Prisoner Wins Nobel Prize?

Prisoner Wins Nobel Prize?

news.yahoo.com

BEIJING – Imprisoned Chinese democracy campaigner Liu Xiaobo on Friday won the Nobel Peace Prize — an award that immediately inspired China's political dissidents and drew furious condemnation from the authoritarian government.

Chinese state media blacked out the news and Chinese government censors blocked Nobel Prize reports, which highlighted Liu's calls for peaceful political change, from Internet websites. China declared the decision would harm its relations with Norway — and the Nordic country responded that it was a petty thing for a world power to do.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I got this feeling.

Just this feeling that the Nobel Peace Prize is more or less BS.

Only 2 individuals from China has ever won the Nobel Peace Prize.

One is the Dalai Lama and the other is this Pro-democracy activist.

What do they share in common? Both are trying to break down the Chinese society in one way or another.

One wants land, the other wants political changes.



Most of the Chinese people are "conditioned" to hate those individuals. A growing number (still a small minority in the 1.2 billion population) are going pro-democracy, but almost none are going to free Tibet or Taiwan.

If these people succeed, China would break down into case like the USSR or some other country who has NEVER experienced democracy.

Why do they deserve something like the Nobel Peace Prize?

Who on earth gets a prize for causing unnecessary chaos?

Perhaps there are certain people who wants to see China break into pieces and see 1.2 billion people in confusion again.



MLK gained the support of almost all of the blacks and young people. Did the US government have a choice? If they did not agree to rights for blacks then the US would surely break down.

Gandhi fought off British oppressors from the other side of the world. YET, he did NOT receive a Nobel Prize while he was still alive because it would be against the interests of the British.



When will people realize that adverse selection is a part of every transaction?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Congrats to him! It's a finger to the crookedness in the current so called Capitalist/Communist government of China. Great government, but they're crooked. The Noble Peace Prize is great and sad at the same time. Not trying to sound like a hypocrite. There have been a lot of deserving people to win and not to win. Then there have been people who should of never have won.
List of Noble Prize Winners
Here's the list of all the winners!

Originally posted by die_another_day

If these people succeed, China would break down into case like the USSR or some other country who has NEVER experienced democracy.

Why do they deserve something like the Nobel Peace Prize?

Who on earth gets a prize for causing unnecessary chaos?

Perhaps there are certain people who wants to see China break into pieces and see 1.2 billion people in confusion again.

You seem to prefer peace over freedom. But that "peace" China is experiencing was brutally enforced through prison camps, murder, silencing critics, etc. Some Chinese disagree with that. This is one of them. And what happens to people who disagree? They get locked away. If freedom means initial chaos and uncertainty...why not?

I don't know much to what goes into selecting the Nobel prizes, but on paper this seems like a good choice. China's is still a repressive government and maybe one day their people will have a revolution. I think it is more likely that the US will become more like how China is now given we seem to be loosing a little bit of liberty everyday. Without a doubt Liu Xiaobo is more deserving the Nobel Peace prize that Barack Obama was.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Solasis


Verily brother!
While I do agree with the OP that the Peace Prize is a farce, I have to question the assumption that this prize was given to Tenzin Gyatso because he wants to cause chaos in China. From everything that I have read or heard the man say, this couldn't be further from the truth. Bad mouth the Dalai Lama and look like a fool... Unless you want to make fun of his clothes or his musical tastes.
As far as Liu Xiaobo goes, I'm not familiar enough with him to decide whether or not he should be in the same category as the Dalai Lama.

Originally posted by die_another_day
Most of the Chinese people are "conditioned" to hate those individuals. A growing number (still a small minority in the 1.2 billion population) are going pro-democracy, but almost none are going to free Tibet or Taiwan.

If these people succeed, China would break down into case like the USSR or some other country who has NEVER experienced democracy.

Why do they deserve something like the Nobel Peace Prize?

Who on earth gets a prize for causing unnecessary chaos?

Perhaps there are certain people who wants to see China break into pieces and see 1.2 billion people in confusion again.

It's bigger than any of those, it's bigger than democracy, bigger than 'harmony', bigger than the fear of chaos, bigger than the ruling elites, this is about the next generation and if you instinctively are against this, it means you are part of the old and not the new.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


If they (you know who) break China down into democracy, maybe Russia will enter in a visa-free agreement with them and open the doors for immigration?
Freedom FTW!

reply to post by Jazzyguy


But seriously,

What is the old world?

What is the new world?


From what I see, the world never changes in the social and political sense because humans will always have the same faulty mentality.

