Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Price for Peace

[Dutchy]

On the day that Janet Jackson uncovers half a breast (Oh my god, a breast, this is the end of the world! What must all those innocent lil' kids at home think! A semi-bare breast!) Bush and Blair are nominated for a freakin' Nobel Price for peace.

Bwahahahahaha a PEACE award! :lol

Half the world didn't want their frikkin' war, but they started it anyway, and now they may get a peace award for it.

This is a crazy world.

[Figrin D'an]

Someone wants Iraqi rebuilding contracts.

That's what this is about, methinks.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Half the world didn't want their frikkin' war
Course they wouldn't, Santa Hussain put some extra oil into their stocking last Christmas.


There are hundreds of nominees. Someone decided that removing a torturing mass murdering dictator was something that long term would bring peace, so they get nominated. That's how nominations work.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think they will get the Peace Prize maybe this year it will go to the Pope. I know the Vatican has been pushy that for a while, and they might want to give it to him before he dies.

[Darth Viscera]

This only reinforces my firm belief that the Norwegians have got a great deal of good sense.

*bows in the direction of Scandinavia*

btw, if Theodore Roosevelt could get the nobel peace prize, i don't see why Bush can't.

[JMK]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Course they wouldn't, Santa Hussain put some extra oil into their stocking last Christmas.

That must have sucked. Oil stains. :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

They will not give Bush the Nobel Prize, how did he stop a war. That is the definition of Peace, it is like giving the Prize the Harry Truman for going to war in Korea. Teddy Roosevelt stopped a war between Russia and Japan so that is why he got the award. I still say the Pope will get it. The man deserves it he has done so much for peace in his lifetime that he deserves the award.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
This only reinforces my firm belief that the Norwegians have got a great deal of good sense.

*bows in the direction of Scandinavia*

btw, if Theodore Roosevelt could get the nobel peace prize, i don't see why Bush can't.

WHAT??!?!?

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard but somehow, it doesnt surprise me. The reasons for the war have proven hollow and false.

Apart from this nomination. Totally agreed with Dutchy. This is absurb and beyond stupid. They started a WAR. It has not bought peace, hell, it's not really changed anything.


Half the world didn't want their frikkin' war, but they started it anyway, and now they may get a peace award for it.

This is a crazy world.

Half? Ratchet that up a lot Dutchy. More like 80%.

[Ryan Pode]

I don't care much about the Nobel Peace prize. Nobel only made it so he wouldn't be remembered as the monster he was.

[Pierce Tondry]

It has become more than a simple cover-up for past mistakes, Pode.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ryan Pode
I don't care much about the Nobel Peace prize. Nobel only made it so he wouldn't be remembered as the monster he was.

Would you mind not posting rubbish? Why dont you go look into his history and his reasons. Noble is a very interesting man and deserves a lot of the good rememberance he has.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Wasn't he a scientist? I have only remember reading good things about him honestly. Okay looked it up he was a Swedish chemist, who invited dynamite. I remember reading how he regreating creating it and took his fortune to create the nobel prize.

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

Nobel was the inventor of dynamite, and his sole intent for it was for construction and mining purposes. He was mortified when he saw how it was used in war, and so used his royalties from his invention to start a series of awards for those who promoted peace and development over destruction.

--Edit-- Dang, I leave for a moment to make a sandwich, and somebody beats me to it.

[ReaperFett]

During the last decade of his life, Alfred Nobel came to engage himself in the development and exploitation of different weapons technology inventions, for instance rockets, cannons and progressive powder.

The Nobel e-museum.

[Ryan Pode]

He made weapons that revolutionized war and he knew it. You don't make smokeless powder bullets and think about how they can help a guy out.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
WHAT??!?!?

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard but somehow, it doesnt surprise me. The reasons for the war have proven hollow and false.

That's a matter of debate, not of fact.

EDIT~ !!!?!?!?!!! to you too. :rolleyes

[Sanis Prent]

Bush & Blair did the right thing, but I don't think it really applies for the Nobel Prize.

