For defense of women, children and human rights in Iran. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031010/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace&cid=518&ncid=716 Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, one of the Islamic country's first female judges, won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for her work fighting for democracy and the rights of women and children. Ebadi, 56, the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to win the prize, has worked actively to promote peaceful, democratic solutions in the struggle for human rights, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said. It added that she is well-known and admired by Iranians for her defense in court of victims of attacks by hard-liners on freedom of speech and political freedom.
I'd like to hear the pro-Bush camp here talk about how irrelevant and out of touch with reality the Nobel committee is, like they did last year.
You mean the award to Governor Peanut? Here's a Carter story from last year: http://www.brokennewz.com/worldnews/carterprize.asp
As much as Carter's tenure as President may be forgettable, his post-Presidency activism has set the standard by which all other Presidents will be measured. Back to the real story, it is pretty amazing to see an Islamic woman being honored in such a manner. I wonder what the reaction is within the Islamic world??
Gotta admit it appears to be a better choice than, say, Arafat. Jimmy Carter has been a great post-president.
Either that or you are a leftist wacko who thinks anyone right of center is a fascist who backs totalitarianism in America.
Well, he did come up with the grain embargo, which did lead directly to a meat shortage behind the iron curtain, which did lead directly to a massive reduction in subsidies in Poland, which did lead directly to Solidarity, and we know the rest of the story. I wonder if the Soviet Empire would have fallen faster if that appeaser Ronald Reagan hadn't sold out his country and gone for the votes by promising to end the grain embargo (and then following through on that promise.)
Would you like to expound on the wonders of Operation Eagle Claw, which was preceeded by Operation Standstill?
Because last year the Republican conventional wisdom was that the Nobel committte was just a bunch of irrelevant leftist wackos who hated America and all that it stood for. You know, stuff like this, this, this, this, this, and this. I am eagerly anticipating what Cal Thomas, Thomas Sowell, George Will, the National Review, and the various nutcases who lambasted the Nobels last year will say now that they've selected an opponent of an Axis of Evil member. That the Committee suddenly embraced their version of Irrefutable Truth? Or perhaps that Carter really has been a great ex-President when it comes to these things, but the conservatives just got wrapped up in some temporary character assassination in order to further Bush's pro-war foreign policy? I'd bet more on the former.
No, Carter is as ineffectual, unrealistic, and wimpy as ever. The best ex-Prez was Nixon, who wrote numerous quality books.
You know, it continues to astonish me how the leftists on this board, rather than celebrate this wise decision on the part of the Nobel committee, would rather glom onto it as a excuse to bash the right for lambasting the committede for its OTHER decisions. MORE evidence, if any were needed, that rather than looking at the merits (or demerits) of a particular decision, the left wants, above ANYTHING else, even above wisdom and morality, an internal consistency. Or, rather, they want to use a GOOD decision as evidence that, of course, the Nobel Commitee IS internally consistent. So their other decision HAD to be good, right?? Earth to leftists, earth to leftists. Over. Sometimes decisions are good, sometimes decisions are bad. Do you read me? Over. By the way, was anti-American (and possibly anti-Semitic) Gunnar Berge heading the committee this time? Hmmm...it is possible that OTHER people with their HEADS screwed on on right made this decision??
Ebadi will eventually be forced to give her opinion on the war in Iraq. And then everybody on this board will judge the decision based on that one opinion.
Reasonable people with rational arguments can be against the war. Don't assume that because a woman of courage and character takes a particular policy position means that those who disagree with her somehow would completely dismiss her out of hand. Once again, so tediously and so predictably again, you and your fellow leftists by implication expect that others are going to follow YOUR peculiar amoral standard of evaluating character and worthiness on the basis of some vague notion of internal consistency. Of course, that IS consistent with the leftist notion that hypocrisy is a worse sin than having no morals at all, among other peculiarly warped perspectives.
Yes, but Carter will probably be remembered more for the failing American economy during his presidential years (and his resulting defeat to Reagan) than for his foreign policy successes. He gets a bad rap, and for that, his presidency becomes forgettable, a blip between Watergate and Iran-Contra.
Per year, Carter had a better economic growth rate than Reagan. People forget just how serious the '82 recession was, before Reagan's tax increases (yes, INcreases) kicked in and set us up on a great period of economic growth.
Clinton? Did I mention him?? Hmmm...didn't think so. However, that my articulation of the situation evokes Clinton in YOUR mind I think speaks volumes.
Putting "foreign policy successes" and Jimmy Carter in the same sentence is like talking about Jeff Agoos' World Cup triumphs.