Written by Zatikia and posted in the Further Left Forum
The real problem with Gore getting this award, an award who's past
recipients include Jimmy Carter, Doctors Without Boarders, Kim Dae-Jung, Amnesty International, Bishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Unicef, MLK, and the Red Cross, is Gore has a pro-war record as a politician. When he was in Congress, he supported Reagan's and Bush senior's wars. He voted to give aid to Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua (although he later changed his opinion, too late), Angola, and Afghanistan. As one-half of Clinton/Gore, he brought us several questionable, if not unnecessary military conflicts, including the disastrous campaign in Somalia. He and Clinton continued the Iraq conflict which paved the way for GW Bush to invade. Gore can speak out now against the war, but what about the bombing and sanctions against Iraq that were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths during the Clinton/Gore administration? Speaking of Nobel Prize winners, another was the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, in 1997. He and Clinton also opposed that ban.
Now the Nobel Peace Prize awards are not perfect, there have been bad
choices. GW was nominated for the prize a few years ago! But at least
he did not win. Past mistakes do not however excuse the committee from awarding someone the prize for things unrelated to peace, and who has never done anything to advance the cause of peace