping to aovid nuclear war in the last half century and to bring stability to Europe then you might see such a similarity. However, if one takes a considered, thoughtful, analytical view of the matter then it wouldn't be possible to arrive at such a stupid conclusion.

 

How obsessed you think I am, I don't know. If you were asked about your own country maybe you might feel more at ease answering about it. Does the man in the street/pub/church/bus station think your country is now being recognised in it's peaceful pursuits, with a little or a lot of help from NATO?

I don't give a flying conjugal union what anyone thinks about my country, since my identity as an individual is not irredeemably linked to it.

[ACUV]

 

If you had a simplistic, atavistic, agenda driven perception of the part played by NATO in helping to aovid nuclear war in the last half century and to bring stability to Europe then you might see such a similarity. However, if one takes a considered, thoughtful, analytical view of the matter then it wouldn't be possible to arrive at such a stupid conclusion.

 

 

If NATO avoided nuclear war it wasn't because they never threatened it. Iran currently has no nuclear weapons and people behave like it is threatening nuclear war. So, what do you call having a nuclear arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

 

 

I don't give a flying conjugal union what anyone thinks about my country, since my identity as an individual is not irredeemably linked to it.

 

 

If you were a french person I would ask you the same question relative to there. I think you just can't answer a simple question.

[Ophiolite]

So, what do you call having a nuclear arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

An effective strategy for minimising the risk of nuclear war by making the consequences of such a war blindingly obvious to even the dumbest leader. Was it the most effective possible strategy? I have no idea, but I do know that it worked.

 

If you were a french person I would ask you the same question relative to there. I think you just can't answer a simple question.

When you ask me a simple question and not a loaded one, I shall be happy to answer.

[ACUV]

So Ophiolite,

 

Does your country have nuclear weapons?

 

Do you think your country will ever get to use them?

 

Will the decision even be made by your fellow countrymen and you?

 

Has that decision making power been given to the dumbest of leaders?

 

Lastly, are you and the people of your country generally happy with your new Nobel Peace Prize?

[CaptainPanic]

When was the last time they went 60 years without warring with each other?

Pax Romana is probably a period which comes closest to it. Not exactly the same area though.

But this is precisely why Europe deserved it. For once I think the peace prize is not a complete joke.

 

At the same time, the prize is only 1.1 million euro, which is not much for >500 million winners. It's about 0.2 euro cent per head of the population. The Nobel prize committee thus far haven't contacted me to get my share of the prize yet.

 

Regarding the weird claim that because most EU countries are in NATO as well as the EU, the EU shouldn't get the prize, I completely disagree: There is an overlap between EU and NATO countries, but the EU is certainly not a subsection of NATO. NATO has nothing to say about the EU as a whole.

[ACUV]

 

NATO has nothing to say about the EU as a whole.

 

 

The NATO Secretary General says,

 

" The European Union is a unique and essential partner for NATO ".

 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-F8EDF4BE-8F2206A9/natolive/news_90816.htm

 

Is your country in NATO? Are your fellow citizens happy to accept a Nobel Peace Prize as part of the EU while also being in NATO? Ask a few!

[Ophiolite]

Does your country have nuclear weapons?

Yes.

 

Do you think your country will ever get to use them?

We are and have been using them continuously since their introduction over half a century ago. Their role is that of a deterrent. They have been 100% successful in that role. You seem to be under the impression that they are meant to be actually detonated. I've already indicated I believe that to be a singularily ill informed viewpoint.

 

Will the decision even be made by your fellow countrymen and you?

I haven't been invited to participate directly in that decision. I've simply had the opportunity to participate in the decision to continue using them as we have successfully for half a century. I'm quite happy with the opportunity that was afforded me in this regard. I'm sorry I haven't had the same opportunity in relation to the French deterrent.

 

Has that decision making power been given to the dumbest of leaders?

It shames me to admit it, but while Britain used to lead the world in all kinds of ways, when it comes to dumb leaders we simply can't compete with the major players in the field.

 

 

Lastly, are you and the people of your country generally happy with your new Nobel Peace Prize?

I think it is a timely reminder that a continent once racked by war, where several millions were killed in major conflicts in the first half of last century has reached a point where the major points of conflicts are resolved by diplomacy or at worst shouting matches.

 

I have no idea what other European citizens think, as I am currently in the USA for a couple of weeks.

[overtone]

After Obama won it, I think it lost a lot of credibility. Now it has just become meaningless in my mind. The EU have done nothing to create peace in Europe.

Just look at the situation in Greece, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.

None of those countries are currently at war with each other, or even threatening violence, despite the rise of circumstances that there in the past would have threatened (at least) to set them at each other's throats.