The only thing that can truly be said to be new is technology.

If the nobel committee members keep on going the way they are going they just might start a war!

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes

But I am glad this guy got it since it is actually in line with our older USA traditions (pro democracy) which hasn't been seemingly important to recent administrations in practice... just in speak

Having said that, the nobel team sure isn't very consistant.

idk, i don't care about the peace prize, it is a joke ... but
he sounds like a good guy.

Originally posted by die_another_day
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

But seriously,

What is the old world?

What is the new world?

Generations not worlds.

From what I see, the world never changes in the social and political sense because humans will always have the same faulty mentality.

Precisely, old generation thinks like that, that's why it doesn't improve much.

The only thing that can truly be said to be new is technology.

But the breakthrough technologies would be withheld until the next generation is ready.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer a prisoner of conscience winning the prize instead of an individual with no conscience who looks the other way and allows suspected war criminals to walk scott free without fear of indictment.

reply to post by die_another_day


China is an autocratic state. Both of the 2 Chinese winners of the prize deserve their prize. 1.2 Billion people in "confusion" is better than 1.2 Billion people in chains.

On a side note, its a shame that Ghandi didn't win a nobel peace prize, and the US was never in any danger of 'breaking down' during anytime in the 20th century.

China needs to change.

reply to post by die_another_day


Not really sure what you're getting at, OP.

This year's prize has been given to someone who is using non-violent means to affect positive social change, and has been jailed for doing so.

There are quite a few others who have been awarded the Nobel for similar actions: Lech Wałęsa (Polish founder of the Solidarity movement), Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma, Andrei Shakharov from the USSR, Adolfo Esquivel from Argentina, Williams and Corrigan (Northern Ireland), Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela - and those are just in the past 35 years.

What they all have in common is a desire to push their governments to accept their responsibilities where Human Rights are concerned. Yes, this disturbs the social order - but if basic Human Rights are not being respected, the social order needs change.

Wake up!
It's a check-mate.
Either China becomes a superpower on it's own or joins Russia at that. Pick your poison.

What is so strange about that?

Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu where also prisoners, yet they won the Nobel Peace Price.

Nothing strange.

VvV

reply to post by vox2442


I'm glad that you can't figure out my stance.

My goal is to stay neutral and present the evidence from both sides.

Originally posted by die_another_day
reply to post by vox2442

 

I'm glad that you can't figure out my stance.

My goal is to stay neutral and present the evidence from both sides.

You have hardly accomplished your stated goal, and your neutrality leaves much to be desired. Take this remark of yours, for example:

Most of the Chinese people are "conditioned" to hate those individuals. A growing number (still a small minority in the 1.2 billion population) are going pro-democracy, but almost none are going to free Tibet or Taiwan.

Your choice to place quotation marks around the term conditioned underscores your bias in this debate. It is not as if you have offered evidence from both sides regarding Chinese conditioning of the populace. All you have done is attempt to make it seem dubious that conditioning of the populace by the Chinese government is actually happening. Further, you offer absolutely no quantifiable data to support your contention that it is only a small minority of the population that lean towards pro-democracy, and have certainly not offered evidence from both sides, and instead make your claim as it is a given.

If these people succeed, China would break down into case like the USSR or some other country who has NEVER experienced democracy.

This remark is unbelievably biased, and quite frankly, is at best, ignorant of history, and at worst, blatant propaganda. The so called "chaos" you use to describe the fall of the USSR is relatively tame when compared to the French Revolution, or even the Revolution for American Independence. The political change during the fall of the USSR came about far more peacefully than either the French or American Revolutions, neither country, by the way, who had EVER experienced democracy prior to those revolutions.

Who on earth gets a prize for causing unnecessary chaos?

This presumption of yours again underscores your profound bias, and defiant unwillingness to remain neutral and offer evidence from both sides. In regards to Tibet, you refuse to recognize any sovereignty to that nation, and instead offer up so little information regarding the struggle between China and Tibet, it is implied that Tibet is just a part of China, and the struggle is a civil and internal struggle rather than one of an occupied nation by an aggressor. In the matter of Liu Xiaobo, you don't even make an attempt to acknowledge the individual by name, and instead merely refer to him as a pro democracy activist, only to follow that acknowledgment with the assertion that both Liu Xiaobo, and The Dali Lama merely want chaos, for reasons, that you presumably do not find worthy enough reasons to risk any chaos. This view of yours, while you are entitled to it, is not neutral, by any stretch of the imagination.