Nobel for Bush and Blair?

[pegwinn]

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

 

[IControlThePast]

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

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.

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.

 

[IControlThePast]

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.

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.

 

[dmp]

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,

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.

 

[IControlThePast]

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.

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.

 

[manu1959]

fuck me....you can't give the peace prize to two guys that waged a war....give me a break....

 

[freeandfun1]

fuck me....you can't give the peace prize to two guys that waged a war....give me a break....

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....

 

[manu1959]

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....

arafat?!....they should have given it to the guy that poisoned him

 

[NATO AIR]

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.

 

[insein]

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.

No offense Nato but Darfur's blood is not on America or Brittain. Sudan is not or ever was an American colony or territory. Likewise Brittain never claimed rights to Sudan. As you are aware it was a French colony. I dont think France is at fault directly here either since Sudan is an independent nation and part of the UN. The UN as a whole should be the main target of blame here.

Bush was looking at National Security issues and Afghanistan and Iraq posed threats in direct ways. Sudan did not pose a direct threat. Therefore i dont feel that he can bear the brunt of the blame.

 

[NATO AIR]

No offense Nato but Darfur's blood is not on America or Brittain. Sudan is not or ever was an American colony or territory. Likewise Brittain never claimed rights to Sudan. As you are aware it was a French colony. I dont think France is at fault directly here either since Sudan is an independent nation and part of the UN. The UN as a whole should be the main target of blame here.

Bush was looking at National Security issues and Afghanistan and Iraq posed threats in direct ways. Sudan did not pose a direct threat. Therefore i dont feel that he can bear the brunt of the blame.

Hasn't this great nation never before supported a regime committing a genocide? We are now, thanks to this "warming of ties" between Sudan and the US, the close intelligence relationships developing and the US lessening the pressure on Sudan ala Bush demanding Congress stop passing Darfur legislation.

Don't the fundamentalist Islamists run the Sudanese regime, just like the Iranians who threaten us and our interests, using many of the same methods the Iranians utilize, not to mention additional horrors like slavery, aerial bombardment of enemies and genocide?

How can we mouth freedom and democracy for all when we're supporting (by declining to speak out, by choosing to support the regime, by declining to take action) genocide by fundamentalists in Darfur?

I don't expect the French to take action, nor even the British. Their governments have not yet even begun to realize the scope of the Islamic jihadist threat... the American government is supposed to. It was us, not the British or the French, who were brutally assaulted on 9/11, by the same type of jihadists we now see operating in Sudan today.

The government is now endangering our national security by pulling this stunt.

The truth is, anywhere fundamentalist Islamists are able to slaughter, rape and wage jihad at will is a serious threat to us. The people they are victimizing are our brothers and sisters in arms, waged in the same struggle against fundamentalist Islam that we are. An Israeli teenager in a disco club, a Turkish banker, a Russian school child, a Darfur refugee, an Iraqi teacher, an Indian legislator and an American stock trader are all victims of the same brutal, violent pathology that is fundamentalist Islam. An idealogy that endangers us all as long as we continue to tolerate it.
For Bush to ignore this most basic of truths, this most obvious of realities, is intolerable.

 

[IControlThePast]

Hasn't this great nation never before supported a regime committing a genocide? We are now, thanks to this "warming of ties" between Sudan and the US, the close intelligence relationships developing and the US lessening the pressure on Sudan ala Bush demanding Congress stop passing Darfur legislation.

Don't the fundamentalist Islamists run the Sudanese regime, just like the Iranians who threaten us and our interests, using many of the same methods the Iranians utilize, not to mention additional horrors like slavery, aerial bombardment of enemies and genocide?

How can we mouth freedom and democracy for all when we're supporting (by declining to speak out, by choosing to support the regime, by declining to take action) genocide by fundamentalists in Darfur?

I don't expect the French to take action, nor even the British. Their governments have not yet even begun to realize the scope of the Islamic jihadist threat... the American government is supposed to. It was us, not the British or the French, who were brutally assaulted on 9/11, by the same type of jihadists we now see operating in Sudan today.

The government is now endangering our national security by pulling this stunt.

The truth is, anywhere fundamentalist Islamists are able to slaughter, rape and wage jihad at will is a serious threat to us. The people they are victimizing are our brothers and sisters in arms, waged in the same struggle against fundamentalist Islam that we are. An Israeli teenager in a disco club, a Turkish banker, a Russian school child, a Darfur refugee, an Iraqi teacher, an Indian legislator and an American stock trader are all victims of the same brutal, violent pathology that is fundamentalist Islam. An idealogy that endangers us all as long as we continue to tolerate it.
For Bush to ignore this most basic of truths, this most obvious of realities, is intolerable.

"Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do" --Voltaire

It seems that our commitment to liberty and freedom was never really that great, while what we're about is realpolitik, especially during the Cold War when we overturned Democratic regimes and installed our own friendly dictators. Now I don't think we have the forces to handle Sudan. Iraq we have in good shape, Afghanistan not so much. We can't pull out of these places because there will be a power vaccum that terrorism can rise from.

Another source that I think creates terrorism is the realpolitik argument "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." We find that once the common enemy is defeated, our friends (like Osama and Saddam were) are anything but that. I don't think the administration is speaking out on Dafur because if they did people would be wondering "why not go to Dafur," and we would have to publicly say we don't have the forces. That sort of statement would inspire quite a few terrorists elsewhere (who would think we wouldn't come and punish them if they committed terrorist acts) and show weakness on our part.

I think that we should at least denounce and sever ties with Sudan, and then blame the UN for not going. We'd have to think of a good excuse to try and go through the UN, like we're trying to reestablish the former favorable world opinion of us.