Still hot?
The Nobel people said in so many words that the award to Carter was intended as a specific political slam at George W. Bush. If that doesn't bother you at all in relationship to the concept of the Nobel Peace Prize, I'd like to know why not.
I do not mean to imply that none of the recipients deserve it, although in recent years it's obvious that each recipient is thoroughly filtered for the correct politics, including Ebadi, whose courage is unquestionable, but whose politics are obviously well to the left. And cripes, Yasser Arafat?
Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented promptly, yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq, once on the recommendation of the Security Council, and the second time, in spite of UN Security Council opposition, were subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation?
From Ebadi's Nobel lecture.
As for fighting wars, the 1988 prize went to the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces. I guess you just have to pick your wars, or maybe the secret is not winning any of them.
Why should Bush get one for freeing two nations from tyrannical dictatorships? Beats the hell out of me, I guess. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Reagan's role in ending the Cold War either.