You have commented 275 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iran
Iranian lawyer Ebadi wins Nobel Peace Prize
2003-10-10
Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi has won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in defending human rights and promoting democracy.
Sounds like a good choice and will certainly embarrass Iran so it can’t be bad. A boost for the democracy movement in Iran and hopefully a nail in the mullah coffin.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Ebadi, Iran’s first woman judge before the Islamic revolution forced her to step down, for work focused on the rights of women and children. She won from a record field of 165 candidates including Pope John Paul and former Czech President Vaclav Havel.
The Cuban dissident Paya would have deserved it as well.
The Nobel prize is worth 10 million Swedish crowns and will be handed out in Oslo on December 10. Ebadi is only the 11th woman to win since the prize was set up in 1901.
Will Iran insist on her wearing a hijab?
Posted by:True German Ally

#20  IMO, the fact that there were no prizes given out in the five years between 1939-43 discredits the award. The notion that in the world's entire population during that time nobody was striving for peace is unbelievably offensive. The idea that war is something you have the opportunity to 'turn down' if you're peacefully inclined is grotesque. Sweden adopted neutrality during a war that threatened civilization and was often fought with Swedish-made weapons and weapons made from Swedish steel, whilst the Nazi war machine crushed nations and engaged in genocide on her borders. And those who fought for peace were snubbed as contemptible war-wagers. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-10-11 6:59:18 AM  

#19  re Nobel - IIRC the peace prize WAS one of the original prizes, in part cause Nobel felt guilty

re:warmakers winning nobels - you can have won a war and receive a prize for OTHER actions that led to peace - didnt Rabin win for Oslo, despite having been the Israeli chief of staff during the '67 war? T. Roosevelt won for peacemaking Russo-Japanese war, despite being fierce nationalist who sent "great white fleet" around the world and having led "rough riders" during Spanish-American war. You just cant receive it FOR your war making activities.

re: Carter. Whatever else he did, he is credited with the peace between egypt and israel at Camp David, which is what he won the prize for, along with Sadat and Begin, IIRC. A peace which still stands, BTW.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-10-10 8:33:23 PM  

#18  Certainly beats last year's Nobel Peace Prize!
Posted by: Atrus   2003-10-10 4:38:49 PM  

#17  At least they did not give it to Blixie.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-10-10 2:10:33 PM  

#16  Steve - Sorry to (re)learn of his passing. Perhaps his estate can endow some awards.
Posted by: eLarson   2003-10-10 1:28:53 PM  

#15  Bet the "Holy Men" are thrilled about this...
Posted by: tu3031   2003-10-10 12:52:31 PM  

#14  "Is Jack Northrop still alive?"
He passed away several years ago. Before he died, Northrop got special permission from DoD to bring him out to the plant and show him the then still secret plans for the B-2 Stealth bomber. B-2 is almost identical in size and shape to his old flying wing bomber of the 50's. He got to know he was ahead of his time before he died.
Posted by: Steve   2003-10-10 11:07:09 AM  

#13  Alfred Nobel was a 19th century defense contractor. Now we have his prizes, among those
for Peace.

I'm looking forward to the Northrop Peace Prize in a century or two. (Is Jack Northrop still alive? I've forgotten.)
Posted by: eLarson   2003-10-10 10:52:52 AM  

#12  I don't think I should be wasting my time thinking about this, but why does anyone pay any attention to the Nobel Peace Prize? The Nobels' life achievements probably did as much as anyone's to promote industrial warfare (Alfred's father Immanuel provided equipment to the Russian army and developed naval mines; Alfred and his brother Emil devoted their lives to researching explosives technology (amongst other things); Alfred stabilised nitroglycerine to make it a workable explosive, and owned Bofors). It seems as though Alfred's latterly 'pacifistic' outlook was in no small part influenced by his unrequited affection for a cloud-dwelling Austrian hottie named Bertha von Suttner, who, after his death was coincidentally awarded the fifth Peace prize.

Apparently you're not eligible to get the prize if you're a statesman and fight a defensive war, but you're quite eligible if you have pie-in-the-sky utopian ideas, have renounced violence after a period of murdering innocents, or are enjoying a quiet spell whilst regrouping your forces. Occasionally the prize is given to worthy recipients, but so what? Does the nobel Peace Prize actually do anything to promote peace? What did Yasser do with his 7m Swedish Krone fortune in 1994 that contributed towards the peace industry, I wonder? Anyone could hand out annual Peace Prizes to people who they consider to be peacemakers. Whom the Nobel Committee of the day consider to be peacemakers doesn't really mean anything at all.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-10-10 10:02:38 AM  

#11  At least they didn't give it to the Pope for disgracefully protecting Saddam and praying with Tariq Aziz opposing the Iraq war.

