Bush nominated for the Nobel prize for peace?!

The place where serious discussions can take place.

Moderators: thunderchero, MrVulcan

User avatar
captain_henk
Cadet 1st Year
Cadet 1st Year
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Dronten Netherlands
Contact:

Bush nominated for the Nobel prize for peace?!

Post by captain_henk »

What do you think? Is is good Bush(and Blair) are nominated for the Nobelprize for peace? I mean, they DID start a war.
Post your thoughts

Regards,
Henk

Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 75,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1035353.htm
[b]I've got God above me,
Jesus beside me.
The holy ghost in me.
Why should i have to fear?[/b]
[img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/83882/0.jpg[/img]
My forum: 21154.rapidforum
nOOb
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:00 am
Location: If you find me ill tell you
Contact:

Post by nOOb »

i think macchiaveli(sp?) would say yes. The ends justify the means would seem to apply, but im no macchiaveli. They DID start a war, they didn't find the cache of WMD's they were expecting, so basically in my mind the whole multi billion dollar affair was pointless.
Fireball
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fireball »

did you forget about his oil?
bush wanted oil, for him it was worth it, he does own a oil company.

I think that he desrves nothing.
Captain_H
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Clovis, New Mexico
Contact:

Post by Captain_H »

Fireball wrote:did you forget about his oil?
bush wanted oil, for him it was worth it, he does own a oil company.

I think that he desrves nothing.
I hate it when people keep bringing up the oil issue. If he wanted the oil then he would of said so right after Baghdad was taken.
Check out my Myspace page (still a work in progress but anyways)
http://www.myspace.com/captainh6440
User avatar
tkrausse
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Earth, I think

Post by tkrausse »

Actually, he needs to avoid publicly mentioning the oil for a while. After all, he still needs to get reelcted. If he mentioned the oil, that wouldn't happen...
Numbazix
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Hold the phone!

Post by Numbazix »

Did we forget about the muderous regeime under Sadaam's control. Ending that bastard's reign of terror was worth it. What is disappointing is that lies were used to go to war. It would have been an upright situation of they just said, "This creep has to go" and left it at that. No disagreement would have been presented except as to how it might be accomplished. Unfortunately it boils down to expediancy and logistics. We might still be debating the issue in the UN and having thousands of troops on alert for months on end would be a nightmare to combat effectiveness and cost. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. A nation cannot wage pre-emptive war on faulty intelligence. But, it seems that was done here.

PEACE PRIZE? I'd sooner give it to researchers or astronomers or even modders here at AFC. Have we progressed so far into double-think and double-speak that we can't make the distinction between those who start wars and those who truly are men and women of peace?
Zix
Master of all I survey--wheres my glasses?
User avatar
StarFury72
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:00 am
Contact:

Post by StarFury72 »

I agree with Numbazix on both counts.
CenturionV
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post by CenturionV »

But you are looking into only the short term. Imagine what would have happened if saddam ever were to have got WMD and use them? (secretly or otherwise) Plus I do believe that bush and most of the people in the US intelligence community believed very much that they had a WMD programs and/or WMDs there is evidence coming out that says that iraqi scientist even lied to saddam and told him they had weapons when they did it (it looks like they helped take out his regime)

The cost is small, A few hundred lives (enemies, civilian or otherwise don't count we have never worried about them in the past and we won't now. see nagasaki/hiroshima)
and a few hundred billion dollars. is that not worth removing a threat of a nuclear attack? (in new york casualties could be into the hundreds of thousands, cost many hundreds of times the iraq war in immediate damages, and collapse the US and possibly western economy (9/11 causes a recession, imagine what that would do). If anyones perserving the peace, its bush.
"Oh, now be honest, Captain. Warrior to warrior. You do prefer it this way, don't you, as it was meant to be. No peace in our time. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends."
User avatar
nametz
Cadet 1st Year
Cadet 1st Year
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:00 am
Contact:

Post by nametz »

In the even longer term, this might come back to haunt the U.S.

The only major reasons for invading that sound legitimate to me are: 1) Saddam Huisein (sp?) was found to be in league with al Quaida (sp?), and/or 2)The U.S. was trying to rectify a mistake made about 15-20 years ago (unless I'm mistaken, back then Saddam gave orders to start a war with Iran--a war he probably would have lost, had he not received support from the U.S. president that helped keep him in power)

The afore mentioned weapons may yet show up somewhere (I'm told a woman with an apparently God-given gift for prophecy said that the war would be short, the peace following it would be short, and that the weapons would be found in Syria). Given the amount of time officials spent talking about the weapons and the invasion openly, someone probably could have been tipped off and had them moved. Whether this is true--that's something only time and continued searching can tell.

As it currently stands in the internationally, however, it appears that Pres. Bush punished Saddam for violating U.N. resolutions, and in so doing violated other resolutions.

The U.S. may already be feeling the reprecussions of this. There was a time when a U.S. president seemed to only have to sneeze and various nations were pledging support, troops, etc. Aside from the British, no one really seems to be lending anything other then token support.

At any rate, I advice you to double check these things to verify accuracy.

Be well.
Alohaman
Cadet 4th Year
Cadet 4th Year
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:00 am
Location: The Alohaman Corner
Contact:

Post by Alohaman »

What I found dumb was that Bush was trying to have Canada and the French in the war too, then ridiculing both because they didn't join. Doesn't anyone remember WWII, Canada and France were fighting while America wasn't, the only reason the U.S. finally joined was when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Also, all of this talk about the French being cowards is wrong, Bush is trying to bully everyone into fighting the war HE started, why should they go and die for a guy that doesn't care about their safety?
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest."

"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak."
User avatar
Josh
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: USS Enterprise NCC-1701-G, Pheonix Class

Post by Josh »

Last year, I may have agreed with Bush getting the Nobel Prize.

Now I still think the guy has the right intentions, but he's basing a lot of his decisions on his frustration now. Many people in the US hate the French and the Canadians, but it must be mentioned that France experienced war throughout the last I don't know how many hundreds of years - they're just tired of it, as I am becoming. I know there must be some solution to preventing terrorism, but someone this is just not the way. We sure can't negotiate with mindless terrorists who love to kill, but how could this be the way? We must protect our own borders vigorously instead of spreading our internal forces thinner than they already were/are. In past times, terrorist attacks were averted through swift and reasonable thinking - if we had more people here in the US to help with this immense task, I think we would have a better chance of preventing another September 11th. I'm still glad they got that a***ole dictator out of commission, but if the people there are too fearful to work toward a sovereign society, then we can't take actions that damage our people as well. I don't like the fact that people are being exterminated as a result of facism, terrorism, and dictators. But this is the reason countries must protect themselves from the same tyranny. By protecting our own borders, we will protect our people. We can't remove all forces from certain terrorist-supporting nations or those nations which have terrorist presence. Just recently, I was sure steamed when the Shiites turned against us and two Japanese soldiers were captured. The enemy told the Japanese government that "they would burn the captives alive" if they didn't remove Japanese military presence in Iraq. I was angry when I heard this and the first thing I thought was for the Japanese government to say "OK, then we'll just go ahead and send 100,000 troups to kick your sorry murdering d**ks!" This is the kind of anger that a lot of us will have in seeing our own troops get wounded and lose their lives. The war on terrorism must be continued, but our government can't just have our guys sitting around waiting to get picked off at random. As you can see, I have mixed feelings about all of the events since Sept 11! Sure, we got Saddam, and we may get bin Laden - yeah and then someone else can rise in their place and lead the terrorism to further extents. The King Pin effect will no doubt dominate the remainder of this war, even if we decide to remove our troups from Iraq. Yep, I'm tired of this confusing war as the French have grown tired of their millenia of war. If war is necessary, then so be it if it is to protect a larger amount of people. It just really sucks it has to come to that - that it came to that in any war. In conclusion, I don't hate Bush or the cause to defend ourselves, but many decisions have been made where alternate decisions could have prevented more death. In the end, I'm thankful that my family and friends and I are still here to experience the questionable amount of freedom there may be left - but I'm trying to think positively and thinking that somehow America and its allies and beyond will come to peace...somehow.

That's just my take on things and, well, I'm sticking to it for now. :?
User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Milk

Post by wingsabre »

I wonder... Bush 41 didn't know the average price of milk in the nation, would George W. know what's the average price of oil around the nation?
User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

The Miserable Failure Should Not Get The Nobel Peace Prize

Post by wingsabre »

We wasted so much money going into Iraq, Saddam was no threat, we had UN inspectors in Iraq and no one died. Then we went into war and now it's the middle of April and we have the highest death rate in Iraq since the whole war started. The inspectors found weapons and the Iraqis helped disarm them, and the inspectors were asking for another three month. We should have given them that time; it would have prevented the bloodshed we've received currently. If we, as in the UN inspectors were present there for a longer period of time, like a decade, our influence there with the peace in Iraq would surely remove Saddam because we would be able to start influencing their people more, and realistically he would most likely be dead.

Democracy does not start overnight nonetheless over a year and it surely does not popup form nowhere. The Iraqis have not experienced anything close to a democracy, and it is not expected for them to immediately accept the type of government we choose for them. The Russians are still having a hard time with democracy and they were an establish government when they switched forms of government. That is because their government in the past were dementedly dictatorships and that is why Putin's current election seemed so successful for him because the Russians seem to accept dictators easily. It is the same situation in Iraq where the inhabitants are not comfortable with this form of government yet.

Bush should not get the Nobel Prize because he is causing more damage right now and is being a terrorist himself. The American colonies were being settled during the 15th century and we experimented in various forms of government from a communal government (Communism) to the Oneida Settlement which practice something similar to free love and eventually became a very popular silverware producing corporation. Eventually the American experiment became a success over time. Even after our Revolutionary War we didn’t get it right the first time with the Articles of Confederation, but it took a second try with the Constitution. What we're doing in Iraq right now is heavily destructive; we're settling a turnover deadline where the government is going to be turned over to exiles. This is horrible because the dominant fractions in Iraq don’t respect them and most likely a civil war will occur after we turn over Iraq to the council; causing our troops to be in the middle of the crossfire. Also who would know that the constitution we're setting up would be successful, the demos of Iraq are not satisfied with it. When we settled the Japanese Constitution we made an agreement with the people where we keep their emperor in power but his power would be limited. No such deal has been established in Iraq and until the people of Iraq recognize a moderate leader to actually unite them we will be in there for a long, long time. By releasing our control of Iraq in June will be irresponsible, reckless and will cause more horrors than success. The reckless alone should title Bush a terrorist and by that the Nobel Peace Prize Commission should band Bush from ever being mentioned for the prize.
Post Reply