 

For this new situation of peace, a prize is not completely out of line. Although my own preference would be that such awards go to individual people.

 

As far as its value since Obama's award (which was deserved perhaps a bit more than those within the US news bubble can really appreciate), it would be greater than its value immediately after its award to Henry "carpet bomb Hanoi on Christmas to show them you're crazy" Kissinger. Obama represented an upgrade of credibility - although we must remember, as Gore Vidal put it, to never underestimate the Scandinavian sense of humor.

[CaptainPanic]

The NATO Secretary General says,

 

" The European Union is a unique and essential partner for NATO ".

 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-F8EDF4BE-8F2206A9/natolive/news_90816.htm

 

Is your country in NATO? Are your fellow citizens happy to accept a Nobel Peace Prize as part of the EU while also being in NATO? Ask a few!

You ignore my point.

 

But perhaps I can give an example: let us assume you are a member of a football team. And you are also member of a band. The band wins a prize... does this mean your football has anything to do with it? Probably not.

What if I said that the football team is notoriously bad at playing music? And what if 2 more band members also play football?

 

I could then argue that we know the football team is awful at playing music, and the majority of your band is in the football team, so it is ridiculous that you ever won a prize for good music with your band.

 

I hope you see now that your argument is false, and indeed a logical fallacy.

 

So, there you go: NATO has nothing to do with the EU as a whole. The EU won a prize. NATO is irrelevant.

[ACUV]

Ophiolite,

 

You are progressing, I'm finding it difficult to find any minor personal slurs whilst seeing informative responses. There is one thing,

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that they are meant to be actually detonated.

 

 

So, just so I'm not to be mistaken, your country actually won't use these nuclear weapons, only test them ( which is actually detonating them ), since the forties? Your country has probably signed up to a lot of test ban treaties, trying to get everybody to do the same, thus preventing other nations from attaining deterrents.

 

 

You ignore my point.

 

 

I don't. Put on your EU shirt one day and your NATO shirt another, your playing for two separate football teams, that's your point.

 

Mine is that when 21 members of the EU are also members of NATO, giving the EU inclusive of these countries a Peace Prize is ridiculous.

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite,

 

You are progressing, I'm finding it difficult to find any minor personal slurs whilst seeing informative responses.

I apologise. I shall try not to be so subtle in future. Each of my posts is intended as a direct personal slur on your ludicrous position and lack of reading comprehension.

 

So, just so I'm not to be mistaken, your country actually won't use these nuclear weapons, only test them ( which is actually detonating them ), since the forties?

Engage your brain and read the words as previously posted. We are and have been using them continuously since their introduction over half a century ago. Their role is that of a deterrent. They have been 100% successful in that role.

 

Their very existence constitutes their use. Fortunately the rulers of the Sovier Union (whom you implied were dumb) were smart enough to understand that was their use and reacted accordingly, by not acting. What does it mean when the dumb leaders (your implicit claim) of the USSR are smarter than you? Still it gives you the intellectual resources to come up with this beauty:

Your country has probably signed up to a lot of test ban treaties, trying to get everybody to do the same, thus preventing other nations from attaining deterrents.

When everyone has one they are no longer a deterrent.

[ACUV]

I apologise.

 

 

Accepted .

 

I shall try not to be so subtle in future.

 

 

I'm sure you won't have to try much.

 

Each of my posts is intended as a direct personal slur on your ludicrous position and lack of reading comprehension.

 

 

I don't have either.

 

Engage your brain and read the words as previously posted.

 

 

I've seen it all, you probably haven't got as stupid a position as you think you're defending.

 

We are and have been using them continuously since their introduction over half a century ago.

 

 

Fart too loud when you go to the beach and someone might hear you.

 

Their role is that of a deterrent.

 

 

Their roll is one of money making, etc , etc , etc

 

They have been 100% successful in that role.

 

 

pollution, propaganda ...........................................

 

Their very existence constitutes their use.

 

 

Is sense rare?

 

Fortunately the rulers of the Sovier Union (whom you implied were dumb) were smart enough to understand that was their use and reacted accordingly, by not acting.

 

 

You chose to say the Soviet Union. I chose nobody.

 

What does it mean when the dumb leaders (your implicit claim) of the USSR are smarter than you?

 

 

Refer to the above!

 

Still it gives you the intellectual resources to come up with this beauty:

 

 

Many are there.

 

When everyone has one they are no longer a deterrent.

 

 

They never are a deterrent. Plenty of people aren't afraid to die, they will kill and be killed. You've acknowledged that they are a deterrent when other people haven't got them. Your nukes are old, you will probably sell 22nd century technology to your worst enemy of the 23rd century, nothing changes.

 

I'll be pushing up daisies!

