[Eurotwit]

See, the peace prize comittee doesn't really give out the prize anymore to people who have actually achieved anything. Instead the comittee is trying, itself, to influence issues that they think are important. Hence this prize...

I think the comittee should just get it over with, and hand out next years peace prize to themselves :-)

Cheers.

[tom h]

"See, the peace prize comittee doesn't really give out the prize anymore to people who have actually achieved anything. Instead the comittee is trying, itself, to influence issues that they think are important."

This is nothing new but has been going on for a long time, giving the prize away to affect current policy, or to acknowledge a darling of the left.

2002: Jimmy Carter -- a nice guy, but I can't think of a single war he has stopped.

2001: Kofi Annan and the United Nations (!)

1994: Yassir Arafat shared the prize with Israelis Peres and Rabin

1990: Gorbachev won the prize, but not Reagan. Gorby certainly deserved it, because it was his decisions that held the hand of the monsters in East Germany, but it should have been a shared prize.

Unfortunately, the peace prize decisions have been political for the past 20 years. Take at look at the URL for the rest.

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

[livius]

Instead the comittee is trying, itself, to influence issues that they think are important.

A very perceptive observation.

[ccmay]

See, the peace prize comittee doesn't really give out the prize anymore to people who have actually achieved anything. Instead the comittee is trying, itself, to influence issues that they think are important.

I think the main criterion is to make a pick that pokes a thumb in America's eye. Look for Hugo Chavez next year.

-ccm