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

Tony you are very angry at Bush for what you see as lying, but you are also angry at the 90s because what Bush accomplished today was pushed aside and that made you furious. You are aslo so angry at Bush that you atribute him to killing thousands of civilians, but the alternative is the very thing that made you so angry in the 90s. I am confused. You don't think the end justifies the means while at the same time hating the fact that the war you personally fought didn't have and outcome... and now through indirect means it does in fact have an outcome.

Bush can't even get world support, or the support of his own people to dispose of a dictator that didn't even obey international pressure that was placed on him. He's been ripe for the picken for decades, and you think it's hypocracy that he will never be able to go after another coutry on the top 7 list because he has had to fight off left mined wolves this entire war. It's not hypocracy, if given national support I may agree with you. But until that point arises, only so much can be accomplished at a time. I could see it now, Bush could make a speech saying we are going into Korea and OMG the left would be flying all over the net calling him a mass murderer, a dictator, a Nazi, a lying idiot good old boy. Please... there would probably be a post here with a tag line "Bushy does it again, the world enters another dark age"

As far as I remember the reason for the original Kuwait war was to liberate Kuwait and make it clear that the UN would not tolerate the invasion of an independant country. There was no real question of capturing Sadam back then. It was felt at the time that he was much more usefull left in power. As at the time it was in american interests to put him in power.
The big problem I have with Bushs handeling of the Iraq war is that he tried to pass off internal politics for world politics. Nearly every one of the arguments he used to justify the invasion have proven to be false. That is what disturbes me the most. That he thinks so little of the world community is one thing but that he has that little respect for the people that voted him into office is frightening. At least in England they are having an enquiry into the whole Iraq affaire.

The defeat of the regime in Iraq , while good for the people, has no real value for world peace today. The only thing that it proved was that the UN is only supported by the United States when it is doing what the US wants. If anything this is very bad for world peace.
I think that might exclude Bush and Blair form recieving the Nobel peace prize

Quote:

---

Bush can't even get world support, or the support of his own people to dispose of a dictator that didn't even obey international pressure that was placed on him.

---

I might be wrong but isn't this what bush did when he refused to sign the kaeyto agreement. The US was the only country not to sign if I remember correctly.

As to embargos I will say one thing :- If the USA was unable to break the back of Castros regime in Cuba, what made anyone think that the same type of policy would work on a country the size of Iraq. The only people to suffer were the people who needed to be liberated.

Personally i dont think bush lied about anything, he was only as correct in his statements as the information that was given to him. People are always whining and crying cuz "Bush lied". He was told that saddam had wmd's, and givin the situation he decided to act. Personally i wish that the cia and other intelligence agencys had not been full of it, that would shut up the whining and the crying. It was either yesturday or today that i heard the Bush launched an investigation into the intelligence that was used before the war, so at least he is trying( or perhaps he is using that cuz elections are coming up).

An earlyer post refers to the thousands of iraqi that bush killed... where in the hell did you get that bs statistic? There probley where several hundred iraqi's that lost there lifes, not trying to sound sadistic or anything but hell, thats not bad. Just open your eyes, things are improving in iraq(ignore the islamic religious nuts who are still attacking US forces) for the first time in a nations life they have freedom, they can make something of themselves, they can walk down the street without the fear of the Hussian gestopo taking them off to be tortured.
Would you deny these people the same freedom we have?

Kyoto isn't really the top of my list regarding Bush and the upcoming election. But since you mentioned it MARACU, correct me if I am wrong but:

The Kyto agreement was signed in Japan and the US agreed to cut back 8 percent of their emissions, while other countries are allowed to increase their emissions and some (most) aren't even a part of it. This thing has been bashed around for years. Are the left upset over it? Here is a quote from Clinton/Gore right before going to Kyoto in 1997-

Quote:

---

The US President, Bill Clinton, has said he will not sign any treaty from the Kyoto environment summit if it does not meet American approval.

Speaking in Washington DC, Mr Clinton said: "We're certainly going to negotiate in good faith, but we have to negotiate within the framework of our principles. The Deputy President, Al Gore, who flies to Japan next week, added: "We are perfectly prepared to walk away from an agreement that we don't think will work."