This is one of those Tom Berenger / Willem Dafoe conundrums of problem solving, I suppose.

[Pierce Tondry]

Platoon was a great movie.

[JediBoricua]

I believe anyone can be nominated for the Peace Prize, it only takes a couple of people to organize a group and fill some forms, then the commission chooses between a wide field, IIRC.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ryan Pode
He made weapons that revolutionized war and he knew it. You don't make smokeless powder bullets and think about how they can help a guy out.

And how does that make him a monster?

Noble's real legacy, apart from the discovery that porous earth could stabilise Nitroglycerene, is the prizes, a worthy and commendable thing.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Then Albert Einstein is a monster it was his theories that helped create the Atom Bomb.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
That's a matter of debate, not of fact.

EDIT~ !!!?!?!?!!! to you too. :rolleyes

Did the fact that the weapons inspectors have thrown up their hands and admitted Iraq probably did not have WMD, and that WMD was the stated modus operandi escape you? That Hussein was supposed to be a clear and present danger to the Western world, when in fact all he had was harsh language? That the claim of him being in league with Al Quadia have been proven false?

And I'm sure your going to reply that we got rid of a murderer. Good, that is commendable.

HOWEVER,

Why was this not done 12 years ago when they had the chance?

Why use an excuse of WMD?

And for the kicker.... why just Hessein when there are other evil murderers runnign around, right now. why is the USA propping up military dictactors in Pakistan? why havent they rolled Nth Korea who DO have WMD, by their own admission? Why not China, that abuser of human rights and occupier of Tibet? why not Burma, a cruel military dictatorship? why not roll Zimbabwe? Or other dictactors / murders/ facists around the globe? If your going to use the reason of booting a dictactor out of Iraq, then a) drop support for those the USA are actively supporting like in Saudi arabia and Pakistan and b) go boot evil dictactors out of Nth Korea and Burma. Otherwise, answer why only Iraq and why now.

There are some highly serious questions to be answered out of this war. This... nomination is a bloody farce.

[Darth Viscera]

You're of the opinion that we'll never find WMD in Iraq. I don't share that opinion. They're there, we just need to keep on looking. Hell, if he could hide himself for 8 months just by wearing a beard, I'm pretty sure that in a period of 12 years he could concoct some rather nice hiding places for chemical weapons.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
You're of the opinion that we'll never find WMD in Iraq. I don't share that opinion. They're there, we just need to keep on looking. Hell, if he could hide himself for 8 months just by wearing a beard, I'm pretty sure that in a period of 12 years he could concoct some rather nice hiding places for chemical weapons.

Okay.

Let me put this to you.

The Usa have had the run of the country for a year.

Powell stood up at the UN and POINTED to where the WMD were, according to intelligence

The USA have access to all documents, data and people of the regime, including suspected leaders of WMD programs

They have the most sophisticated spy and intelligence system in the world, indeed the best the world has known.

Iraq's WMD were claimed to be large and extensive

And yet, the leader of the inspection team, David Kay, who I might add is much, much more qualified to speak on this subject than you or I has come out and said WMD most likely DID NOT EXIST

The USA was utterly certain that WMD existed, yet one of their own has come out and said they dont! How, in the face of a truely informed opinion on the subject, someone on the ground who has been walking Iraq's deserts an, reading it's papers and questioning it's people and who has put himself on the line, can you say you believe the contrary? David Kay KNOWS what the situation in Iraq is, right now.

It is, I add, much easier to hide one man than to hide thousands of tons of WMD, as claimed Iraq had.

Well?

How can you still insist they will be found, when Kay says they are not there?

[Darth Viscera]

because I know for a fact that Saddam is a murderously treacherous SOB, and I know that the same Saddam Hussein who murdered scores of my relatives would not willingly destroy his WMDs.

Maybe David Kay should search harder.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is your opinion. I agree with Marcus here he covered my opinion on the matter.