[Ophiolite]

Cheap tactics are the mark of a defeated argument - yours. End of conversation.

[ACUV]

Cheap tactics are the mark of a defeated argument - yours. End of conversation.

 

The only cheap tactic I see is that you say I implied the leaders of the USSR were dumb. I never mentioned the USSR and certainly never implied they were dumb. Show me where I did and I will acknowledge it or forever hold your peace.

 

You get as you give Ophiolite, go down to your level every now and again and see.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Since ACUV, aka sockpuppet for Hal., is no longer with us, please feel free to pursue the original arguments in this thread.

[randomc]

the EU is still just an idea. Might as well award the Nobel Peace Prize to peace, generally.

[zapatos]

the EU is still just an idea. Might as well award the Nobel Peace Prize to peace, generally.

An idea exists only in the mind; The EU exists in reality Europe. I believe the de facto headquarters are in Brussels which if you are so inclined you can visit. Unlike an idea, the EU can and does take action, just like a person does.

Edited October 18, 2012 by zapatos

[randomc]

An idea exists only in the mind; The EU exists in reality Europe. I believe the de facto headquarters are in Brussels which if you are so inclined you can visit. Unlike an idea, the EU can and does take action, just like a person does.

 

Yeah it does, but how representative is it? I'm not a particularly ardent europhobe, i just think there's a disconnect. Maybe an oligarchy.

 

EDIT: But ok to call it just an idea is too much

Edited October 18, 2012 by randomc

[imatfaal]

Yeah it does, but how representative is it? I'm not a particularly ardent europhobe, i just think there's a disconnect. Maybe an oligarchy.

 

EDIT: But ok to call it just an idea is too much

 

To an extent - especially at the foundation of the European Communities, it was rule by trade; it was felt that if there was a trade union in Steel, Coal, Atomic Energy materials and other essentials for war that the prospect of another European war would be minimized. The European Union was an expansion from the purely trade / market orientation to an expression of shared ideals. Oligarchy is rule by the few - and I think the EU manages to avoid this tag in many ways; the power is founded through the member states and their elected representatives and governments (all the member states are democratic), the executive is appointed by the member states, a directly elected parliament have controlling powers/veto over the executive, and susstantive changes need to be ratified by the individual parliaments a/o governments of member states. The EU is far from perfect - but the fact that one of the largest media organisations in the world is deadset against it and yet the most common complaint in the press is about bananas (and even that isn't really accurate) , shows in my opinion that a large amount of the work done by the EU is pretty good.

[randomc]

Oligarchy is rule by the few - and I think the EU manages to avoid this tag in many ways; the power is founded through the member states and their elected representatives and governments (all the member states are democratic), the executive is appointed by the member states, a directly elected parliament have controlling powers/veto over the executive, and susstantive changes need to be ratified by the individual parliaments a/o governments of member states.

 

I don't know what to say to you, i don't feel like i've got a shred of influence over what happens in the EU. Anything that's rejected just seems to get put the vote again and again until accepted. Who are the people who introduce policy for the vote? Are they elected or civil servants?

 

The EU is far from perfect - but the fact that one of the largest media organisations in the world is deadset against it and yet the most common complaint in the press is about bananas (and even that isn't really accurate) , shows in my opinion that a large amount of the work done by the EU is pretty good.

 

Tito did a lot of good work. It's the office that matters not what fills it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by randomc

[Jens]

Back to the original topic:

I think, Nobel intended to the price to individuals, so that they can live financially independent or at least more independent (this is why it should only be given to persons still living). So personally I prefer, if the price is given to individuals (and even if it is 3 of them).

 

Maybe it is a question of age, but having the long term view, there are some reasons for devoting the price to the EU. I am living in the EU (in the continental part -- not in the UK)

My both grandfathers died in 2nd world war and in the generation of my parents and the parents of my wife relationships to foreigners were much rare than they are today. The EU has done a lot of things, which slowly change the state of mind of the population (not obvious for those already born into this situation -- its a slow process -- like evolution ):

- Free travel across EU borders without controls.

- One currency for a part of it.

- Exchange programms and pressing the countries to make their university frameworks in a way that you can change from country to country.

--> The time I was studying for a french student leaving France for a study at an european university or well respected research institute for his/her career was the same like going surfing for a year: a lost year

--> My wife is from another european country than I am. I met here in such a program

- doing a lot of small things to bring people together like pressing for lower phone rates, better bank transfer, ....

 

...and last and probably most important: The EU is economically so attractive that many surrounding countries did a lot of changes towards democracy and peace -- sometimes only because the politicians of those country realized that their population want to become a part of this union and this is still going on (you can even see cars with serbian license plates in croatia.)

Edited October 21, 2012 by Jens