Well, this was just brought to my attention:
CNN Story
Bush and Blair both nominated for "protecting world peace".
So what are your feelings on this?
Well deserved? Shouldn't even be considered? Something else?
Printable View
Well, this was just brought to my attention:
CNN Story
Bush and Blair both nominated for "protecting world peace".
So what are your feelings on this?
Well deserved? Shouldn't even be considered? Something else?
"Bush" and "peace" are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. Of course, Arafat received the award in the past too and he hasn't exactly been peaceful, so I suppose the award doesn't really mean anything. But still, the irony is staggering.
=/
The day Bush gets such a price the world would end, since it would be a process far too illogical for even the great spiritus mundi to understand, crumbilng space and time. Atman, have mercy of us!
Does fighting an unpopular war disqualify you, then? I guess we better take Woodrow Wilson's Peace Prize off of him too.
Personally I don't know who deserves the award. Glad I don't have to pick.
It seems pretty silly to give the peace prize to someone who takes the initiative, on rather scant evidence, to go to war.
I can't justify American involvement in a lot of wars since around 1900 or so. I still don't understand why World War I even happened, and Vietnam was ridiculous.
But whatever.
Of course, sitting around doing nothing automatically, magically creates world peace, right? It would've been peaceful had we let the Germans win World War I, after all. Peaceful rule under a psychopath, but hey, peace at any cost. So should we give the award to people who do nothing? That narrows it down to, well, just about everyone.
It's not called the Nobel Status Quo Prize, or the Nobel Pretend There's Peace Prize. Peace is sometimes only obtained through war.
As far as "takes the initiative", that's true so long as you ignore everything the UN has done for the past decade, and everything Iraq did in response. Oh and that little Kuwait thing.
Doing nothing doesn't create peace, no. But as far as I can see, Iraq hadn't been doing much to cause trouble around the world lately. I'll be the first to admit that the world is a better place without Saddam in power; he is a madman and was harming his own people, and now that he's out of power, despite the chaos Iraq is currently in, the citizens of the country are probably safer. But it's not exactly like we would've had to start a war that wound up causing several thousand Iraqi casualties to remove him from power. People have been taken out of power in bloodless revolutions before; it can happen. Now we're left with a world that hates America even more than it used to, and the situation in Iraq is deep in turmoil anyway.
The evidence of Iraq having WMD was very scant when we went to war, as was the link between Al-Quida and Iraq. Yet both of those were very heavily presented by Bush as the primary reasons for going to war when we started it.
Yes, the first Iraq war was justified. We actually had UN support then, if memory serves. We certainly didn't this time around. Hell, the UN inspectors said there WERE no WMD. And it appears that there were right. Even if Iraq destroyed the WMD themselves, that means they didn't have the WMD anymore. All we've found are a few chemical weapons and some scud missiles.
Too quick to point fingers, I think. But w/e, I'm off to bed.
He deserves it if you think he has created or maintained peace in a particular part of the world or even throughout the world. He doesn't deserve it if you believe otherwise. It's going to be up to a panel of people to decide. The award doesn't mean much.
I'd have to agree with you on that, considering that one of the joint winners of the award in '96 was assassinated by a group that sympathizes with another of those winners...Quote:
Yamaneko sez:
He deserves it if you think he has created or maintained peace in a particular part of the world or even throughout the world. He doesn't deserve it if you believe otherwise. It's going to be up to a panel of people to decide. The award doesn't mean much.
Hmm. Bush recently declared that he's done more for world peace than anyone else ever has, something that made me laugh and wonder if he's on drugs.No, but killing everyone who might potentially pose a threat, blatantly violating international law, human rights and the will of the UN isn't always the way to go. You can acheive peace without killing; wars can be fought in a way that's less destructive. Take Clinton, for example. That man was largely responsible for several air-raids on illegal Iraqi SAM sites, played a large part in NATO's Kosovo operations, and contributed greatly to UN efforts in other parts of the Balkans. However, unlike Bush's achievements, Clinton's were brief, effective and reasonable precise. Also quite well justified, and with significant results - i.e. the capture and trial (in the Hague) of infamous war criminals. Clinton also made substantial progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict, short-lived though that progress was, without having to kill anyone.Quote:
Of course, sitting around doing nothing automatically, magically creates world peace, right?