[Marcus Telcontar]

would not willingly destroy his WMDs.

Maybe David Kay should search harder.

Uh uh.

When the facts are laid out, when the USA has had it's chance, when there should have been some sort of evidence or trail found, when not just Kay is saying WMD dont exist (I posted that intelligence specialists in Aust resigned in protest because they thought WMD didnt exist BEFORE the war) and enough time is past, you still insist WMD exist?

I'm sorry, but no. WMD will not be found. Saddam was smoke and mirrors when it came to this.

[Darth Viscera]

what do you think Saddam did with his WMDs?

[Wei Wu Wei]

It is entirely possible that Saddam bluffed about having WMDs in the first place. Some people just like to talk big. And maybe he turned away all those investigation teams because they called his bluff and he didn't want to be found out.

This is pure speculation, btw.

[Darth Viscera]

Then what was he gassing people with? White phosphorus? :p

[JMK]

Maybe they ate alot of beans.:p

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
what do you think Saddam did with his WMDs?

Maybe they actually got rid of them after Gulf war I?

[Darth Viscera]

I doubt that Saddam would comply with U.N. resolutions. This is a guy that, as a pre-pubescent child, when caught stealing chickens, would poison them prior to giving them back so they would be inedible. Sorta like what he did with Kuwait. He doesn't react well when forced to do something.

And if he disarmed, then why would he make life so miserable for U.N. weapons inspectors? Why didn't he just show the world that he really had disarmed?

[Charley]

I seriously doubt that he disarmed, but I don't exactly think that WMD was the overriding issue with going into Iraq. Hussein's gone. As far as I'm concerned, mission accomplished. I'd like to get to the bottom of the WMD thing, but its secondary for me.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but going into to get rid of Saddam shouldn't have been the reason. If that was then we sent a bad precident. There are dictators out there who are just as bad and in some cases worse than Saddam. The Chinesse Oligarichy has killed 100 times more people done more bad things than Sadaam could do in ten times lifetimes. I have mentioned Burma before but they have a leadership which tortures women and children with rape. Then there is the nut Kim up in North Korea who is basically starving his people to death. Why not then take out any of these regimes? They are all bad and in Bush's view "evil" so why not do something about them?

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but going into to get rid of Saddam shouldn't have been the reason. If that was then we sent a bad precident. There are dictators out there who are just as bad and in some cases worse than Saddam. The Chinesse Oligarichy has killed 100 times more people done more bad things than Sadaam could do in ten times lifetimes. I have mentioned Burma before but they have a leadership which tortures women and children with rape. Then there is the nut Kim up in North Korea who is basically starving his people to death. Why not then take out any of these regimes? They are all bad and in Bush's view "evil" so why not do something about them?

Because attacking Iraq has a much lower opportunity cost.

I hate that argument, because in the same breath, you have to chastize somebody for donating a little bit to a charity. "Well why didn't you donate more? Why didn't you donate to these other charities? Why not this? Why not that?"


Iraq was squeezed by the world's tourniquet. Every day, we risked having our planes shot down over the no-fly zones because it certainly wasn't being cooperated in good faith.

We choked it off in 91, then made some stupid decisions. Then, we endured an ineffectual president and his ineffectual policy of dealing with Iraq. Why not deal with it, albeit 12 years overdue, and be done with it?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Someone giving to charity is so far removed from going to war.... there is no similarity. That is an ineffectual and misleading comparision. It's like asking why do I keep cats and not dogs. Well.... because I want to? Is there any other justification needed? why do I need any other justification? OTOH, why should I give at all? Is it my problem that the charities are dealing with?

There is a great deal more than a "Cause I want to" that goes into justifying a war.


Because attacking Iraq has a much lower opportunity cost.

In other words (my words) - Iraq was a soft target. Hmmm. Yep. That about sums up what happened.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
In other words (my words) - Iraq was a soft target. Hmmm. Yep. That about sums up what happened.

