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

Quote:

---

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."

---

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....

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.

To their credit, they did capture a mass-murderer!

.dublix

Quote:

---

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...

Let's nominate Larry Flint for promoting virginity...... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Let's nominate Larry Flint for promoting virginity......

---

No ****ing kidding!!

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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 Hussein’s 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

*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 :(

Quote:

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're going to defend Saddam Hussein’s 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.

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 ?