The Nobel Peace Prize... Among the 2004 Nominees

[Butterfingers]

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/

[p8ntball1016]

Could someone please explain to me how Bush got on that list?

[spantol]

From a certain standpoint, one could justify pre-emptive war as a measure to prevent something even more terrible. In that sense, Bush and Blair's actions could be considered to have been taken to protect world peace.

I'm not sure that I agree with that, but that's quite likely the reasoning behind the nomination.

[Zygote]

"Lundestad said thousands of people, including member of any national legislature or government and many university professors, have nomination rights, so being proposed for the prize is no distinction in itself.

``It's easy to get nominated for the prize, but very hard to win,'' he said."

[845]

I hope he doesnt win. I think it would make a mockery of the award. You shouldnt get a prize for starting wars. Especially when u start a war based on lies.

[shartley]

Originally posted by 845
I hope he doesnt win. I think it would make a mockery of the award. You shouldnt get a prize for starting wars. Especially when u start a war based on lies.

[Ov3rmind]

Originally posted by shartley

Just because we had troops engaging them does not mean we were at war. Bottomline is Bush declared war and started an active invasion using armies. His grounds for this were because Saddam was hiding WOMD. Seeing as how we have yet to prove he had any WOMD at the time, Saddam may not have been able to prevent it at all.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Ov3rmind

Just because we had troops engaging them does not mean we were at war. Bottomline is Bush declared war and started an active invasion using armies. His grounds for this were because Saddam was hiding WOMD. Seeing as how we have yet to prove he had any WOMD at the time, Saddam may not have been able to prevent it at all.

It amazes me how easily it is for people to forget the facts. Where do you think the WOMD are/were kept, sitting in the middle of an oasis somewhere, maybe in the backyard, or better yet, how about the fridge?

If you answered yes to any of the above, please grab the nearest frying pan & carefully attempt to flatten your skull similiar to the bottom of the pan.

You do realize that the former ragime had a multitude of bunkers built underground, correct? You also do realize that we do not know the location of all of these bunkers, right? And furthermore, that these bunkers are no small thing, they are vast complexes.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

[Zygote]

How do you make a frying pan out of your skull with a frying pan?

I think your attempt at being witty may have failed.

[1stdeadeye]

Here we go again!

WoMD were only one of the reasons Bush cited. People like to focus on that, but read the rest of his reasons.

Jeesh!

[Ov3rmind]

Originally posted by spazzed
It amazes me how easily it is for people to forget the facts. Where do you think the WOMD are/were kept, sitting in the middle of an oasis somewhere, maybe in the backyard, or better yet, how about the fridge?

If you answered yes to any of the above, please grab the nearest frying pan & carefully attempt to flatten your skull similiar to the bottom of the pan.

You do realize that the former ragime had a multitude of bunkers built underground, correct? You also do realize that we do not know the location of all of these bunkers, right? And furthermore, that these bunkers are no small thing, they are vast complexes.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

It amazes me that everyone swallows everything the government tells them without a second thought (lets face it, they are not the most honest organization). As long as they haven't found them, they will make excuses. The fact that officials in the Bush administration itself have expressed second thoughts about the matter shows that they never had any rock solid evidence. Going to war on a hunch is not a smart thing to do. Until they are found (if they even exist), the burden of proof lies on those who are searching for them, not on others to disprove them.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Ov3rmind

Just because we had troops engaging them does not mean we were at war.

Without arguing justification of war, what would you contend to call a chain of events, involving invading and withdrawing forces and continued engagement over a period of ten years? Peace?

[TylerDurden]

Perhaps if Saddam had let the weapons inspectors conduct their investigation unhithered he could have avoided this whole ordeal. He did have weapons that violated UN sanctions that he agreed to in 91'. Remember the scuds launched during the invasion. He had 12 years to avoid this by destroying the weapons designated by the UN, but chose to shoot at US fighter planes, and UN serveilance planes. Not to mention that he kicked out the UN's inspectors several times. It is obvious that the UN was not going to take care of this problem, so we had to. The only thing that confuses me is why people aren't grateful.

Why in the world do you call the reasons for thinking Saddam had WMDs a "hunch"? He tried to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. He gassed the kurds using chemical weapons, and he is generally not a very nice guy. The question I propose for anyone who critizes the war is:
Is the world in a better or worse place without saddam as a dictator?

[Ov3rmind]

Originally posted by Lohman446
Without arguing justification of war, what would you contend to call a chain of events, involving invading and withdrawing forces and continued engagement over a period of ten years? Peace?

It's not peace, but it's not a war. It's conflict, but a few few squabbles and skirmishes is hardly a war.

TylerDurden, exactly which "people" are you wondering about who aren't grateful? I could think of many reasons several groups of people would not be grateful.

The world is a worse place because: We've made terrorists even more pissed and Iraq is going to fall apart no matter what we do (religious disputes the Western world does not understand and can not effectively deal with).

[shartley]