In short, Bush's approach to peace has been one of "kill everyone else so they can't hurt us", hardly a peaceful solution by anyone's standards. It's far beyond simply "Does fighting an unpopular war disqualify you, then?"
Iraq was attacked a decade ago for invading Kuwait; Yugoslavia was struck because of the attempted genocide of the Kosovar people. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have hurtled two countries back several decades, and killed many thousands of innocents, with the single goal of (hopefully) capturing or killing a few undesirables, some of whom were guilty of serious crimes, others who were not.
Yay for peace.
You can acheive peace without killing; wars can be fought in a way that's less destructive.
"Can" acheive peace without killing, sometimes; the question being when force is necessary and when it isn't.
Compared to most wars in history, I don't think can say that the ones we put on in Iraq and Afghanistan were overly destructive. We have missiles that can hit specific buildings. We spend millions if not billions of dollars to do nothing but avoid killing people unnecessarily, and avoid having even ONE of our troops killed if it's possible to avoid it. All wars are bloody, and all wars end up killing innocent people. Sometimes doing nothing also ends up killing innocent people; what are you going to do? Sometimes there is no way to win. Blame Saddam for being evil and causing the situation in the first place. Yes, Saddam caused the situation. If Iraq wasn't run by a psychopath, then NONE of this would've happened. People seem to forget that. People blame Bush, because he solved a problem in a way that wasn't optimal in their own eyes; people don't blame the person who caused the problem to begin with.
Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have hurtled two countries back several decades...
Yeah, we took away their military police and public torture-executions of innocent people, and gave them all those nasty "human rights". And the millions of dollars we're pouring into their countries to rebuild the infrastructure which was likely barely in existence to begin with, and the effort to have foreign nations cancel Iraq's debts, etc. etc., I guess that doesn't matter either. And those democratic elections we're trying to set up, which they never had before in those countries, those are steps backwards, right?
If America was "evil", and if Bush's philosophy was to "kill everyone who potentially poses a threat", why didn't we carpet-bomb Baghdad into a sandlot and leave? That would've solved our problem instantly. It would've prevented US casualties. It would've saved us millions of dollars. Our allies would hate us, but hey, they already do. It likely would've scared other countries into not messing with us, or else we'd do the same to them. So why didn't we do it? Maybe because we AREN'T an evil empire of death run by a blood-drinking monster, as people seem to imagine.
Ah, so because people don't like Bush or his policies, that means they hate the US and its people too? Actually, most people don't think that way, but US citizens often get jumpy and picky if anyone disagrees with anything done or said by one of their people or politicians. "What? You don't like one of our politicians? How dare you hate our entire country like that!"Quote:
So why didn't we do it? Maybe because we AREN'T an evil empire of death run by a blood-drinking monster, as people seem to imagine.
Please remember what the topic is here. This isn't a "why everyone should love America or else" thread, it's about George W. Bush's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not the US's responsibility or lack thereof for alleged acts or omissions. No-one's trying to accuse the American people of anything, just presenting reasons why Bush shouldn't be up for such an award.
You said "No, but killing everyone who might potentially pose a threat...", which sounds to me like "Bush is a monster", and is a gross exaggeration so far as I'm concerned. And Bush being the leader of the country, saying "Your leader is evil" implies that our army and our government, etc. does evil things. If our country was an evil empire, then that would be a reason not to give Bush the Peace Prize, since the state of our country reflects upon the state of our leaders.
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?Quote:
Ah, so because people don't like Bush or his policies, that means they hate the US and its people too? Actually, most people don't think that way, but US citizens often get jumpy and picky if anyone disagrees with anything done or said by one of their people or politicians. "What? You don't like one of our politicians? How dare you hate our entire country like that!"
The President is more or less the elected representative of the nation on the international scale. A remark against him is thus a remark against the people.
