Bush Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Remove all ads!

Finally! I get to start a Bush topic! lol

 

Last year Michael Jackson was nominated...
Looking at past winners it isnt impossible that Bush II gets it, I mean, Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter has got the award...
Those Crazy Norwegians.

 

Well if I do not remember all wrong Saddam was too nominated a year or two ago.

 

Hm... Blair & Bush nominated for 'protecting world peace' (whatever that means), and Chirac for trying to stop them, perhaps? Utterly groovy!

I beat up one of my classmates once when I was 8. Can I get the prize, dear committee? Pretty please (or I shall thrash you a thousand times)?

 

World is weird. Yassir Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. As if everyone had forgotten what he had been doing in 70s...

 

That is so incredibly wrong.

 

If I declare war on America will I be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? I am trying to eliminate the most powerful and therefore the most dangerous country in the known world who in this 5 year period alone have declared full scale war on two countries. They spend an incredible amount of GDP/GNP on military and military R&D and their military seems to only be growing.

Obviously by showing my hostilty to such a dangerous country I am furthering the goal of world peace and safety...

Right?

 

Wow...some how I hate humanity even more now.

 

If Bush win the Nobel Peace Prize that only proves the world has gone made and the end must be near.

 

@Abomination and to others too:
Independently of Bush's Nobel Prize nomination, and not siding with anyone, I would like to remind everyone that despite of its bad decisions (of the Presidents' bad decisions), it was the USA which fought the most for the world democracy during the past 200 years.

 

2004 - 200 = 1804

For whose democracy did the US fight in 1804?

Especially in the light of Monroe doctrine

 

I didn't say (write) it had done anything in 1804.

 

Oh sure. It was 'nice' (even this is debated - sure in the World Wars it was fighting freedom's fight) in the past so now it can be trigger happy?

"President Bush, why did you give the order to invade Iraq?"

"It's okay. I had subway yesterday."

 

Edit: I don't agree anymore with what I've written here, in fact I don't think I ever did.

[ January 19, 2005, 18:22: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

No one has to worry about Bush winning the Nobel prize. Carter won last year, remember, and the committee explicitly said that it was meant as a rebuke to Bush.

I might like to remind y'all, though, that Kant predicted we'd have peace in one of two ways: either the peace of democracy, or the peace of the graveyard. Either we'd spread democracy worldwide, or the enemies of democracy would kill us all. Bush warmongering is bringing democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, busily crushing ambitious authoritarians and terroristic gravediggers. Ironic that, long-term, Bush may be guaranteeing more democratic peace than peacemongers like Carter and Chamberlain ever did, non?

 

I absolutely agree.

I do not think it is easy to predict such things. The future will show that.

 

Democracy cannot be spread by force. As soon as the enforcer leaves the nation will revert to the prefered form of government. The only way to attain democracy is for the people of a nation to choose it and be willing to die for it.

 

Sometimes this cannot happen without outer intervention.
It is a common misbelief that "let people fight their democracy on their own". We forget the fact that there are countries where they cannot. The same misbelief dominated in USA, in CIA. They thought that no serious intervention was needed, and the nations of the USSR would obtain their independence. They were right that the life of people was terrible, and they were longing to a better life. But they were wrong in case of the "they will soon get so unsatisfied that they will rebel anyway" thing: the people of e.g. Russia had not been independent for more than 500 years... simply, they could not imagine what independence and freedom is... their great-great-....-grand-parents had not known it even.
Do you think that the people of North Korea do not want freedom?

This is certainly true. But it is also obvious that the people would not choose the same type of goverment (dictatorship) which they had before the external intervention.

 

Agreed. Put my emphasis on the "may".

Agreed, again. Even the American Revolution required French intervention. (Vive la France!) There's not a "unilateral" democratic birth on the planet - it always involves the foreign policy environment at some level. Even the Magna Carta was partly caused by Richard's Crusade debts and John's expected warmongering. All the major democracies were spread by force or its threat - France needed neighbors to remove Napoleon (twice); Germany and Japan needed the Allied Powers to crush their murderous dictatorships; and the Soviet Union might've cheerfully run Eastern Europe into the ground for another few centuries if the US hadn't bankrupted Moscow. And, in turn, the new European interwar democracies might've survived if the Nazis and Soviets hadn't bulldozed them.

I'd agree if we changed "attain" to "sustain". Like Lincoln said, democracy is always just one generation away from self-destruction.

Incidentally, to get back on topic - I agree with everyone here, Bush shouldn't win a Nobel. I mean, the guy is a self-proclaimed "war president". But maybe shaking up the peace is exactly what we need short-term for the sake of the world's long-term health, wealth, and happiness.