-Good point, also realize that the American Catholic church just had a rash of huge child molestation cases that many believe the Pontiff didn't do enough to either prevent, curtail, or condemn. BTW - I'm a Catholic, so if 'Not Mike Moore' is out there - don't try to give me any whining about my supposed anti-Catholic comments.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-10-10 9:35:21 AM  

#10  The "Peace" prize was not Alfred Nobel's invention. He only wanted to reward scientific/engineering progress (at the time there was little difference, as most reasonable people still thought that all science ought to have practical applications). Someone else, later on, decided to add the Peace and LItter-ary prizes (I think if you check the name and value of these prizes, you'll see the difference -- as well as observing WHO chooses the recipients).
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2003-10-10 9:25:21 AM  

#9  I can applaud Ebadi's selection. Vaclav Havel also would have been a good choice.
Posted by: Steve White   2003-10-10 8:54:02 AM  

#8  The criteria is,you have to make peace,not to wage war.Even defensive wars or wars of liberation are "out" as far as the Nobel Prize is concerned.Thus,no prize for Churchill or FDR.(Reagan should have gotten one,though).
Posted by: El Id   2003-10-10 8:51:11 AM  

#7  wow, if the criteria means you have to lose wars, I'm surprised more Arabs haven't won
Posted by: Frank G   2003-10-10 8:12:48 AM  

#6  Oops, Maybe I should have written "And it seems as though many genuine peacemakers are ineligible". Of course Yasser and Kofi are peacemakers in the same league as Pol Pot and Joseph Chamberlain.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-10-10 7:50:41 AM  

#5  "Under the terms of the will,the Nobel Foundation can not give the prize for winning a war,no matter how beneficial to humanity."

So it's not open to those who have the temerity to successfully defend themselves or their principles in the face of military aggression? Good thing for him Yasser's such a loser, or he wouldn't have won himself. That goes for Kofi, too. Seems as though many genuine peacemakers are ineligible.

Alfred Nobel - the man who invented dynamite and believed that as a weapon of mass destruction, it would lead to the end of all wars. Why didn't the Manhattan Project crew get it? What would have been the chances of him winning the Peace prize had he been eligible for his own award? It all smacks of beyond-the-grave hypocrisy to me.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-10-10 7:46:41 AM  

#4  Re:Rummy:
Under the terms of the will,the Nobel Foundation can not give the prize for winning a war,no matter how beneficial to humanity.Considering the circumstances,pretty good.
Posted by: El Id   2003-10-10 7:17:54 AM  

#3  I forgot Rigoberta Menchu! Her of the fraudulent autobiography.
Posted by: Tokyo Taro   2003-10-10 7:06:19 AM  

#2  Maybe not the best choice, but a good one; Ebadi is one courageous lady.

Wonder if the Nobel committee is trying to make up for last year's colossal error of awarding the prize to (LGF Idiotarian of the Year) Jimmy Peanut?
Posted by: Mike   2003-10-10 6:44:21 AM  

#1  Sounds good to me. I still think they should've given it to Rumsfeld or Tommy Franks for defeating tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan but you can't always have your way.

At least they didn't give it to the Pope for disgracefully protecting Saddam and praying with Tariq Aziz opposing the Iraq war. Not that we forget the Pope's brave stance against the Commies 10 years ago. but those were his people. Too bad his thinking is muddled when it comes to non-Catholics. After Jimmy Carter, that would've made 2 anti-AmericanBush appointments in a row.

Maybe they're trying to salvage what little remains of the award's credibility. Jimmy Carter has achieved exactly zero, probably a lot less. Kim Dae Jung is a corrupt appeaser. I suppose he was a plausible choice at the time of the award. But now that they know that he secretly bribed the Norks to get them to the peace table with hundreds of millions of taxpayer won and in light of all that has happened, it should be revoked. Stick that award where the Sunshine Policy don't shine, Kim. Way to bilk your own people in order to pay the man responsible for starving or enslaving millions of your fellow Koreans so that he can develop a nuclear bomb that will spark an arms race across Asia and wind up in the hands of Islamic terrorists. Yasser Arafat is Yasser Arafat and if they were stupid enough to award him a peace prize, then it's his to keep and all future winners will have to deal with the taint.

Any others?
Posted by: Tokyo Taro   2003-10-10 6:11:02 AM  

00:00