And that's wrong...why?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
In other words (my words) - Iraq was a soft target. Hmmm. Yep. That about sums up what happened.

*shrugs*

There has to be a starting point for everything. If the US had gone after another "target", people would be saying "Well, why aren't you going after Saddam, after all of the trouble he's given the UN, etc, etc."

Dealing with Iraq was more than a decade overdue. It should have been handled in the early 90's, but it wasn't. From the Bush administration's point of view, they wanted to finish the job. Maybe the WMD intelligence was wrong. If so, there should be an investigation to determine where and how the breakdown occured. It will help to root out flaws in the system.

Beyond that, the "no WMD" thing is the "instant gratification" criticism of the operation, and little more at this point.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but there other madmen out there and we aren't doing anything, really about it. We aren't even critizing some of these administrations (except North Korea). Also Burma is a soft Target why not go in there. To me there is more than that Iraq has oil, all Burma has is bamboo.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but there other madmen out there and we aren't doing anything, really about it. We aren't even critizing some of these administrations (except North Korea). Also Burma is a soft Target why not go in there. To me there is more than that Iraq has oil, all Burma has is bamboo.

The next "war for oil" comment I hear will make me snap. Please show me why going to war in Iraq for oil is either sane or economically feasable.

[Pierce Tondry]

Especially given the extreme reconstructive costs the country is now facing.

[Jedieb]

Billions of dollars in contracts are going to companies who have ties to the administration. That's where economic feasablility comes into play. It's not about the country benefiting as a whole, it's about certain parts of the country benefiting.

I don't believe that Bush and Cheney are evil monsters who did this solely to line their pockets. But to think that an elite group of companies and individuals AREN'T taking in money hand over fist is naive.

For the umptienth time, no weapons have been found, no weapons are likely to be found.

[Sanis Prent]

Ever consider that Halliburton is pretty damn qualified for the job? Amazingly, they are.

We're already giving France, Russia, etc back their precious Iraqi oil. There's no reason whatsoever that we should feel so inclined to contract Halliburton's job elsewhere.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And what gives Haliburton the right to get the contracts, virtually uncontested?

Jedieb has it called right and I'll say it clearly too - this was about oil. Now, go ballistic if you dare, I dont mind. Becuase, quite frankly, I'm getting more and more annoyed at the sheer blind gabbing of the same lines over and over and over again, lines that are being proven more and more false as each day passes.

- There are no weapons of mass destruction

- There was no clear and present danger

- There is no real justification via humanitarian excuses, especially when the US has in the past put dictactors in Chile, Brazil, Congo and more in power, that have cuased much human misery and the so called humanitarian effort in Afghanistan is so borked up, some of the peasant there were better off under the Taliban

- It is a fact that companies with very close ties to the Administration are the big contract winners.

Now when you line that up, can we be blamed for thinking cynically? And if you chickenhawks are so convinced that pre-emptive removal or illegal invasions are justified for any cause - Your fellow americans are dying or are dead because of a war who's excuse is being proven false. Why is this not making you angry? Why aint you revolted seeign the body bags with another dead kid, who shouldnt have been there in the first place? Why, if your so convinced that this was right... why are you not takign the chance to end up like the dead GI and proving your prepared to put your words into action?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Marcus said more than I can say about the subject. I will add I admit it isn't about oil completely but I have to think that it makes a difference in the end. And that is why we don't care about Burma because there is nothing there, nothing to gain and it is not in our interest. I don't think we should go into Burma but I would like to see us pressuring them to stop killing and torturing people.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And that is why we don't care about Burma because there is nothing there, nothing to gain and it is not in our interest

And that is why it would eb humanitarian to go in there. Not of your interest, nothing to gain and nothing there. If your dong something for humanitarian reasons, you shouldnt really be trying to get soemthing back in return - it taints the cause.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
And that is why it would eb humanitarian to go in there. Not of your interest, nothing to gain and nothing there. If your dong something for humanitarian reasons, you shouldnt really be trying to get soemthing back in return - it taints the cause.


