Bush/Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!?!?!?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Bush/Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!?!?!?

  1. #1
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324

    Bush/Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!?!?!?

    I do bicycle training first thing in the morning and to amuse myself I tend to watch the news or whatever else is on. Imagine my surprise seeing in CNN's ticker "Blair/Bush nominated for Nobel Peace Prize". I thought WTF? Did a Google news search and got...

    Reuters Article

    Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel peace prize
    Fri 30 January, 2004 13:03

    By Alister Doyle

    OSLO (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are among nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize before a Sunday deadline for nominations despite failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    "Nominations are pouring in," said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. He said he gets letters and up to 1,500 e-mails a day from people either supporting or denouncing candidates.

    Among nominees are the European Union to mark its expansion to include former East bloc states. Pope John Paul, the Salvation Army, former Czech President Vaclav Havel, Chinese dissidents are also among nominees.

    "Bush and Blair definitely still deserve it," said Jan Simonsen, a right-wing independent member of Norway's parliament who nominated the two for the 2004 prize shortly after the U.S.-led war toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in April.

    "Even though they haven't found those weapons they got rid of a dictator and made the world more safe," he told Reuters on Friday, sticking by the choice. "They got rid of a madman."

    Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction were a main justification for the war. None have yet been found and Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted on Thursday some pre-war intelligence was flawed.

    Nobel watchers say Bush or Blair's chances of winning are close to nil. The 2002 prize went to ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who argued against war. The head of the Nobel committee called the choice a "kick in the legs" to Bush on Iraq.

    The 2003 prize, worth $1.35 million (930,000 pounds), went to Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi from a record field of 165 nominees. The annual deadline for nominations for the award, announced in October, is February 1.

    "NOBEL NOMINEE" NO BIG DEAL

    Espen Barth Eide, a researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, said there were no obvious front-runners for 2004. "If something happens in the Middle East in a positive direction then that might qualify," he said.

    Ex-Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland has nominated the EU to coincide with its expansion from 25 states from 15 in May and for bringing decades of peace to Western Europe after centuries of wars.

    Efforts in nations from Sudan to Sri Lanka to end wars have hit setbacks. And Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is too much of a maverick to have any chance despite pledges to abandon efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

    Lundestad said many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honour.

    Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have made it to the list -- every member of all the world's parliaments, university professors from law to theology, ex-winners and committee members can submit names.

    "There are many who do not understand the difference between a nomination and getting the prize," Lundestad said.

    He also said he could not cope with a deluge of e-mails and said he preferred receiving letters or faxes.

    "There are periods when I receive more than 1,500 e-mails per day, either supporting or denouncing someone," he said, adding he simply deleted most all of them. "Please don't put my e-mail address in a story. It's well enough known as it is."
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  2. #2
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,038
    So starting a war makes the world more peacefull? I hope there are enough people outside the USA that dislike Bush and will write in....
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

  3. #3
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Well if you read the full article it's interesting that Hitler was picked as well (apparently killing millions in a mass-genocide counts as well). They also say the chance to win is close to nil.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    275
    To their credit, they did capture a mass-murderer!

    .dublix

  5. #5
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,038
    Originally posted here by MsMittens
    Well if you read the full article it's interesting that Hitler was picked as well (apparently killing millions in a mass-genocide counts as well). They also say the chance to win is close to nil.
    Thanks MsMittens. I only read the caption...
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,019
    Let's nominate Larry Flint for promoting virginity......

  7. #7
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    Let's nominate Larry Flint for promoting virginity......
    No ****ing kidding!!

    To their credit, they did capture a mass-murderer!
    If a local police investigator catches a serial killer who has murdered 15 people- he might be a hero. If he kills 5 innocent people in his attempts to do so it might detract from his valor.

    Bush has killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians just as Saddam did. People run around saying "well, even though the PRESIDENT of the United States and leader of the free world blatantly lied about the evidence and rationalization for going to war- at least he got rid of a murdering dictator."

    Webster defines "murdering" as:

    1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
    2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
    3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly intransitive senses : to commit murder
    and "dictator" as:

    1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
    2 : one that dictates
    It may be a stretch on both definitions but I think an argument could made that "murdering dictator" applies to Bush as well.

    Saddam is estimated to be responsible for anywhere from 80,000 and 180,000 by reports I can find. In order to depose the dictator and bring him to justice for his crimes against humanity- Bush committed the same crimes against humanity. Will his trial follow Saddam's?

    The Bush regime and Pentagon have included funding to compensate the families of the innocent civilians they killed in trying to liberate the oil...I mean them. Maybe we should just let Saddam spend a couple billion to pay reparations to the Kurds and call it a day?

    In the end, for Bush to win the Nobel Peace Prize would completely devalue and dishonor the award and be a direct slap in the face to all those who have come before and truly earned that distinction and any who would follow in his wake.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    275
    I may not be the most eloquent poster in the world Tony, but your argument strikes me as weak and it looks like you are constantly "splitting hairs". It was either we all lost some life or we let Saddam continue killing by the thousands. I think the cost was worth it (as horrible and oversimplified as that sounds, considering people are dying).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're going to defend Saddam Husseinís right to exist as the leader of Iraq (given his horrible track record) then that's your own personal problem. I think that shows your own credibility issues.

    .dublix

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    LA, CA
    Posts
    292
    *holds back rants against bush

    "the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic" Stalin said it, its sad that it's still true to so many
    A mind full of questions has no room for answers

  10. #10
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're going to defend Saddam Husseinís right to exist as the leader of Iraq (given his horrible track record) then that's your own personal problem. I think that shows your own credibility issues.
    I am with MsMittens on that issue. I fought in Bush Sr's Desert Shield / Storm attack to liberate Kuwait. I was disappointed we didn't march all the way to Baghdad and finish the job then. I was furious throughout the 90's that Saddam continued to resist world opinion and U.N. resolutions and thumb his nose at us and that we spent billions upon billions in tax dollars to babysit him. I would have GLADLY supported Bush if he simply said- we've had enough of this guy and we're taking him out.

    What I don't support is outright, blatant lying to get false support from mislead constituents. I also don't support the hypocrisy of only deposing that murdering dictator. If *that* were a pure motive there is a whole list of countries we should be gearing up to invade. I haven't heard of any plans to depose the Chinese government or the North Korean government. Oh wait- both of those countries DON'T have oil and both of those countries DO have nuclear weapons. So, it seems that maybe that motive isn't so pure.

    If I get in my car drunk off my ass and hit a pedestrian and kill him, does it make my crime any less or make me a hero if the person I hit was a murderer running from the scene of his crime?

    I think its great to get rid of Saddam and I think Saddam should be tried for his crimes (as should we for supplying him with the gas he used to commit the crimes). However, I don't think the end justifies the means like they're trying to sell and I don't think you can rewrite history and try to change your motive after the fact. We didn't go in to liberate Iraq or depose a murdering dictator and the fact that it did in fact occur that we accomplished that goal is neither here nor there when it comes to measuring Bush as a leader or when considering him for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •