Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Thoran]

I have not a bit of a problem with the how's and why's of Afghanastan. And I believe the military did all it could to avoid collateral damage. Having said that I think of the Nobel as something you have to EARN... and I don't think Pres. GW has done anything to earn it. He was obviously enjoying the opportunity to get the eyes of Americans off of his bumbling demeanor, uncertainty, and numerous mis-steps in the first months of his presidency. It was a boon for his political career... seems he already got all the reward he should to me.

[Link]

It's not only the fact that Bush has attacked Afghanistan, but also the fact that he immediately said, after the attacks on the WTC, that: "Anyone who does not support us, is against us" which troubles me most. His country has kept itself offside in many wars, and only due to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the United States became involved in WWII, so IMHO it's not quite fair to say such a thing.
And you really cannot convince me of the fact that Bush completely deserves a Nobel peace prize. Absolutely not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Link:
Bush nominated for the Nobel peace prize? LMAO! That's a good one! Destroying Afghanistan, killing dozens of people, and then the guy gets nominated for "outstanding input to bring peace to this world". Hilarious!

---

Excuse me Link..but Afghanistan was destroyed long before Bush got in office..please see my earlier post..if you want to criticise him, at least do it for something he was responsible for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
I don't say that they don't deserve the peace prize, I guess that's just a question of how you look at it..
But I can think of several people who I think deserve the prize more than they!

---

Serious question...who? Like I said Im not sure Id nominate him for the peace prize myself..and Im a major supporter (so far)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:
Actually, you're right, you are bombing a wasteland, but unfortunately, as in all war situations, there are some mishaps, such as friendly fire and in this particular war, I have seen photos of cities which have I think been mistakenly hit, and ruined.
Luckily this has occured in few cases.

---

Umm I know for a fact that you can't accidently hit a city....maybe the wrong building IN a city..but cities are square miles accross and usuaully miles from each other....Im pretty sure we can shoot straight enough to hit the intended city.....but as I was saying the VAST majority of the fighting was and is not in the cities and residential areas...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melusine:


Actually, Magik and the others (Nick etc), before you jump to conclusions, read Exxon's post carefully first. All he says, LITERALLY quoted, is this:

But I know I wouldnt bomb an entire country back to the stoneage!

Now this DOES insinuate that he thinks Bush and Blair (not just Bush, read the topic title!) have in fact done so, but it DOES NOT state so outright. See, this is how people get started time and time and time again.... *sigh*

And yes, I am well aware that others in this thread HAVE in fact suggested that bombing back to the stoneage is an accurate description of what's going on in Afghanistan, but Exxon wasn't one of them.

---

Umm Im pretty sure that my comment was pretty benign..I read it and just reread what I posted and it looks harmless and friendly enough...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Link:
It's not only the fact that Bush has attacked Afghanistan, but also the fact that he immediately said, after the attacks on the WTC, that: "Anyone who does not support us, is against us" which troubles me most. His country has kept itself offside in many wars, and only due to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the United States became involved in WWII, so IMHO it's not quite fair to say such a thing.
And you really cannot convince me of the fact that Bush completely deserves a Nobel peace prize. Absolutely not.

---

Ever hear the expression.."If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"? In this case, if you do not support the idea of the eradication of terrorism and all terrorist states then you are indeed against us. At least be man/or woman enough to take a stand for or against terrorism. Let his comment worry you if you would like, but the last 100 years has shown that the USA has been more beneficial to the world community than harmful. And to my knowledge NO other nation that has declared war on another has gone back into that nation and rebuilt it out of generosity and benevolent good will.

[Melusine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:



Umm Im pretty sure that my comment was pretty benign..I read it and just reread what I posted and it looks harmless and friendly enough...

---

That was not my point, read my post again. I didn't say anybody was being unfriendly, I said you were reading things into Exxons words that weren't there. I didn't say you were being tactless about it, just that you did it. See what I mean about reading things into people's words?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


Ever hear the expression.."If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"? In this case, if you do not support the idea of the eradication of terrorism and all terrorist states then you are indeed against us. At least be man/or woman enough to take a stand for or against terrorism. Let his comment worry you if you would like, but the last 100 years has shown that the USA has been more beneficial to the world community than harmful. And to my knowledge NO other nation that has declared war on another has gone back into that nation and rebuilt it out of generosity and benevolent good will.

---

Magik, where did Link say he supports terrorism or that he is against its eradication? Nowhere. He was talking about his opinion on BUSH not his opinion about TERRORISM. Big difference.

[Sir ReGiN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


Ever hear the expression.."If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"? In this case, if you do not support the idea of the eradication of terrorism and all terrorist states then you are indeed against us. At least be man/or woman enough to take a stand for or against terrorism. Let his comment worry you if you would like, but the last 100 years has shown that the USA has been more beneficial to the world community than harmful. And to my knowledge NO other nation that has declared war on another has gone back into that nation and rebuilt it out of generosity and benevolent good will.

---

MagiK, do you seriously think the solution to getting rid of terrorism is bombing Afghanistan?
Don't you think that when the U.S kills Usama (if they ever do) there will soon be another ready to continue the struggle against the US?
And it's not like terrorism is concentrated into Usama bin Laden and Al-Queda..it's everywhere in the world, in any poor country there are always people who thinks vioence is the solution to their situation.
And many times, USA is the root of their problems..
And will Bush work as strongly against terrorism when this war is over?
I seriously doubt it..
What he should do is try to gain trust in these countries..
Help them with money, and if US already gives them money, give them more!
Help with medicine, education, perhaps soften the customs a bit, etc..
And of course, encourage other countries to follow their example..
USA does have a pretty big inluence in the world

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:


MagiK, do you seriously think the solution to getting rid of terrorism is bombing Afghanistan?
Don't you think that when the U.S kills Usama (if they ever do) there will soon be another ready to continue the struggle against the US?
And it's not like terrorism is concentrated into Usama bin Laden and Al-Queda..it's everywhere in the world, in any poor country there are always people who thinks vioence is the solution to their situation.
And many times, USA is the root of their problems..
And will Bush work as strongly against terrorism when this war is over?
I seriously doubt it..
What he should do is try to gain trust in these countries..
Help them with money, and if US already gives them money, give them more!
Help with medicine, education, perhaps soften the customs a bit, etc..
And of course, encourage other countries to follow their example..
USA does have a pretty big inluence in the world

---

Actually Sir Regin, it has been proven miltarily that when you smack the bastiches back in the mouth HARD they go lookin for other targets. You see if you disrupt them enough you then become too much of a pain to be used..so what will happen short term is they will target other countries in the mean time if all the cou8ntries work together they can put a stop to the STATE sponsored financing of those gorups..its called DOIN SOMETHING as opposed to DOING nothing...and for the record WE didnt "Bomb Afghanistan" We bombed specific targets IN Afghanistan...big difference..the wayyou say it ..it sounds like we are out there just lobbing bombs willy nilly with no clear goal or objective.

I maintain If you are not with us taking action against terrorism...you are part of the problem. You dont have to bomb or fight..just work toward forcing the terrorist sponsor states to rethink their use of capital.