No offense, but you might want to join the real world. There is nothing that is done by governments that is for "purely humanitarian reasons."

Private and non-profit organizations? Sure.
Governments? yeah... right.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
No offense, but you might want to join the real world. There is nothing that is done by governments that is for "purely humanitarian reasons."


I did nto say the administration would do it. I was simply stating that what true humanistarism is. Of course Burma is going to be left in a hole - because it's not in anyone's interest, that I know very well.

So why was Iraq invaded? I dont see a hell of big difference, when WMD are removed, links to terrorism and no clear and present danger. Oh, 'humanistarian' reasons?

* snort *

Give me a break. If Iraq was located away from oil, the USA wouldnt have cared less.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree there Marcus. I think that is why I give up in the US solving the world's problems they will never go into places like Burma and the Congo because there is no interest there.

[Charley]

We sure did clean up over the lucrative oil deals in Bosnia, Haiti, etc.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Why, if your so convinced that this was right... why are you not takign the chance to end up like the dead GI and proving your prepared to put your words into action?

Don't ever say anything like this again, if you ever want to see my good side in your lifetime. Your self-righteousness crossed the line right there.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Charley
Don't ever say anything like this again, if you ever want to see my good side in your lifetime. Your self-righteousness crossed the line right there.

Jedieb has my respect because he served. My neigbours, whom I know quite well, serve right now and I respect them. They are prepared to put their bodies on the line.

As I dont believe this war was justified..... I would not consider signing up. But if you do think it's justified, you should be prepared to carry a gun and go out into the sands. I dont think that's self righteous, that's telling it like it should be. I think there would be a whole lot more talking if our precious Politicians were told to lead from the front line.

[Evil Hobgoblin]

I think you belittle the job of a politician by reducing it a word synonymous with corruption and greed.

[Charley]

Did it ever occur to you that not everybody who supports this war is in a position to join the military? Thats a foolish thing of you to even suggest, and the most offensive thing you've uttered in the pantheon of offensive tripe I've dealt with from you.

But since you're so concerned, I'm joining the USMC reserve upon graduation. Not that you'd care.

Semper Fi, and welcome to my ignore list. You're not worth getting banned over.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Evil Hobgoblin
I think you belittle the job of a politician by reducing it a word synonymous with corruption and greed.

Oh, well now that's a whole nother debate for another thread. Unfortunantly, I've met and been around with enough politicians, even up to the present Australian PM, to understand that there's a lot of justification in the simplification. Not all, true but there certianly is a lot and it's not unusual or, worryingly, remarkable within party circles. I have met my local MP, who, as I said to his face is too nice to be in Politics, so there are those untainted. I think he's only up the road from me. Nice guy, served in the Air force, five kids, struggling with a mortgage. qutie plesant change from the normal slime like a car dealer named Tony Packard who was elected, the single most decietful and slimyest person I have met, who got thrown out for bribery.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
As I dont believe this war was justified..... I would not consider signing up. But if you do think it's justified, you should be prepared to carry a gun and go out into the sands. I dont think that's self righteous, that's telling it like it should be. I think there would be a whole lot more talking if our precious Politicians were told to lead from the front line.


Wow.

*shakes head*


I really hope, at some point, you realize how incredibly presumptuous those words are.


I'm out. Have fun, guys.

[Evil Hobgoblin]

Again, I think you let your own opinions on how many corrupt politicians there are cloud your judgement, especially when it comes to generalizations where you can get away with saying "Of course there are exceptions."

"The evil that men do lives after them- the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar."

And so let it be with this subject, too. I'm gone.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Charley
We sure did clean up over the lucrative oil deals in Bosnia, Haiti, etc.


Well Bosnia was a civil war and at the time people thought it could spill over into different countries (looking back at it now I think they and myself were wrong) and also we never sent troops in there until there was a treaty signed and not a single solider was killed. So really it wasn't a war, and neither was Haiti.