---

I took that from several EU papers. They were very concerned with it while at the same time sensitive to environmental concerns. So did they sign it? Why not, and why won't Bushy sign it today? Because an agreement was reached in 1997 that all participating countreis will cut back emissions. It's already signed ya know. So are you saying Bush isn't complying? That United Stated industrial jobs aren't leaving to countries not affected by the treaty every year? That another factory isn't shutting it's doors in the midwest and moving to Mexico? Perhaps you can argue that Bush hasn't done much with the agreement and they he opposes it, there is some evidence for that based on his politics. I guess he's been busy with some issues that came up unexpectedly that people conveniently leave out of conversation. But hey, if Kyoto was in my top 10 things to be worried about this presidential term, I would be upset too. In case you haven't noticed the US economy crashed a couple of years ago because our financial center was destroyed and now we have a huge deficit, to put it lightly. While the cost of implementing Kyoto isn't overly significant, it the hope of me that anything that will stimulate growth is important vs. forcing factories etc to implement safeguards at this point. Heck Clinton had it in place 3 years what did he accomplish? I am looking at this as a US Citizen so I will definitely have a differing opinion, I am just trying to place it in a perspective according to reality.

As for removing the regime in Iraq NOT benefiting world peace...? Have you looked at a map lately? Have you considered the historical violence in that area? If Iraq developes a successful parlimentary and stable government you are saying that's not a benifit as a whole to that Mid. Eastern community and the EU?

RoadClosed.
A point when I say Bush I talk about the whole goverement.
Kyoto(thanks for the spelling) isnt really the point of what I was saying. It is more the point if I remeber it rightly, I will check it out and will post any result I find, when it came to ratifying it at the last meeting one or two years back, the only country to go against world opinion was the united states. Isn't that what you were saying about sadam.
Bush as president of the United States may be a good short term solution for the united states. I am not in a position to say. I am not americain and do not live in the states. I am giving my point of view from the outside looking in. I do not think that he is good short or long term from an international point of view.
The economic problems you mention are not really unique to the united states. Europe is going through the same thing but it is worst as the euro is much too strong against the dollar. Which is also an artificial situtation maintained by the goverment in power.
The removal of Sadam has not had the impact desired on world peace. To be totaly honest I can not in my opion see how anyone could belive it would help the situation in the middle east. The only way to bring peace to the middle east is to sort out the problem between Israel and Palestine. I cant see that happening anytime soon. Another point the peace talks in the middle east broke down fairly soon after Bush was elected. Ok this may have been a result of 9/11.
In anycase your points are as always well made but I still can not see any reason for Bush and Blair to get a nobel peace prize. :D

cheers

edit I forgot to mention it but I am fairly right wing so i wont feel concerned by any commetns about the left. I do feel that the constant use of the excuse that everyone against the war or the policys of bush are either left or hippys is becoming too much of an easy way out.

Quote:

---

It may be a stretch on both definitions but I think an argument could made that "murdering dictator" applies to Bush as well.

---

Tony, take a dump man..... You are so full of it you gotta have a bad taste in your mouth!!!!!

Sit back, relax and forget about whatever made you so bitter and twisted about GWB that you just go ahead and believe every peice of socialist/liberal garbage that is thrown out there....... If you keep going the way you are you will be posting reports that he spits babies and eats them nightly in some clandestine right wing ceremony sponsored by Haliburton.

I judge left or right based on my own agenda. I judge others often based on the popular political stream. If I see someone posting key words or issues that have little effect on the current political issues either left of right, I tend to judge them for the moment and then if a continued course one way or the other is constantly coming up and the justification more radical, I may make a long term judgment for either way. I say the popular stream because the same key words and ideas are often seen filtering down each biased channel and overused, even when rational thinking would oppose the idea. In fact with some I may not even believe statements to the contrary because their inherent thinking abilities prove otherwise.

RoadClosed - good posts on this issue. One of the few rational ones.

What others rant about, without much knowledge or an appropriate sense of geopolitics can be trying to hear (or in this case - read) at times.

Just wondering tonybradley like you stated :

Quote:

---

It may be a stretch on both definitions but I think an argument could made that "murdering dictator" applies to Bush as well.

---

Then what would apply to President Truman who On August 6 and 9 of 1945, decided to use the atomic bomb to completely wipe out the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?