What if Bush got a Nobel Peace Prize?

[Doctor What]

Inspired in part by this story (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050224-1424-nobelpeaceprize.html) about 199 people being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (including, allegedly, President Bush).

Okay--here's the WI--

It's the near future. Democracy is breaking out all over the mideast--you've got a stable Iraqi government, Iran's mullahs have been forced into 'retirement' in France, the Palestinian nation is humming along nicely, Lebanon has a president who's not in the back pocket of Syria, Syria itself has a president who's last name isn't Asad and - oh why not - Saudi Arabia is even allowing women to vote.

People start saying that none of this would have happened if Bush had not invaded Iraq. Bush is called the 'Peace President' and gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Would he deserve it? What would be your reaction?

Poll being set up.

[Leo Caesius]

Apparently women will be voting in municipal elections by 2009. That doesn't make Saudi Arabia any less of an authoritarian state, but it is a small improvement. Unless we destroy Syria between now and then, I'm pretty sure that Asad will still remain in power.

Is Bush responsible for Freedom (TM) bursting forth in the Middle East? Yes and no. Lebanon didn't happen in a vacuum. All of these things have been in the works for years. Bush's actions may have sped them up - for which he deserves some credit - but you can bet he'll take more than he deserves.

I'm not convinced yet that Iraq will turn out to be the shining beacon of democracy and freedom that everyone is claiming it will be. As far as I'm concerned, things could go either way now. In either case, only time will tell.

Just as Bush was taking office, Bahrain became a constitutional monarchy and had its first ever elections. That was a huge step (even bigger in some ways than Iraq, at least as far as homegrown democracy is concerned). Asad was viewed by many as much more of a moderate than his father, and for good reasons - he is western educated, and was not groomed to rule the country like his older brother was.

In Turkey, a moderate Islamist took control, the first ever of its kind to hold power in Turkey. As strange as it may seem to Americans, this is a democratic victory of a different kind - and one that Bush will not lay claim for. On the other hand, in Iran, little progress has been made. Before Bush began his rule, all indications seemed to be that Iran was on the track to liberalization, but with the threat of war hanging over their heads they seem to have put that to the side.

So, in short, as far as I'm concerned, he can have it - but, as with most things, the extent to his involvement in many of these things is more spin than reality.

[Thande]

Frankly I think that angels could sing Bush's praises and the entire Arab world could declare him the Muslim equivalent of a saint, and some people would still think he's the Antichrist. For that matter, I think they still would even if he'd sat quietly in a corner for his first term and done nothing, or maybe even if he'd signed Kyoto and disbanded the US military. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric is identical now to how it was in 2000, as though nothing he's done (like invading Iraq, even :rolleyes: ) changes anything.

I'm not judging Bush one way or the other, and I'm sure there are other people in whose eyes he can do no wrong...but it worries me that people seem to have made up their minds and no amount of evidence one way or the other can change them.

[Grey Wolf]

Frankly I think that angels could sing Bush's praises and the entire Arab world could declare him the Muslim equivalent of a saint, and some people would still think he's the Antichrist. For that matter, I think they still would even if he'd sat quietly in a corner for his first term and done nothing, or maybe even if he'd signed Kyoto and disbanded the US military. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric is identical now to how it was in 2000, as though nothing he's done (like invading Iraq, even :rolleyes: ) changes anything.

Funny

But not serious surely ?

My initial views of Bush in 2000 were that he was as tedious sounding as Gore but at least he was someone different, and that the idea of having a younger son succeed to the presidency while the father was alive was a historical interest.

I had no feelings much about him then. Then he repudiated Kyoto which got me annoyed, but hey its America and we don't really trust you on the environment anyway

September 11th, he ran away. I didn't feel that Clinton would have run off to SAC and hid, Bush to me failed the test that day.

After that the US had great sympathy and despite my misgivings over carpet bombing and US special forces massacring Taliban prisoners with Dostum's thugs, in general I supported the Afghan war

But Iraq was just all made up. International law, the UN, most of the coalition of support, all of it was thrown away

It showed to me that Bush is a warmonger, that he believes in US hegemony, that he is thick and has a problem when he gets struck on an idea and can't see the other side of an argument. This will lead to more wars, more death, ,more destruction and more instability.

