If they win, then the image of the Nobel organization will go down. Many scientists will renounce the nobels they’ve already won and the prize will lose its value.
The Nobel Peace Prize is given out as recognition for a person’s dedication towards the progress of humanity and peace, not for starting an illegal war or dealing out random accusations in a crisis.
Originally posted by JFGemini107 I feel they deserve it. Saddam was a dictator that needed to be dealt with, and they caught him and are restoring peace to Iraq.
They are restoring peace through armed force. Do you see what is inherently wrong with your statement?
Also, your signature literally makes my eyes hurt and gives me a headache. Could you please refrain from the use of extremely bright colours?
Everything is becoming cheap. Television, the movies, the Oscars, even the Nobel Peace Prize.
…but do you have a full list of the nominees? Remember, they were only nominated, out of I don’t know how many others.
EDIT: Nevermind, the list isn’t finished. Whatever, the article said they had no chance of winning. The Peace Prize is just another popularity contest anyway.
Also, I wouldn’t worry too much, guys. It says that the same guy nominated Bush and Blair several years in a row. They did not win then. I’m pretty damned sure they won’t win now, especially since most of Europe is NOT pleased with the way these two monkeys are behaving.
Originally posted by BahamutXero I’m not saying you are right or wrong here but I want to ask this:
Who do you think should receive the Nobel Prize then?
“That, and I think Bush handled 9/11 a hell of a lot better than any Democrat would have.”
That’s a, uh, bad opinion. A Democratic response would have been the same thing. If anything, a Democrat would have handled the War on Terror and the war in Iraq with far more diplomatic finesse.