Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I was refering to the boom in economic afluence the world over seen in the 90s after the fall of communism.

You forget the economy was in recession starting in late 1990 to about 1993-1994. The economy didnt pick up until Clinton's midway through 2nd year in office.

You will never convince the man who can not see that a sunset is georgeous having never seen one.

The same thing is true of convincing those who believe the Nobel Prize is so "noble", that they are wrong.

FACT:
Past selections have shown (for anyone willing to "look") that those who have an extremist view critical of the US government or US policy are selected for certain Nobel prizes more often than those who support or advocate US policies and the US government.

I can not prove and am not sure that this is done intentionally - the conclusion remains that the above "fact" is true.

Mr Scarbourgh article is yet proof again about the far right's inability to tolerate any sort of criticism and to mislable it as anti-Americanism. Espically when that criticism is directed toward the conservative far right in particular. Had the book been on Clinton-Lewinsky or something else theat implicated democrats, I'm sure Mr Scarbourgh wouldnt have found it so objectionable.

UN Peacekeeping forces (1988 ) - While Regan was finishing up his prolific carreer at hacking away at the USSR it's the "smurfs", the guys that have been the biggest joke army on the 20th centry that get the nod. Nice one.

The 1980's 'prosperity' (minus the enormous deficiets he left) has no bearing on the Nobel Peace Prize selection, I would wager the funding of Nigeruguan Death squads most certainly did effect the commitee, but in the opposite direction...

I still can't find the country of Nigerugua on the bloody map... tee hee hee



God of Thunder, I would like to pointedly ask where you have come across this conclusion that the international community prefers democratic presidents as they "they can be counted on to not behave in an aggressive fashion internationally"? What a load of crap bruv. Have you forgotten the presidencies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton in this line of reasoning. In fact the ONLY president who fits your assertion is Carter.
Care to clarify?

Dude, I couldn't even copy all that into word to spell check it if I wanted to... this fantastic new board system doesn't support cut/copy feature... which is awsome by the way.

Yes,in my nation.
Anti-Japan is key of to be good journalist or Intellect.

Chief Bones

Hold on, are you saying that certain Nobel Winners are critical toward the USA? The topic is anti-Americanism in the nobel commitee, if your saying that several winners have been critical of US policy, then yes I agree. But as I said, being critical of the US doesnt mean your anti-American, although thats preciesly what the Bush Administration has been preaching since they took office.

Take Pinter, he won the literature prize based on a book on Nicaragua (Damn you bulldogg, you made me look it up) during the turmoil there. That particular moment in history wasnt exactly our proudest moment, so is it any surprise that he criticized the US? Its like trying to write a book on the 3rd Reich without criticizing Germany.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

FACT:
Past selections have shown (for anyone willing to "look") that those who have an extremist view critical of the US government or US policy are selected for certain Nobel prizes more often than those who support or advocate US policies and the US government.

I can not prove and am not sure that this is done intentionally - the conclusion remains that the above "fact" is true.

Can you also turn this view around Chief? Can you chance someones view when he thinks there is a conspiracy-theorie kinda thing going on? Besides the prize is globally and there are a whole lot of scientist not agreeing with American policies. But they are still very good scientists.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Godofthunder

I know that arguement, and I agree to some effect. But I think credit for it should be given to Harry Truman, as it was Truman who essentially started the arms race in 1948 and that policy continued until Carter.

I think you misspelled Joseph Stalin here.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Reagan merely broke the SALT and SALT 2 accords and continued on the previous policy of economically wearing down the USSR.

If this means that he started matching the Soviet Union warhead for warhead and fortifying Eastern Europe against massive armor attacks, then President Reagan is guilty. We simply had the "mostest fustest."

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Remember the USSR didnt suddenly collapse in the 1980's, it was in steady decline ever since the end of WWII.

Now you can give Presidents Truman and Eisenhower credit for starting the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

From the 1960's the signs were showing. It just fell apart on Reagans watch. I forgot his name but but he was the head of the Soviet Army wrote that Reagan did speed up the fall but only to a degree, had he not the USSR's still would have collapsed at a slightly later date as the major damage was already done...
Thats why its so inaccurate for the GOP to claim it was Reagans doing...

Since the rest of this is fibs, I will stop here.

Originally Posted by sandy

Yes,in my nation.
Anti-Japan is key of to be good journalist or Intellect.

You are right. In America if you write something anti-American you're being a good skeptical journalist. If you write something pro-American you're a propogandist lapdog of the ruling party.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

You will never convince the man who can not see that a sunset is georgeous having never seen one.

The same thing is true of convincing those who believe the Nobel Prize is so "noble", that they are wrong.

FACT:
Past selections have shown (for anyone willing to "look") that those who have an extremist view critical of the US government or US policy are selected for certain Nobel prizes more often than those who support or advocate US policies and the US government.

I can not prove and am not sure that this is done intentionally - the conclusion remains that the above "fact" is true.

You can't prove that this is intentionally? So this means that it might just be a consiquence that these persons had views not agreeing with USA policies? I don't see the point, care to explain?