Nobel for Bush and Blair?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by pegwinn, May 4, 2005.

  1. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Excellent Points: I think that this could possibly restore credibility to a tarnished award.


    Commentary > John Hughes
    from the May 04, 2005 edition

    Nobel for Bush and Blair?

    By John Hughes

    SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
    They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.


    The rest of the story
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    I would really doubt Bush and Blair would win. I wouldn't vote for them quite yet, considering the war was started on premises that turned out not to be true, and I would want a little more time for confirmation of changes elsewhere in the Middle East to make sure these changes are not transcient and to allow them to become more widespread. If that occurs, then I would vote to give Bush and Blair a peace prize, but right now it seems a bit premature to me.
     
  3. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    A premise that was not true? A premise determined by whom?

    It was clear Iraq was in violation of the agreement that ended GWI. Therefore, for you to assert the war was started over a premise that was not true... well, that is not true.

    The media likes to say we went to war over WMD's or our thought that he had them when he (supposedly) didn't. But that is not true. We went to war because he was in violation of the agreements he signed onto. Period.
     
  4. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    This is taken directly from the article supplied by the thread starter on this issue:

    "Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.

    If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all."

    so according to the article this thread was based on. Making allegations that Saddam clearly has WMDs and then not finding any definately decreases Bush's chances for a Nobel Prize. I would say give it to him if either he didn't make that accusation or he found WMDs (without us debating the semantic arguments of what premise entails). Don't get me wrong, the war wasn't founded only on false premises, our mistake was understandable, and the overthrow of Hussein was a plus.
     
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Point of Order:

    The War was started because:

    Saddam was ordered to PROVE he had no WMDs. (among other things)
    Saddam FAILED to prove he had WMDs; in fact, he BRAGGED about having them, or the ability to get them...until he was confronted. Then he'd resort to "Oh...just kidding.."

    The war was started to 'make sure' he did not.
     
  6. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Right, but when those wars find out he did not have any, the people who start them have a hard time winning a Nobel Peace Prize.
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    fuck me....you can't give the peace prize to two guys that waged a war....give me a break....
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    They gave it to Arafart.....

    I think you can, if the war was for a noble reason.... such as getting rid of a genociadal murderer that ruined the lives of millions....
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    arafat?!....they should have given it to the guy that poisoned him
     
  10. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Neither deserve the Nobel prize, as both have tarnished their well-deserved reputations with their inaction in Darfur.

    Pres. Bush is now supporting the same genocide (committed by the same radical Islamists who are a threat to Americans and American allies everywhere) he condemned last year by aligning himself with the Sudanese government for "intelligence" reasons.

    PM Blair swore up and down in 2001 he would never allow another "rwanda" style genocide to happen in Sudan. Now he claims otherwise and has the gall to claim he's done everything he could for Darfur.

    Bullshit.

    Give it to Hamad Karzai, Afghanistan's PM.
     

Share This Page