Bush & Blair (BB) nominated

It seems that Bush & Blair are nominated for the Nobel Peace Price.


Harald T. Nesvik, a Norwegian Member of Parliament, has nominated U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize for their “decisive action against terrorism”.

A very right-wing Norwegian from the Progress Party (a far-right partner in Bondeviks coalition government. I hope the Labour party gets back in. Bondevik has done some stupid things. Like his armoured Mercedes. What a waste of tax-payer money. What is it going to protect him from? Girls named Heidi? :laughing:



It’s about time someone recognized strong leaders for bringing peace. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher should have been given one for brining peace and democracy through strength to the Eastern Europeans and really for free the Russians as well. Bush Senior should have been given one for his role in reuniting Germany. Many have forgotten that this was not a foregone conclusion at the time. The Russians did not want a unified Germany nor did allies such as France and Britain. It was only through American effort that Germany was reunited and the Russian army was persuaded to leave not only Germany but Eastern Europe and the Baltics peacefully. You would be hard pressed though to find a grateful German today though, which just goes to prove that no good deed goes unpunished.

After all, what is with giving Carter a prize? What peace did he ever bring about? And Arafat? Who next? Stalin for getting rid of Hitler and Mao for ending the civil war in China? Maybe Pol Pot for getting rid of class warfare in Cambodia? I know Kabila in Zaire for killing so many people that the forests and animals of the jungle are now safe?

This is pretty far from peace. In fact has nothing to do with bringing peace.

Actually, they where nominated by Norwegian member of Parliament Jan Simonsen

Au contraire Bottleneck:

The Middle East has in fact never been more peaceful than now. What with Pakistan and Iran coming clean on nuclear proliferation, Libya bowing out of the game, the Iraqis and Afghans entering new possibilities, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs reforming, Sudan moving toward ending its civil war, the Algerians stopping support of West Saharan insurgents and tough action cornering the Syrians and Palestinians which may give hope to Lebanon to see its freedom. Finally the Kurdish uprising in Turkey is over and the government is moving to give them greater autonomy and rights. So tough action has resulted in many positive things while perhaps you are too constrained in your thinking.

To you, perhaps peace is about conferences that end in toothless but high sounding resolutions where women are “empowered” and children are “protected” and rights are “fostered” and respect for other cultures and religions is “cultivated” and civil values are “inculcated” etc etc etc. but nothing ever happens. Look at the Middle East today. Look at the increasingly open debate in their societies, the fact that nasty comments about Jews, Christians and Hindus is being removed from school books, that religious leaders are finally condemning terrorism, where government leaders are moving to open up the levers of power and you have to wonder why Bush and Blair are condemned for making all these positive things come to fruition in a measly two years while Carter’s “concern” and “high-minded ideals” resulted in an Iran that went Fascist and trod over the very human rights he was so concerned about and whose weakness encourage an invasion by Iraq that killed 2 million people and maimed millions of others. But because Carter talked the right kind of talk that is so beloved by institutions like the UN he is recognized as a “man of peace” despite the fact that his policies resulted in greater violence and instability that led to less peace in fact, while Bush and Blair have done more to bring human rights to the Middle East and have put positive change in motion, ironically through force, that will result in greater stability and therefore more peace.

Lybia is AFAIK not an achievement of Bush or a result of the war against Iraq, they backed down (sp?) long time ago to get sanctions lifted, before Bush Jr. became president, and to achieve that they took responsibility for Lockerby and to get US sanctions lifted they did some ass-kissing already way before the war. So it’s not something you can credit to Bush and his war game(s).

Nice try Rascal:

But in fact the wmd side of things was only brought to the table by Qadafi on the very day of the Iraq invasion so says Berlusconi. I tend to believe that he is right and why the sudden interest in revealing the total extent of its wmd facilities? Europe (that old whore haha) would gladly have traded with him even if he had not gone that far. AND Pakistan and Iran suddenly after 25 years of covering such activities up are opening up as well. AND all this is just a unique coincidence and the final fruition of 25 years of meetings and discussions and negotiations? Bullshit.

hmm, let’s see. while us forces were building up, they decide to approach the us and britain to negotiate. now why out of all the countries, did they go to the us and britain? these were obviously the 2 countries that would have demanded the most out of them. and with the world lined up against the us, imagine the pr coup france would have had if they had negotiated the deal with france. france could have claimed a success through negotiation in direct contrast to us iraqi policy. i’m sure they could have hammered out some sweetheart aid deals coupled with just a slap on the wrist if they had gone to chirac. none the less, they went to the us and britain.

libya agrees to let us and british inspectors check out their facilities. right after saddam gets caught, they let blair and bush announce to the world that they’re coming clean. let me repeat that, libya announces that it’s coming clean through bush and blair. one more time, blair and bush were the ones who made the announcement. :slight_smile:

so please tell me how germany or france can claim credit for all this. not the paying the victims of lockerbie part, the “we’re going to abadon all these weapons programs you didn’t know we had and ship parts to the us for inspection” part.

btw, what was the un doing about libya the 9 months or so that they were in intense negotiations with the us and britain?

I don’t think I said or implied that. Secret talks were on-going for years between Lybia and the US, and to get rid of the US sanctions Lybia had to get rid of their WMD (program).

Again, ballderdash:

The hardline adopted by Britain and the US resulted in a large payment to their citizens. The French played easy and then when they saw how much the US and Britain were getting tried to ride the coattails and benefited greatly. But this is typical of France so why are we surprised. After all, the only reason they have a permanent seat in the security council is US generosity.

The ongoing negotiations, haha. The negotiations are always ongoing. I am sure that somewhere somehow someone can credit this to Carter. Bullshit. I have always said and will say again, the Arabs respect the Big Man. That means acting tough. When the US finally wakes up and stops allowing the Arabs to link the Palestinian issue to each and every damned thing, we will have truly reached a stage where our demented little problem teenagers grow up, move out of the house and get a job and start acting like productive, responsible members of the world community. Until then they are GROUNDED.

Christ almighty. For years, the Clinton administration conducted a hardcore anti-terrorism campain praised by the likes (of all people) of Newt Gingrich. Clinton’s regime also transforms the bulky, overpriced juggernaut of the Cold War US military into a lean, techno-sophsticated war machine ready for the 21st Century.

Then the Bush clan comes into power. After the transition, Wesley Clark briefs Rice extensively on what has been done and what needs to be done - but she does jack-all. Wolfowitz calls the Clinton admin “obsessed with terrorism”. Bush takes long, relaxing breaks in his Texas compounds - the most of any US president in 32 years. The Democrats propose a new homeland security agency to deal with the terrorist threat, but Rumsfeld would rather spend the money on ABM technology (too bad they didn’t fire an intercontinental ballistic missile at the WTC!), so the Democrats get turned down. The FBI and Clark are frantic about suspicious terrorist activity, but the promised Bush cabinet meeting regarding the threat keeps getting put off.

Then KABOOM. Suddenly it’s time for the Bush boys to obfuscate its pre-911 activities (or lack thereof), blame the Clinton administration for being “soft on terror” while using the badass Clinton military to knock off its political objectives, and wrap itself in the flag, eaking every bit of possible political capital out of the horrible event – even down to posting pictures of Bin Laden and Hussein next to political opponents on television ads .

Now some MORON is going to give this administration credit for anything that’s happened??? This political windfall fell into Bush’s lap. Id be willing to bet my life he goes to bed every night thanking God for Osama Bin Laden.

Oh for Christ’s sake Vay:

What are you smoking?

Clinton was so busy filling the White House bedrooms with interns that he did not have time to meet with his security director more than once in three years! When a plane crashed on the White House lawn in 1995, people joked that it was the CIA director trying to get in for a meeting!

Clinton had a chance to get Osama from Sudan but botched it. He fired off a few missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan but WHAT DID HE ACCOMPLISH?

And please speak to someone in the armed forces and see if they agree of your assessment that Clinton made the armed forces lean and mean and modern hahahahahaahahahaha.

If he was so successful as you say, where are the trophies to account for this success? There were no successes. You want to talk about someone who lucked out by being president during America’s vacation from history. It was Bill Clinton not George W.

Better check your facts on this one, Fred…'specially regarding that botched Sudan deal. I’m on my way out now, but when I come back, I’ll be packing, if you know what I mean! :wink:

they give prizes for attacking 3rd world countries now…it’s akin to winning a beauty contest after taking a big sh1t on the runway

international talks with libya were always about sponoring terrorism. the wmd thing was a surprise to everyone. libya brought that up on its own. when did they bring it up? why, when they were talking to the us and britain during the war!

libya chose to go to blair and bush instead of the un or france about their weapons programs. libya lets blair and bush send teams in to inspect weapons sites. libya sends actual parts to the us for inspection. libya announces through blair and bush that they are giving up all their weapons programs which are much further along than anyone had realized.

i think bush and blair can take credit for this one. if it wasn’t an “achievement of bush”, then whose achievement was it? jacques? kofi? hans?

[quote=“fred smith”]Hurray:

It’s about time someone recognized strong leaders for bringing peace. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher should have been given one for brining peace and democracy through strength to the Eastern Europeans and really for free the Russians as well.


Coming back to the topic of this post.

Sorry, but I am afraid it is very unlikely that Bush and Blair get the Nobel prize. When Mr. Nobel set up the rules, whom to award the prize to, Nobel simply stated that

prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, “shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind” and that one part be given to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

And if you browse through the list of people who got the prize in the past, you’ll find out that its more about people with brains, not with guns.


If you guys think that Bush and Blair deserve a prize for what they did in the past year, check out the National Rifle Association - Charlton Heston may be delighted to hand over the “Golden Colt”… :wink

prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, “shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind” and that one part be given to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

OK, let’s see…

  1. Greatest benefit to mankind: Afghanis and Iraqis have benefitted greatly.

  2. Best work for fraternity between nations: Snubbed Germany, France and Russia… but put together a substantial coalition of the willing… including a whole host of East European nations that the French and Germans were trying to snubb…

  3. Abolition or reduction of standing armies: Taliban militia and Iraqi army abolished and or reduced significantly.

It was not anyone’s achievement; Ghadaffi initiated talks in the mid 90s with the Clinton administration to rejoin the international community (get sanctions lifted), taking small steps by delivering the terrorist responsible for Lockerbie, then paying the compensation and finally (agreeing to) giving up it’s WMD program.
Perhaps the war has somewhat influenced that, but it certainly was not the one and only reason that triggered the decision and as such I wouldn’t credit it to Bush and Blair.

I guess you don’t care about the civilan casualties but in any case, wasn’t Afghanistan about capturing Osama, and not about freeing the people there from Taliban rule?
If I remember correctly the US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand out Osama and that’s why they were bombed into pieces.
And after 2 years (“give it time”, right?) it’s still nowhere peacefull, stable or democratic, all of which would only be a secondary effect.
In short: it wasn’t about peace, it was about punishment.