The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: John Howard for the next Nobel Peace prize?
Aussiegunneragain    10/11/2009 8:07:43 AM
He led a Government that ran successful peace keeping/enforcement interventions in East Timor, the Solomon Islands and Bouganville. Thats in the order of 1.5 million people who are now not subject to violence and tyranny because of his leadership, not bad for a guy who led a nation of only 20 million. I reckon that is way more than Obama has done to win the prize.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
StevoJH       10/11/2009 8:51:12 AM
Well he's definitely more deserving of it then Obama.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       10/11/2009 4:14:40 PM
Sorry, but John Howard is ineligible.
 
It seems that he has actually done something effective, and must therefore be disqualified.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/11/2009 4:31:58 PM

The Turkish and Armenian leadership should of won the Peace prize, for what they achieved yesterday, with the signing of the protocols that normalizes relations and opens the border between the two countries. Which have been at odds over the so called "genocide" that Armenians claim happend almost a century ago during WW1.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/11/2009 8:47:15 PM

The Turkish and Armenian leadership should of won the Peace prize, for what they achieved yesterday, with the signing of the protocols that normalizes relations and opens the border between the two countries. Which have been at odds over the so called "genocide" that Armenians claim happend almost a century ago during WW1.



h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_resolution_on_Armenian_genocide
 
so called? claimed? ;)
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/11/2009 9:07:40 PM
so called? claimed? ;)
 
There is no proof of a genocide. If you go look at the facts you will see it. How come almost no Armenian was deported or killed in western Turkey, and all the Armenians were that were deported or killed were in Eastern Turkey, in places like Van.
The reason is that the Armenian terrorist organizations in the east, like the Dashnaks saw that Turkey was most likely going to lose in WW1 and were helping the Russians in the war. That is treason, because Armenia was in the Ottoman Empire and not a sovereign power. The numbers of Armenians supposedly killed was also inflated. There was about 1.3/1.6 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire at that time, and Armenians claim that 1.5 million died. They also claim that one million survived. That is a contradiction if there ever was such a thing. There was about 300 to 600 thousand Armenians who died during the deportations. There was also about three million Turks who died during WW1 and tens of thousands who were killed by those terrorist organizations like the Dashnaks. I'm not saying the Turks are 100% innocent but they did not commit a genocide. There was killing and looting on both sides.
 
There is a very good book by a German historian named Guenter Lewy, which has been called the most objective book on this very sensitive subject, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/11/2009 9:31:14 PM
One more thing. Only 10% of the countries in the world recognize this event as a "genocide" and most of them do not have good relations with Turkey. Just look at some of the countries who recognize the so called "genocide" Russia, an Armenian ally. Greece, hates Turkey. France, the most anti-Turkish government in western Europe, with the third largest Armenian immigrant population, after Russia and the US. Cyprus, see Greece. Argentina/Venezuela, have large and very influential Armenian communities, and don't have much to do with Turkey.
 
Most of the world still does not recognize this so called "genocide."
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       10/11/2009 10:18:44 PM

so called? claimed? ;)

 

There is no proof of a genocide. If you go look at the facts you will see it. How come almost no Armenian was deported or killed in western Turkey, and all the Armenians were that were deported or killed were in Eastern Turkey, in places like Van.

The reason is that the Armenian terrorist organizations in the east, like the Dashnaks saw that Turkey was most likely going to lose in WW1 and were helping the Russians in the war. That is treason, because Armenia was in the Ottoman Empire and not a sovereign power. The numbers of Armenians supposedly killed was also inflated. There was about 1.3/1.6 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire at that time, and Armenians claim that 1.5 million died. They also claim that one million survived. That is a contradiction if there ever was such a thing. There was about 300 to 600 thousand Armenians who died during the deportations. There was also about three million Turks who died during WW1 and tens of thousands who were killed by those terrorist organizations like the Dashnaks. I'm not saying the Turks are 100% innocent but they did not commit a genocide. There was killing and looting on both sides.

 

There is a very good book by a German historian named Guenter Lewy, which has been called the most objective book on this very sensitive subject, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.


