Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize - Page 4

02-05-2002, 01:14 PM

Actually Mel..apparently I have no freakin clue as to what you mean when you post [img]smile.gif[/img] I still dont so will refrain from trying to comment on it since I really do not know what you ment.

Ronn_Bman · 02-05-2002, 01:15 PM

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.

I'm not sure a successful War on Terrorism qualifies anyone for the Nobel prize, at least not while the war is ongoing. Only history will decide.

I do believe the "for us or against us" idea is valid when you think of it, not in terms of for "us"=US, but instead, as "us"=those at war against terrorism.

I believe PM Blair summed things up pretty nicely months ago when he concluded September 11th was not just an attack on America, but an attack on all civilized nations.

Now to the points on American history. Offsides? Not quite fair to count our contribution? We didn't get in early enough?

Funny that America's reluctance to become involved in the conflicts of others then was negative, but the major complaint today is that we are too willing be become involved. Both arguments can't be right.

Pearl Harbor did not bring US into Europe in WWII. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but we made the war in the Pacific a secondary objective, despite the attack on PH, in order to focus on saving England and reclaiming Europe. Churchill himself believed without the US the war was lost. Of course the US couldn't have done it alone, but neither could Europe alone prevail. Even prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, America had chosen the side of the Allies by sending huge amounts of supplies through the German "wolf-packs".

The first half of the century certainly was a much simpler time. In those days, your allies were glad for your help, and your enemies complained about your attacks.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Konfuzed and Zany · 02-05-2002, 01:19 PM

I don;t see why
It's not like they did anything any other leader at the gioven situation
It's not like they did something that required great courage
If Anyone should get a nobel price related to this incident
It should be the NY fire corps

Konfuzed and Zany · 02-05-2002, 01:23 PM

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.

being neutral doesn;t worsen a situation
forcing people to take sides does

And no other nation did that coz no other nation declared a war on a nation they could crush so utterly and totally
Just my 2p

Ronn_Bman · 02-05-2002, 01:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Konfuzed and Zany:
I don;t see why
It's not like they did anything any other leader at the gioven situation
It's not like they did something that required great courage
If Anyone should get a nobel price related to this incident
It should be the NY fire corps

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure the Nobel prize should go to either, but I disagree about the importance of their actions. Both leaders took courageous steps.

Your point on the Emergency workers at the attack sights is great though [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Thoran · 02-05-2002, 01:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:

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?

Sure there will be another, but another so wealthy and well connected? I doubt it. While the average Joe Extreemist is obviously willing to die for his beliefs... I think the willingness of rich arab's to die for Islam is... um... somewhat lower. Let the spoiled rich Arabs know that the price of their behavior is no less than their lives and you will not see such organized and well funded operations in the future.

The idea here is to destroy the international network that's taken the terrorists many years to build. Part of that is chopping the head, another part is depriving it of a home. Both are worthwhile goals IMO. Afghanastan was a necessary house cleaning, sadly the Afghani's were caught in the middle, but THANKS to an intelligent battle strategy the collateral damage WAS minimum (by ANY standard)

quote:
Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:

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..

USA is a scapegoat for the WHOLE of the first world, you can look at yourself in the mirror and that statement is 100% as accurate as when it's directed at us.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:

And will Bush work as strongly against terrorism when this war is over?
I seriously doubt it..

good question, I think he'll be at it until he's sucked every political point he can get out of it. Not to mention he appears to be enjoying himself (pretty Scarry IMO)

quote:
Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:

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

I think you really overestimate these people, you believe that OBL is doing what he's doing for some altruistic reason... to improve the lot of Muslem peoples everywhere and such. Don't believe it! His origonal gripe with the U.S. is that we are "soiling" Saudi soil through our presence... what a joke! He didn't start adding "love for his fellow Muslem" until he realized that he could score big points with Muslims by doing so. I recommend that we all be as critical of the terrorists propeganda as we already are of government propeganda.

OBL is spoiled little brat who needs a good spanking and a cut in his allowance... nothing more. He's also likely dead from kidney disease (a fitting end imo).

02-05-2002, 01:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Konfuzed and Zany:

being neutral doesn;t worsen a situation
forcing people to take sides does

And no other nation did that coz no other nation declared a war on a nation they could crush so utterly and totally
Just my 2p

Tell that to Checkoslovakia in 1939 when Nazi Germany just stepped in..ask the people who survived that how Brittian remaining neutral didnt hurt any one...or tell Poland how much it didnt hurt to have Brittian and the rest of the world be neutral when they were over run...oh yeah being neutral doesnt do any thing..give me a break being neutral is the same as being gutless and not being brave enough to make a stand, or weakminded to the point of being unable to make a stand. Neutrality is no virtue. So take a stand, for terrorism or against but dont be one of the spineless that can't make a descision.

All you neutral types...how much did you contribute to world betterment when you wouldnt stand against the USSR?? How did neutrality help there? Cowarads may be neutral they by definition do nothing to make things better. In failing to make things better is in my eyes just one step up from making them worse.

Sir ReGiN · 02-05-2002, 01:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:

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.

How has this been proven?

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
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

Isn't this pretty much what I just said?
Just that I proposed a peaceful solution, that will probarbly be more long-term

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
..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.

You can DO SOMETHING in many ways, MagiK, war is only one thing..
It's not a question of wether to go to war or not

And you DID bomp Afghanistan, bombing IN Afghanistan is the exact samet hing, at least to me it is, if you took it as I was propsing you were "just lobbing bombs willy nilly with no clear goal or objective", then I apologize, it was not my meaning..

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
You dont have to bomb or fight..just work toward forcing the terrorist sponsor states to rethink their use of capital.

Isn't this a HUGE contradiction of what you said just a few lines up in the same post?! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

02-05-2002, 01:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
[QB][/QB]

Yes I actualy personally took part in one military action that in one strike took an entire country out of the terror racket for over a decade Ever heard of Libya?

02-05-2002, 01:46 PM

No Sir Regin Bombing Afghanistan when phrased the way it was, implies that your out there just bombing the whole damn country which you know is not the case..now maybe english isnt your first language and miss the nuances here but there is a hell of a difference between bombing targets in a country and bombing the whole place. So now you degenrate into playing dumbass semantics games which I hope is not the case or you just dont understand how to phrase things..either way...Im done with this thread too. I never said that to be WITH us meant that you had to bomb someone, but do something to take direct action against those cowards who attack unarmed unsuspecting innocent victims.

so take your shots, Im gone!

02-05-2002, 01:15 PM	#32
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	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. I'm not sure a successful War on Terrorism qualifies anyone for the Nobel prize, at least not while the war is ongoing. Only history will decide. I do believe the "for us or against us" idea is valid when you think of it, not in terms of for "us"=US, but instead, as "us"=those at war against terrorism. I believe PM Blair summed things up pretty nicely months ago when he concluded September 11th was not just an attack on America, but an attack on all civilized nations. Now to the points on American history. Offsides? Not quite fair to count our contribution? We didn't get in early enough? Funny that America's reluctance to become involved in the conflicts of others then was negative, but the major complaint today is that we are too willing be become involved. Both arguments can't be right. Pearl Harbor did not bring US into Europe in WWII. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but we made the war in the Pacific a secondary objective, despite the attack on PH, in order to focus on saving England and reclaiming Europe. Churchill himself believed without the US the war was lost. Of course the US couldn't have done it alone, but neither could Europe alone prevail. Even prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, America had chosen the side of the Allies by sending huge amounts of supplies through the German "wolf-packs". The first half of the century certainly was a much simpler time. In those days, your allies were glad for your help, and your enemies complained about your attacks. [ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

02-05-2002, 01:19 PM	#33
Konfuzed and Zany Manshoon Join Date: November 2, 2001 Location: Bed Posts: 247	I don;t see why It's not like they did anything any other leader at the gioven situation It's not like they did something that required great courage If Anyone should get a nobel price related to this incident It should be the NY fire corps __________________ I Am Flameboy<br />Watch me ehm.. Burn...

02-05-2002, 01:23 PM	#34
Konfuzed and Zany Manshoon Join Date: November 2, 2001 Location: Bed Posts: 247	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. being neutral doesn;t worsen a situation forcing people to take sides does And no other nation did that coz no other nation declared a war on a nation they could crush so utterly and totally Just my 2p __________________ I Am Flameboy<br />Watch me ehm.. Burn...

02-05-2002, 01:27 PM	#35
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Konfuzed and Zany: I don;t see why It's not like they did anything any other leader at the gioven situation It's not like they did something that required great courage If Anyone should get a nobel price related to this incident It should be the NY fire corps As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure the Nobel prize should go to either, but I disagree about the importance of their actions. Both leaders took courageous steps. Your point on the Emergency workers at the attack sights is great though [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

02-05-2002, 01:28 PM	#36
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: 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? Sure there will be another, but another so wealthy and well connected? I doubt it. While the average Joe Extreemist is obviously willing to die for his beliefs... I think the willingness of rich arab's to die for Islam is... um... somewhat lower. Let the spoiled rich Arabs know that the price of their behavior is no less than their lives and you will not see such organized and well funded operations in the future. The idea here is to destroy the international network that's taken the terrorists many years to build. Part of that is chopping the head, another part is depriving it of a home. Both are worthwhile goals IMO. Afghanastan was a necessary house cleaning, sadly the Afghani's were caught in the middle, but THANKS to an intelligent battle strategy the collateral damage WAS minimum (by ANY standard) quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: 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.. USA is a scapegoat for the WHOLE of the first world, you can look at yourself in the mirror and that statement is 100% as accurate as when it's directed at us. quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: And will Bush work as strongly against terrorism when this war is over? I seriously doubt it.. good question, I think he'll be at it until he's sucked every political point he can get out of it. Not to mention he appears to be enjoying himself (pretty Scarry IMO) quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: 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 I think you really overestimate these people, you believe that OBL is doing what he's doing for some altruistic reason... to improve the lot of Muslem peoples everywhere and such. Don't believe it! His origonal gripe with the U.S. is that we are "soiling" Saudi soil through our presence... what a joke! He didn't start adding "love for his fellow Muslem" until he realized that he could score big points with Muslims by doing so. I recommend that we all be as critical of the terrorists propeganda as we already are of government propeganda. OBL is spoiled little brat who needs a good spanking and a cut in his allowance... nothing more. He's also likely dead from kidney disease (a fitting end imo).

02-05-2002, 01:14 PM	#31
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Actually Mel..apparently I have no freakin clue as to what you mean when you post [img]smile.gif[/img] I still dont so will refrain from trying to comment on it since I really do not know what you ment.

02-05-2002, 01:36 PM	#37
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by Konfuzed and Zany: being neutral doesn;t worsen a situation forcing people to take sides does And no other nation did that coz no other nation declared a war on a nation they could crush so utterly and totally Just my 2p Tell that to Checkoslovakia in 1939 when Nazi Germany just stepped in..ask the people who survived that how Brittian remaining neutral didnt hurt any one...or tell Poland how much it didnt hurt to have Brittian and the rest of the world be neutral when they were over run...oh yeah being neutral doesnt do any thing..give me a break being neutral is the same as being gutless and not being brave enough to make a stand, or weakminded to the point of being unable to make a stand. Neutrality is no virtue. So take a stand, for terrorism or against but dont be one of the spineless that can't make a descision. All you neutral types...how much did you contribute to world betterment when you wouldnt stand against the USSR?? How did neutrality help there? Cowarads may be neutral they by definition do nothing to make things better. In failing to make things better is in my eyes just one step up from making them worse.

02-05-2002, 01:38 PM	#38
Sir ReGiN Gold Dragon Join Date: August 11, 2001 Location: The land of blonde virgins Age: 42 Posts: 2,563	quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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. How has this been proven? quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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 Isn't this pretty much what I just said? Just that I proposed a peaceful solution, that will probarbly be more long-term quote: Originally posted by MagiK: ..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. You can DO SOMETHING in many ways, MagiK, war is only one thing.. It's not a question of wether to go to war or not And you DID bomp Afghanistan, bombing IN Afghanistan is the exact samet hing, at least to me it is, if you took it as I was propsing you were "just lobbing bombs willy nilly with no clear goal or objective", then I apologize, it was not my meaning.. quote: Originally posted by MagiK: You dont have to bomb or fight..just work toward forcing the terrorist sponsor states to rethink their use of capital. Isn't this a HUGE contradiction of what you said just a few lines up in the same post?! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] __________________ Take a look at your Promised Land<br />Your deed is that gun in your hand

02-05-2002, 01:40 PM	#39
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: [QB][/QB] Yes I actualy personally took part in one military action that in one strike took an entire country out of the terror racket for over a decade Ever heard of Libya?

02-05-2002, 01:46 PM	#40
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	No Sir Regin Bombing Afghanistan when phrased the way it was, implies that your out there just bombing the whole damn country which you know is not the case..now maybe english isnt your first language and miss the nuances here but there is a hell of a difference between bombing targets in a country and bombing the whole place. So now you degenrate into playing dumbass semantics games which I hope is not the case or you just dont understand how to phrase things..either way...Im done with this thread too. I never said that to be WITH us meant that you had to bomb someone, but do something to take direct action against those cowards who attack unarmed unsuspecting innocent victims. so take your shots, Im gone!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Blair named for peace prize	Skippy1	General Discussion	10	02-11-2004 07:50 AM
Bush been nominated for Nobel Prize.	Dreamer128	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	10	02-01-2004 10:16 PM
Chirac Nominated For Peace Prize	skywalker	General Discussion	17	03-06-2003 04:56 PM
Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize!	Charean	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	34	10-18-2002 08:53 PM
Who ever cut off Aeries wings should get a nobel peace prize	Caine	Baldurs Gate II Archives	16	10-13-2001 09:52 AM