Grey Wolf

[DMA]

Well Dubya got re-elected so anything is possible I'd guess. :eek:

But he doesn't deserve such a prize when others are real peace makers

[Diamond]

September 11th, he ran away. I didn't feel that Clinton would have run off to SAC and hid, Bush to me failed the test that day.
Grey Wolf
When are people going to get it through their heads? :rolleyes:
If you honestly feel Bush 'ran away' on 9/11, it merely shows how little you know of procedures detailing the president's security in the event of wide-scale attack (which many at the time thought it might be). These protocols have been in place for DECADES. What is so fucking hard to comprehend about that?

(And no, I don't think Bush deserves a peace prize. :) )

[Leo Caesius]

But he doesn't deserve such a prize when others are real peace makers6079 Atwell D.! Yes, you!

We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Iraqi front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's much better.

Remember, War is Peace!

[DMA]

6079 Atwell D.! Yes, you!

We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Iraqi front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's much better.

Remember, War is Peace!


Sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984. :eek:


Actually I like Sun Tzu better...

In time of war, plan for peace;
In time of peace, plan for war.

You think Dubya could make any sence out of Sun Tzu? :rolleyes:

[Torqumada]

Sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984. :eek: :

Actually is is out of 1984. I remember that scene well.

Torqumada

[Grey Wolf]

When are people going to get it through their heads? :rolleyes:
If you honestly feel Bush 'ran away' on 9/11, it merely shows how little you know of procedures detailing the president's security in the event of wide-scale attack (which many at the time thought it might be). These protocols have been in place for DECADES. What is so fucking hard to comprehend about that?

(And no, I don't think Bush deserves a peace prize. :) )

He can make decisions, he can over-rule advisors. He was too thick, too scared and too green. He honestly believed that there were passenger aircraft airborne trying to ram Airforce One ????? How the fuck would they find it ! What do you think the fighter escort might do ? I mean, fucking DOH !

Grey Wolf

[DMA]

Actually is is out of 1984. I remember that scene well.

Torqumada


Yeah, I know. We actually had to study the novel too at school. Although I don't recall the Atwell, D. part... ;)

Anyways, being on the home front is probably the safest area if we take into consideration that US military forces are on the loose... :D

[Diamond]

He can make decisions, he can over-rule advisors. He was too thick, too scared and too green. He honestly believed that there were passenger aircraft airborne trying to ram Airforce One ????? How the fuck would they find it ! What do you think the fighter escort might do ? I mean, fucking DOH !

Grey Wolf
Oh Grey Wolf....

"He can make decisions, he can over-rule advisors"

Yes, he can. He chose not to. That's what advisors are for; to give advice.


"He was too thick, too scared, and too green."

So its stupid not to make yourself a target? And you're ridiculing him for being scared? Which of us would NOT be, especially considering he'd be a prime target? What is wrong with preserving the leader of one's nation?!? And too green. That is just an asinine comment, I'm sorry. As far as I know, ;) there have been no full-scale attacks on US soil in recent memory. How did the way he reacted differ from the way anyone else would've, considering no one's been in that position since FDR?


"He believed there were passenger aircraft airborne trying to ram Airforce One"

Again, how did anyone, Bush included, know for sure? No one fucking knew who was behind the attacks, or how highly placed they might/might not have intelligence. For all Bush and Co. knew, someone might very well have known where AF1 was going to be. What's the problem with 'better safe than sorry'? How did they know enemy fighters wouldn't be attacking AF1?

I just think you're so blinded by your irrational hatred of Bush and republicans in general that you refuse to see the plain and simple common sense in what Bush did that day. I don't know about you, but I don't want my elected leaders standing on the front porch of the White House like fucking Superman just so I can 'know my president is there'. In my opinion, if Bush had been so bull-headed that he demanded to return to Washington immediately, THAT would've been monumentally stupid.

[Paul Spring]

Frankly I think that angels could sing Bush's praises and the entire Arab world could declare him the Muslim equivalent of a saint, and some people would still think he's the Antichrist. For that matter, I think they still would even if he'd sat quietly in a corner for his first term and done nothing, or maybe even if he'd signed Kyoto and disbanded the US military. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric is identical now to how it was in 2000, as though nothing he's done (like invading Iraq, even ) changes anything.

Amen, Thande. I suspect that a lot of the people who really hate Bush would continue to hate him even if he personally saved the lives of 10,000 starving orphan children, regardless of what they claim. That's why there is simply no point in aguing with them. Now, someone who can actually make good arguments about actual policies, instead of just saying that Bush is an evil corporate fascist cowardly warmongering pig, that's a person that I can respect in a debate.

[Kit]

I think a lot of the anti-Bush rhetoric is not becuase people are actually motivated to hate him. I think they just don't see any reason to repect him. And that's mostly because they don't see him as particularly intelligent, certainly not bright enough to be the President of the US and leader of the free world.

He may be a nice guy, he may be moral, religious, charming and down-to-earth. But he comes across as someone whose intellectual capabilities are superficial at best. It's difficult to respect someone when they're unqualified in a major capacity for the job they're doing.

[Leo Caesius]

He may be a nice guy, he may be moral, religious, charming and down-to-earth. But he comes across as someone whose intellectual capabilities are superficial at best. It's difficult to respect someone when they're unqualified in a major capacity for the job they're doing.
Actually, I have the exact opposite impression of him. I think he's actually a bit more intelligent than he comes off (albeit easily tongue-tied) but not the chummy, down-to-earth individual he plays on TV. Every once and a while the facade falls and he says something so vicious that it's hard to imagine he's really as pleasant as he seems. He's certainly not as moral as he pretends to be.

Remember, he once got in trouble with the law for branding people with live pokers (as part of a fraternity stunt). Now, that may have been years ago, but there's still something of the frat boy swagger about him.

[Kit]

Have you read the Kitty Kelley book? You can get a really good impression of him from that. And overgrown frat-boy is something that definately comes across.

And I don't actually think him stupid. I just think him of entirely average intelligence, with a vicious streak, and not very good at public speaking. However, I also don't think what intelligence he does have is in any way geared towards abstract thought. Not something you want in someone who needs to understand and decide upon complex policy questions, create political strategy and international diplomatic affairs.

[NapoleonXIV]

Frankly I think that angels could sing Bush's praises and the entire Arab world could declare him the Muslim equivalent of a saint, and some people would still think he's the Antichrist. For that matter, I think they still would even if he'd sat quietly in a corner for his first term and done nothing, or maybe even if he'd signed Kyoto and disbanded the US military. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric is identical now to how it was in 2000, as though nothing he's done (like invading Iraq, even ) changes anything.

Amen, Thande. I suspect that a lot of the people who really hate Bush would continue to hate him even if he personally saved the lives of 10,000 starving orphan children, regardless of what they claim. That's why there is simply no point in aguing with them. Now, someone who can actually make good arguments about actual policies, instead of just saying that Bush is an evil corporate fascist cowardly warmongering pig, that's a person that I can respect in a debate.

Are there any arguments against anything Bush has done that you will accept? Because I've never seen you accept any.

He's not corporate in my opinion and all orthodox republicans have been 'friendly fascists" since Reagan but so have lots of Dems. He's not cowardly by any standard.

He is evil, but most people in that office are and you want them to be. As long as you feel they're on your side.

That's my main problem with him. To him we're all lower orders, hoi polloi that need to have religion shoved down our throats and trumped up foreign enemies to keep us in our place. He and his friends have to rob us blind or we might someday be able to get by without working 24/7 and have a thought they didn't approve of and what might happen then? The fake folksiness and "mistakes" in grammar etc. just makes it even more obvious and insults my intelligence, how can you stand it?

[Romulus Augustulus]

There should be a new rule: if you kill more than 10,000 people, you're disqualified.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Actually I like Sun Tzu better...

In time of war, plan for peace;
In time of peace, plan for war.
I thought that was Emperor Vegetius of Rome who said that.

Oh, and if we're talking a bit about the vicious streak in Bush, might I mention an incident on that fishing show he appeared briefly on (they talked about it on the Daily Show). Anyway, a one point in the proceedings, he took a fish he'd just caught, dropped it on the bottom of the boat, and let his dog have a go at it as it wriggled across the deck.

Now, I know this is a fish we're talking about, but that image always bothered me.

[DMA]

I thought that was Emperor Vegetius of Rome who said that.


I think you'll find a few people have made this observation.

In regards to Sun Tzu, it depends upon your translation. Mine's by James Clavell. On page 11 it states:

(1)In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. (2)It is a matter of life and death. A road either to safety or ruin. Hence it is a subject of enquiry which can on no account be neglected.

So I paraphrased Sun Tzu &, in doing so, I've quoted the Roman inadvertently.

[MerryPrankster]

Vicious streak? Okay, the fraternity business was stupid and ridiculous, but I doubt he's graduated from stupid hazing stuff to Abu Ghraib.

[DMA]

Vicious streak? Okay, the fraternity business was stupid and ridiculous, but I doubt he's graduated from stupid hazing stuff to Abu Ghraib.


Well you know what they say about drugs - kids start with smoking cigarettes in the toilets & next they're onto heroin... ;)

[Romulus Augustulus]

Vegetius was a writer, not an emperor.

[ljofa]

Bush winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

To coin a phrase: "Welcome news to atheists enjoying this new proof to their theory"

[Thande]

This being the same God who wrote/dictated: "Fallen is Babylon the Great, in one hour her doom has come, the smoke from her goes up for ever and ever!"

[Count Dearborn]

If Georgie II where to win the Nobel Prize, it would be a sign that God did exist, and that we where the butt of a Huge Cosmic Joke.

[Paul Spring]

Are there any arguments against anything Bush has done that you will accept? Because I've never seen you accept any.

He's not corporate in my opinion and all orthodox republicans have been 'friendly fascists" since Reagan but so have lots of Dems. He's not cowardly by any standard.

He is evil, but most people in that office are and you want them to be. As long as you feel they're on your side.

That's my main problem with him. To him we're all lower orders, hoi polloi that need to have religion shoved down our throats and trumped up foreign enemies to keep us in our place. He and his friends have to rob us blind or we might someday be able to get by without working 24/7 and have a thought they didn't approve of and what might happen then? The fake folksiness and "mistakes" in grammar etc. just makes it even more obvious and insults my intelligence, how can you stand it?


For the record, there are plenty of things that Bush has done that I totally or partly disagree with. I don't have time right now to list them, but I'll try to later

[Hendryk]

You think Dubya could make any sence out of Sun Tzu? :rolleyes:
Well, I'd sure like him to ponder the following quotes:

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. (...)

Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue. (Chapter II: "Waging war")

The skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. (Chapter III: "Attack by Stratagem")

Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources of the State. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop down exhausted on the highways. As many as seven hundred thousand families will be impeded in their labor.
Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity.
One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his sovereign, no master of victory. (Chapter XIII: "The Use of Spies")

[DMA]

Well, I'd sure like him to ponder the following quotes:


Very good points Hendryk. Alas I don't think Dubya has ever read the book, let alone knows what the passages within it means.

Here's a few others:


The Moral Law causes people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger (Chapter 1 Laying Plans)

The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness (Chapter 1 Laying Plans)

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns (Chapter 2 Waging War)

[Aman Kishore]

Should bush get the nobel peace prize? The answer is no..but why you ask. When Bush was campaigning in 2000 he campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy but now has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by intimidation and anger. After September 11, Bush has decided that anyone that would not listen to us or was on our side was a threat, a threat that had to be smashed. For exmaple, Iraq..Someone that is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize would not have waged a preemptive war. He or she would have listened to the UN. The UN is a world orginization and that is what peace is about. Coming to the best solution for everybody. One cant just get up and do what they please ingnoring everything and everybody else. And besides the war looking at home. This President divides us from one another. He divides us by race – as he did when he claimed that the University of Michigan uses quotas in its law school admissions. He divides us by class by rewarding his campaign donors with enormous tax cuts while the rest of us are deprived of affordable health care, prescription drugs for our seniors, and good schools for our kids. He divides us by gender by seeking to restrict reproductive choice for women. He divides us by sexual orientation by appointing reactionary judges to the bench, and as he did in Texas by refusing to sign the Hate Crimes bill if it included gay or lesbian Americans as potential victims. It is all that and more that shows why Bush should not even be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize