Bush up for Nobel Peace Prize

[Kirkpatrick]

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?

[The Man]

"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.

=/

[Shadow Nexus]

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!

[Dr Unne]

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.

[The Man]

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.

[Dr Unne]

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.

[The Man]

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.

[Yamaneko]

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.

[IlGreven]

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.

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...

[Big D]

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.

Of course, sitting around doing nothing automatically, magically creates world peace, right?

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.

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.

[Dr Unne]

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.

[Big D]

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!"

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.

[Dr Unne]

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.

[War Angel]

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!"

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?

[DocFrance]

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.