But people, so very often and unfortunately, have to learn from their mistakes hard-way.
I think it's pretty obvious that war does not bring peace. What good is peace anyway if you have to go to war to maintain it? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.
I think it's pretty obvious that war does not bring peace. What good is peace anyway if you have to go to war to maintain it? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me. --eestlinc
If a few weeks or months or years or war can bring decades of peace, then it's worth it. The only reason this country still exists is because people have been willing to fight for it for the past couple hundred years. The only reason this country was even formed was because we fought for our independence. The only reason England exists is because they fought off their enemies for hundreds of years. You can trace it back in history forever if you wanted. When faced with an aggressor, there are two choices: win and live, or lose and die. Deciding not to fight at all is equivalent to the second choice. Non-violent resistence to violence fails as soon as the violent side decides not to honor your supposed moral superiority, and why should they?
I agree with Unne about that. There wouldn't be Finland if Finns never fought back, but my opinion just is, that what Bush and Blair have been doing hasn't been necessary. This wasn't about independence of USA; Iraq wasn't that much of a threat.
I'm not going in whether the war was justified or not, but the Nobel prize for that madman? Pfft.
Not if I were one of the more than half of the people who voted in 2000 who didn't vote for Bush.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?
51% is enough. As a citizen in a democratic nation, you must accept that.Quote:
Not if I were one of the more than half of the people who voted in 2000 who didn't vote for Bush.
well, the way the US presidential elections work, you don't need a majority vote of the entire country since it gets broken into state votes. Bush didn't get 50% of the national vote, but neither did Clinton in 1992.
Also, self defense is not the same thing as war. When someone invades you and you fight them off, you aren't exactly declaring war. You are fighting to return to peace. The problem isn't in defending yourself, the problem is in the countries that are going out and attacking and starting the wars. If they didn't start a war, there would be no need for self-defense. If the US didn't run around with this huge military, there would be no need for countries like Iraq or North Korea to build up huge weapons stockpiles.
So, if I punch you, and walk away, and after a week you come up to me and punch me back, does that mean you started a fight? If your answer is yes, I think your logic is flawed.
Iraq showed hostility and agression before, and it did not pay. So, it came a bit late, whatever.
the time to retaliate is immediately. I think your logic is flawed. You don't wait years to retaliate.
Also, Iraq has paid pretty dearly under the UN sanctions. Maybe Saddam didn't suffer so much but the people did. To say the world has been letting Saddam off Scot free is a bit of a stretch.
There's ALWAYS the need for self-defense. If you have no form of defending yourself, then any country can come up to ours and kill off a thousand or so people. It might be unlikely, but that defense is needed in order to expect the unexpected.Quote:
Originally posted by eestlinc
Also, self defense is not the same thing as war. When someone invades you and you fight them off, you aren't exactly declaring war. You are fighting to return to peace. The problem isn't in defending yourself, the problem is in the countries that are going out and attacking and starting the wars. If they didn't start a war, there would be no need for self-defense.
You could say the converse is true, as well - if it weren't for countries like Iraq and North Korea building up huge weapons stockpiles, the US wouldn't need to run around with a huge military.Quote:
Originally posted by eestlinc If the US didn't run around with this huge military, there would be no need for countries like Iraq or North Korea to build up huge weapons stockpiles.
I'm all for self-defense. I don't think ICBMs etc are doing much for our self-defense though. You also don't go around punching people because you heard they want to beat you up.
You might, if you look at that analogy on a grander scale. With punching, the only risk is a bloody nose and a black eye. With international affairs, the risk is actual human lives. If one country was attacked by another, would it make the lives of those lost worth it just because they didn't strike first?Quote:
Originally posted by eestlinc
You also don't go around punching people because you heard they want to beat you up.
Granted, there are better ways of preventing an attack on your country - diplomatic, economic, intelligence, etc... But there comes a time when talk is cheap, and you need to take action.
There are times when it may be best to strike first, but I'm not so sure Iraq was posing an imminent threat to the US.
So, if someone in the US votes against Bush, then he or she is "anti-American" for opposing their elected leader? I don't see that it should be 'offensive' to an entire nation to criticise someone else's political leader. Slobodan Milsoevic is being tried for war crimes, that doesn't make the Yugoslavian people guilty by association. Politicians are people with independent will and minds, not a pure and unsullied manifestation of the wishes of the nation. I'm very fond of America, its achievements, some of its cultural and artistic accomplishments; this is not changed by the assertion that George Bush has commited breaches of international law and whatnot.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?
Gone are the old monarchist days when rulers were the 'embodiment' of their country.
it wasn't even close to 51% of the vote that he received, though, and as Big D pointed out, people are ALLOWED to be critical of their country's leaders.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
51% is enough. As a citizen in a democratic nation, you must accept that.
I'm more or less with eest on this issue, again, by the way. Strange how that works out.
I support the war, but I know better ways are potentially possible. I don't think the war was fought with a justifiied reason, but since it wasn't do against a country like China or England (or some country which wasn't posing a threat at all), what's so bad about it? I personally would liken it to a bunch of hoodlum standing in a street doing nothing. To arrest them just because the rest of the people felt unsafe is both unconstitutional and unjust. Yet at the same time I wouldn't complain because in that example I would be among the majority who would benefit from our collective similarity of thinking by removing those who acted otherwise. It's just that simple.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Its like saying the people in the U.S. who don't support Bush are traitors.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?
So you're saying the MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT is incorrect, that people shouldn't have the right to free speech critisizing their leader.
Who's more of a traitor, them or you?
the sad part is, the Patriot Act runs on similar reasoning.Quote:
Originally posted by Moose Knight
So you're saying the MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT is incorrect, that people shouldn't have the right to free speech critisizing their leader.
No, what he's saying is when you - "you" being someone from country A - criticize the democratically elected leader of country B, then you are in effect criticizing the people of country B. The President is America's elected representative to the international playing field (no matter how you want to dispute the electoral/popular vote). I think you're twisting War Angel's words around to make him sound bad.Quote:
Originally posted by Moose Knight
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Its like saying the people in the U.S. who don't support Bush are traitors.
So you're saying the MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT is incorrect, that people shouldn't have the right to free speech critisizing their leader.
Who's more of a traitor, them or you?
And I think this thread no longer has anything to do with anything like the original topic, so I'll close it soon unless that changes.
Incidentally... Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet both had a lot of support in their countries. Does that mean we're all attacking the Iraqi and Chilean people whenever we criticise those two? Of course not.
Criticising George Bush is criticising George Bush, nothing more. If you don't like Russel Crowe, you're not displayinghatred for Hollywood and its frontrunners who're "elected" by profit margins and management teams. If you think Tony Blair has bad ties, then that doesn't mean you're attacking UK fashion sense. If you take offense because someone dares not to like your leader, then that's up to you; but to most people it'll look like you're just trying to (a) pick a fight or (b) justify forcing one people's views onto another.
If it's "anti-American" to dislike Bush, then that'd mean that the Nobel committee is full of "terrorists" if they don't award him the prize, which of course is a ridiculous accusation.
It does speak poorly of the american people that we elected that hideous excuse for a president. I know I am embarrassed that he is my leader.
Iraq is no longer a place where the citizentry is in a state of suffering. That's peace to me, even if the means to achieve it was not peaceful. BTW didn't Clinton settle (temporarily until Bush came along) the holy land wars by separating it and letting both waring parties have a piece of the land? If meddling with the middle east and resulting in a quasi-peace-like environment gets you the NPP, Clinton should've got one.
Moo Moo: Well, their suffering can be debated. Keep in mind that the US military apparently considered a water-purification-plant a valid military target. There was something about foodshipments as well, but that's a further stray. Do have a glance at the current situation in Afghanistan when you get the chance.
Statement: If Bush gets the peace-prize, I'm emigrating the first chance I get. I'm serious.
I refuse to comment in this thread any more, because it's nothing more than a Bush-bashing thread. I see so many people in the world saying "Oh, Bush sends America to war, so that means that Bush is a greedy war-monger! He can't get the nobel peace prize!" I can guarantee that most of the same people who complain about the war would be complaining about America's inaction against Iraq if we hadn't gone to war.
I don't know about that -- we would probably be too busy living our lives and being happily ignorant. Silent Warrior, I'm sure the actual state of affairs there isn't the best in the world. As I understand it, it's not very governed (duh), and prostitutes and other such things roam the streets. When I said that things were better, I meant that Saddam wasn't oppressing and torturing his citizens. Maybe I should've said 'more peaceful'.
Incidentally... Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet both had a lot of support in their countries. --Big D
I think Hussein's support was a very small, exclusive group of people, who had the physical power to keep the rest of the country at bay. There were no democratic elections in Iraq. Rather there were, but in the last one, Saddam got 100% of the votes (go figure). Saddam can't be said to represent the will of the Iraqis. He was a dictator.
If it's "anti-American" to dislike Bush, then that'd mean that the Nobel committee is full of "terrorists" if they don't award him the prize, which of course is a ridiculous accusation.
I don't think anyone would ever say that.
So far as criticizing the President, I don't think hating Bush = hating America, entirely. I do think it's true to a very small extent. I have a feeling (I will admit, probably an irrational one) of "I'm allowed to hate Bush because he's mine; you're not allowed because you're not American". Kind of like I can poke fun at my sister all the time, but if some guy on the street did it I'd punch his lights out. It's a defensive reaction. I don't get offended when people say things about America / Bush; but I do get ANNOYED when people say things I believe are unfounded.
Just because I become annoyed or angered at someone's opinion, doesn't mean I think they're a traitor or a terrorist. People are taking things way too far here. I really do have to wonder what's the point in posting in this forum sometimes.
Hate Bush, love America. :D
I don't think it's so much the fact that we went to war against Iraq that pisses people off so much as the reasons Bush gave for going to war against Iraq, and the fact that they're arguably blatant lies. I know that's what discourages me most about the war.Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
I refuse to comment in this thread any more, because it's nothing more than a Bush-bashing thread. I see so many people in the world saying "Oh, Bush sends America to war, so that means that Bush is a greedy war-monger! He can't get the nobel peace prize!" I can guarantee that most of the same people who complain about the war would be complaining about America's inaction against Iraq if we hadn't gone to war.
Bush'll never get it. It would be far too contraversial.
OOC: And in regards to the right of non-Americans to criticize Bush. It's well within their right. The USA is such a major international force that its decisions and policies DO affect millions of non-Americans - people who got no say on whether he was elected or not. And I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq. I'm talking about things like environmental policies, free-trade agreements and so on.
Its so easy to get nominated for a nobel peace prize. If I were to save a cat in a tree I could get nominated. All I would have to do is pretty much prove what I did and have so many people nominate me. Its not even that many people.
Well...I am off to rescue a cat. Here kitty kitty!
Uuhhh....weekly terrorist attacks are what you consider peace? I don't think today's Baghdad is safer than the one before the war. Maybe the terrorist attacks will end some day and then it may be safer, but so far you can't call that peace.Quote:
Iraq is no longer a place where the citizentry is in a state of suffering. That's peace to me, even if the means to achieve it was not peaceful.
As for the whole "insulting the people by insulting the leader", you must keep in mind that many of the people who voted Bush back thyen may not like him, or voted him because they considered him "the lesser evil".
Also, you can bash my president as much as you want, and the next one, and the next one. Could that mean you are doubting the integrity and intelligence of the people in my country? No problem, I doubt about it too. Not only the people in my country, just humanity in general. Call it misanthropy if you want, but it's the reason why I have little faith in modern democracy.
The Man: You da MAN! :D
DocFrance: I don't bash Bush for the sole purpose of bashing a public figure - I never bashed Clinton, and his morals... can be debated. The plain and simple truth is that Bush is a dumbass. Without a doubt a corrupt one as well. Thus I spew gall over him the first chance I get.