Winston Churchill coined the phrase Holocaust in reference to the Armenian genocide
Adolf Hilter spoke that no one remembered the Armenians as justification for his treatment of the Jews
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    The only American that deserved it was Bill Clinton   10/12/2009 3:38:25 AM
1) Peace efforts in Northern Ireland
2) Extensive hard work and efforts for peace in Middle East (albeit unsuccessful)
3) After leaving the White House he started the Clinton Global Initiative to combat problems from aids to global warming, and worked hard on good causes
4) He is United Nations special envoy to Haiti.
5) He mediated withdrawal of Pak forces from Kargil, and mediated the INdia Pak Kargil episode.
6) He secured the release of two jailed American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea.
 
Somebody didn't like him. No chance John Howard will get one. He supported Bush for Iraq war.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/12/2009 4:25:40 AM
This award has more to do with the world wanting to give the US a big tick of approval and begin rebuilding the bridges Bush burnt with such gusto during his presidency.
 
The sad truth is following 9/11 the US had global simpathy with even former detractors and some former enemies showing conciliation and support, unimaginable prior to the attacks before "W" and Co blew it. What Obama has acheived, with very little effort, is given the US a fresh start with most of the rest of the world though nothing more than being a clear break from Bush.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/12/2009 5:56:51 AM

1) Peace efforts in Northern Ireland

2) Extensive hard work and efforts for peace in Middle East (albeit unsuccessful)

3) After leaving the White House he started the Clinton Global Initiative to combat problems from aids to global warming, and worked hard on good causes

4) He is United Nations special envoy to Haiti.

5) He mediated withdrawal of Pak forces from Kargil, and mediated the INdia Pak Kargil episode.

6) He secured the release of two jailed American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea.

Somebody didn't like him. No chance John Howard will get one. He supported Bush for Iraq war.
Clinton would be a good candidate IMHO. In addition to the efforts you list the US under Clinton stopped the genocide in the Balkens.
I know that Howard isn't going to get it because the psuedo-intellectual Eurotrash who decide on the award won't abide his association with Bush. AFAIC the award is meaningless anyway because the selection process is so non-representative of world opinion. I do however think that in a fair world Howard would get far more recognition for his peacemaking efforts in the Asia-Pacific than he got. He did in fact do more independently for peace than any Australian PM and taking into account the small size of Australia more than most world leaders. Still the world isn't fair but at least he got recognised with the Medal of Freedom and the Star of the Solomons.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/12/2009 6:25:30 AM

1) Peace efforts in Northern Ireland

2) Extensive hard work and efforts for peace in Middle East (albeit unsuccessful)

3) After leaving the White House he started the Clinton Global Initiative to combat problems from aids to global warming, and worked hard on good causes

4) He is United Nations special envoy to Haiti.

5) He mediated withdrawal of Pak forces from Kargil, and mediated the INdia Pak Kargil episode.

6) He secured the release of two jailed American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea.

 

Somebody didn't like him. No chance John Howard will get one. He supported Bush for Iraq war.



Regarding #1, did he make it illegal for americans to send money over there to buy weapons? ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/12/2009 6:26:22 AM
Frazer would have to rate higher than Howard as, while he was a bit of a do nothing PM, he was very active and effective in human rights and global affairs after politics. Too bad he miss placed his trousers before the accolades came.
 
I agree Clinton would be a good pick, far from big noting his achievements, he is actually more open about his failures, in particular Rwanda.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/12/2009 6:32:01 AM
Joe,
 
Circa 600,000 deaths (low estimate if wiki is to be believed) isnt a genocide? For reference modern day Armenia almost 100 years later only has a population of just over 3 million. 600,000 deaths is about 20% of the population of *modern* armenia.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/12/2009 7:53:17 AM

Frazer would have to rate higher than Howard as, while he was a bit of a do nothing PM, he was very active and effective in human rights and global affairs after politics. Too bad he miss placed his trousers before the accolades came. 

My preference is for people who have actually had to back themselves to do the right thing in the face of a significant risk, as opposed to peddlers of influence on the behalf of others. That is not to disparage the assistance that Fraser was to international efforts to resolve the issues in South Africa and Zimbabwe (though he helped Mugabe into power which with the benefit of hindsight he might not have done), or the work he has done after leaving office, but he never had to make a decision to assist another nation that had the same sort of potentially disasterous consequences for Australia like Howard did with Timor. The closest he came was in facing down racist sentiment in Australia to allow the Vietnamese boat people to settle here. Not a bad effort but not a prize winner in my book.

 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/12/2009 8:27:12 AM
Speaking of boat people, Rudd just gave the people who blew up their own boat a couple of months ago permanent residency.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy