Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums > Reference > General Archive > Eyes on The World > Bush up for Nobel Peace Prize

[Kirkpatrick]

Well, this was just brought to my attention:
CNN Story
Bush and Blair both nominated for "protecting world peace".
So what are your feelings on this?
Well deserved? Shouldn't even be considered? Something else?

[The Man]

"Bush" and "peace" are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. Of course, Arafat received the award in the past too and he hasn't exactly been peaceful, so I suppose the award doesn't really mean anything. But still, the irony is staggering.

=/

[Shadow Nexus]

The day Bush gets such a price the world would end, since it would be a process far too illogical for even the great spiritus mundi to understand, crumbilng space and time. Atman, have mercy of us!

[God]

Does fighting an unpopular war disqualify you, then? I guess we better take Woodrow Wilson's Peace Prize off of him too.

Personally I don't know who deserves the award. Glad I don't have to pick.

[The Man]

It seems pretty silly to give the peace prize to someone who takes the initiative, on rather scant evidence, to go to war.

I can't justify American involvement in a lot of wars since around 1900 or so. I still don't understand why World War I even happened, and Vietnam was ridiculous.

But whatever.

[God]

Of course, sitting around doing nothing automatically, magically creates world peace, right? It would've been peaceful had we let the Germans win World War I, after all. Peaceful rule under a psychopath, but hey, peace at any cost. So should we give the award to people who do nothing? That narrows it down to, well, just about everyone.

It's not called the Nobel Status Quo Prize, or the Nobel Pretend There's Peace Prize. Peace is sometimes only obtained through war.

As far as "takes the initiative", that's true so long as you ignore everything the UN has done for the past decade, and everything Iraq did in response. Oh and that little Kuwait thing.

[The Man]

Doing nothing doesn't create peace, no. But as far as I can see, Iraq hadn't been doing much to cause trouble around the world lately. I'll be the first to admit that the world is a better place without Saddam in power; he is a madman and was harming his own people, and now that he's out of power, despite the chaos Iraq is currently in, the citizens of the country are probably safer. But it's not exactly like we would've had to start a war that wound up causing several thousand Iraqi casualties to remove him from power. People have been taken out of power in bloodless revolutions before; it can happen. Now we're left with a world that hates America even more than it used to, and the situation in Iraq is deep in turmoil anyway.

The evidence of Iraq having WMD was very scant when we went to war, as was the link between Al-Quida and Iraq. Yet both of those were very heavily presented by Bush as the primary reasons for going to war when we started it.

Yes, the first Iraq war was justified. We actually had UN support then, if memory serves. We certainly didn't this time around. Hell, the UN inspectors said there WERE no WMD. And it appears that there were right. Even if Iraq destroyed the WMD themselves, that means they didn't have the WMD anymore. All we've found are a few chemical weapons and some scud missiles.

Too quick to point fingers, I think. But w/e, I'm off to bed.

[Yamaneko]

He deserves it if you think he has created or maintained peace in a particular part of the world or even throughout the world. He doesn't deserve it if you believe otherwise. It's going to be up to a panel of people to decide. The award doesn't mean much.