European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize for uniting continent
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89A1N820121012


I'm sure there were better options.The prize, worth $1.2 million....goes to Bryssel.

Note: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:09am EDT

O boy, Skybird is gonna get angry

...and won't be only one. This decision is ridiculous only exceeded in stupidity by Obama's one. I doubt Alfred Nobel meant heads of state and federal governments when writing his testament.

Hey, anything to help the debt crisis right :03:

Every little bit counts!

It is a bit of a stretch to award it to an organisation rather than to a person...however in a manner of speaking I can see their point. This is one of the longest stretches of peace in Western Europe since Roman times!
So, in those terms alone, the EU deserves a peace prize.

Peace in the sense that there has been no physical war between member states, but politically there has been little peace, and nor will there ever be. It just ain't gonna happen, nations would need to be altruistic but there's nothing in it for them if they are, so they won't. :-?

Quick situational overview.

The Greeks are dressing up as Nazis and jeering Mrs Merkel, the German press is outraged, Irish villagers are marching against the crushing austerity that the Euro has brought, tens of thousands of Spaniards who feel they have no future are on the march, Catalonia is threatening to secede from Spain, British and French fisherman are having pitched battles off the coast of France, Hungary appears to be rapidly abandoning democracy, Neo Nazi Greeks are openly fire bombing immigrant houses and a huge disgruntled swathe of the UK population want a vote on EU membership.

Between this and the previous awards to Barack Obama and Al Gore, it's safe to say the Nobel Peace Prize has "jumped the shark":gulp:.

I do find it ironic that Norway has rejected possible EU memembership twice in the past.

Oh, I fully agree, but I'd rather see Merkel and Cameron shouting at each other, than German and British soldiers shooting at each other.

I respectfully disagree, I think the Cold War and presence of thousands of troops from the US and USSR and loads of nuclear weapons, "tactical" as well as strategic for 40 years helped keep the peace more than anything else, though economic growth-in France called "les trentes glorieuses" meaning the 30 years of growth in that country from about 1945-75 played a role, sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses

Not sure about the stats for other countries, I still maintain MAD was more important than the EEC and EU.

As for the Nobel peace prize, it already lost all credibility with me-I just feel bad the worthy scientific awards are possibly tarnished by association.

Yeah, but what about the British against the CESM? Once and for all, sort it out! Winner takes all. :D

It certainly helped, I'm not going to deny it, and we will see over the coming twenty years if a period of peace equal to that of the Cold War can be maintained without the threat of MAD. It's been twenty-three years since the wall came down, so that concrete structure put in place during the Cold War has lasted this long, and the EU has certainly plastered over the cracks in it. Now the cracks are too big to plaster over, and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing...I do wonder if we'll be able to make forty-three years of peace in Western Europe. I hope so, I really do, but if the EU falls, all bets are off.

Don't they have a bigger military than us now? Could be 1066 all over again! :nope:

As long as we don't have two battles with the Norwegians before we'll be just fine.

You might be surprised, tyrant, but formally this decision is more acceptable than many others of recent years. The Peace Nobel prize was founded to reward merits already gained in the field of military arms reduction and achieving (in a military understanding) a state of peace in the world. Many decisions of the past have ignored this fundamental premise, and hijacked the award for other purposes, for political correctness, for gender sociology, and for hopes what the awarded person would do in the future (Obama on my mind), and I do not know what else. Seen that way, the award for the EU is more in line with the original intention, than on many other opportunities in the past.

However, this does not mean I am happy. The other major actor that secured peace in Europe, and imo did more to secure the freedom of a free Europe, is NATO, whose role during the cold war can hardly be overestimated. For its cold war role as well as the time of stabilizing European relations after WWII, NATO imo was more important than the EEC.

The EEC is no more, but got mutated into the EU, which is something very different by what it plans for the future. And while the EU's role bases on the heritage of the EEC, its record is anything but flawless. It failed miserably during the Balkan wars. It supported the powertaking of militant radicalism in certain Muslim countries during the Arab Spring. The Euro already is no guarantee for peace and friendship, but has become the originator of bitter and deep-reaching rifts between European nations. And as I just have read in German comment in a newspaper, it is to be feared that the already very reality-disconnected, distant actors in the spaceship Brussels will mistake this award as a confirmation of their doings and ideological intentions, which probably is wanted by the Nobel committee which thereby once again demasks itself not as a gremium rewarding past merits, but as an actively engaging actor that wants to influence the future on behalf of what can only be called the Gutmenschentum. Such an active, policy-forming role is not what Nobel wanted, and the criticism has often been raised now against the Nobel committee, I am by far not the first.

So, I can live with this decision slightly better than with a peace Nobel prize for Obama, Theresa or Arafat or the UN itself. Which is a statement only about the relative value of one decision compared to others. From an absolute perspective, I think the prize should have been limited to the EEC and EU pre-89, and excluding the post-EU . So I see little reason to make much angry noise about this decision today - but I also will not applaud it. There have been worst decisions in the past.

Did someone say Europe was at peace?

Possibly in terms of open warfare but not in terms of finance, politics, mutual interests etc. etc.

Sorry, but I really cannot understand this EU bashing...is this a kind of sports here ? Is this a dislike of big organizations?

I also agree that without NATO there would no be free Europe today and it is a shame that a some of my countrymen have already forgotten that.

But the EU played a vital role in the unification of commerce, economics and non-security politics.

What do you expect when more than 20 countries have to find compromises, whose political leaders follow (and have to follow) national interests?

What is the alternative? Europe before WWII ? And no we cannot copy the model of this nice, lovely Switzerland; because this model does not scale!