Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Konfuzed and Zany]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grand-Ranger:
Rikard: Bill Cilton didnt react the same way when Osama bombed the USS Cole. Or numerous other US embasses. Maybe if he did react more strongly Sept. 11 never would have happened.

---

And maybe if the Mayflower never landed on the American Coast The Towers would have never been bombed
Trust me Bill Clinton (I'm asuming you mean him) Would have done about the same thing as Bush did
IMHO he was a better president then most there were (dispide his personal stuff which has nothing to do with him as president)

[Blind_Prophet]

I think it is kinda funny that bush is being nominated for nobel peace prize while we are in the middle of a war but, the war is against terrorism. So he is fighting for a good cause. So i can see how he was nominated. I also think that he is going about this well. so i can see why he was a good choice for the award.

[img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] = [img]graemlins/stonedout.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Rereading my posts I think I may have come accross as too generic in some of my references to the Islamic world. I'd like to ammend that by saying that I do realize that it's a very small minority of Islam who resort to the sort of extreme violence that we've seen. I've been to Saudi Arabia a number of times and have unfailingly had a wonderful time (but it's hot like nowhere else I've ever been! [img]smile.gif[/img] , 126f one visit). I was enjoying the debate with Sir Regin and I sometimes lose track of the big picture under those circumstances (a shortcoming my wife is quick to take advantage of when we debate)

Also I agree that there is no way to wave off the death of a single person. Things did go wrong and civillians were killed, but I believe the US Military did everything they could to minimize this. The Terrorists and taliban on the other hand were actively USING the Afghani population as a human shield, forcing us to use more and more accurate armaments... but those armaments are NOT foolproof, and when something goes wrong there's no margin for error, and innocent people die.

Thankfully the battle was short and the Afghani's are now getting the help that they need from the World Food organizations. I hope that the next decade is much brighter for them then the last decade has been. I also hope that G.W. doesn't pull a boner and pull out of there before they're REALLY back on their feet. I really worry about him... maybe in another couple years when Afghanastan is reintegrating into the Global Community can Bush and Blair take a few kudo's... not until then IMO.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Link:

I therefore approve of the fact that the Allied forces have attacked Afghanistan to:

• Save the people in Afghanistan of the terrible regime of the Taliban.
  Search and 'arrest' Osama bin Laden.

But things have gone wrong in the bombing in Afghanistan, and America was telling us that they were using 'very precise bombs, laser targetted, with the help of satellites, etc.' but still things go wrong. Still innocent people die, because of bombs, which aren't even meant for them.
And yes, Afghanistan was ruined, even before the bombing, but is that an argument to wave away anything that goes wrong? It is not! If I kill a person, do you really believe saying: "Ah well, he was limp anyway" will save me from being sentenced to lifelong imprisonment, or even death penalty? It will not! And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Errors occur, but using these arguments to wave them away is just plain wrong.

---

I think Thoran summed it up pretty well in his post, but I'll elaborate my thoughts.

Things do go wrong, not only in war, but in every aspect of life despite the best intentions and preparations. I never meant to imply it was ok or that it didn't matter that people died. The point is that, as human beings, there is only so much we can do.

About referring to the condition of Afghanistan prior to September 11th, I just wanted to make sure that the post about "having bombed them back to the stone age" wasn't strictly based on the images seen after the fall of the Taliban. Much of the devastation seen was the result of 20 years of civil war. I wasn't saying, "it was ok to destroy what's left". Instead, I was saying most of those bullet holes in the buildings aren't ours. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm not "waving away" anything that's happened in Afghanistan. I'm just looking at it in context.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Argus:
Hmmm, I thought that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in winter? Didn't Annan and the UN just win one a few months ago? Also, I thought that the nominations came from the Nobel Committee, not from Norwegian parliamentary figures...

Can someone please give me a reference or link where I can read about this nomination? I searched my normal news sites and came up empty.

---

You are right about it not being time yet to award the prize. It won't be awarded until later in the year, but the nominations had to be in by February 1st. They will announce the complete list of those nominated toward the end of February, not the winner.

The parliment members do have the ability to make nominations. Check out www.nobel.no for details on exactly who can make nominations. I don't think there is anything there about Bush and Blair, but check some of the news sites for the story.

As to the other post about the person who nominated Bush and Blair being a neo-nazi, I haven't read that, but I'll take your word. That being the case, it is doubtful either nominee will appreciate the nod.