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?
Someone like this year’s winner, the Iranian woman that pushes for civil rights, which contrasts to Bush who oppresses civil rights.
Name some civil rights that have been oppressed.
In the last 48 hours I counted 118 deaths due to terrorist attacks on Iraqi, so to whoever thinks that Iraqi is in peace now I suggest a reality check.
Originally posted by Chris StarShade
Name some civil rights that have been oppressed.
How about the rights of those afeghanis living in Guantanamo? They live under torture, cannot get into contact with their families and didn’t have a fair judgement.
Jose Padilla.
The peace prize is just another popularity contest? Excuse me? Am I missing something here? oO
I don’t know what shocks me more in this thread, that Bush and Blair are nominated, that some people seem to fancy that or that others kick the value of the Nobel prize (a prize, certainly, is always as valuable as the thought behind it and the value you give it) and doubt it. I am, quite honestly, pretty speechless.
So sorry, but I do kick the value of the peace prize. Its a popularity contest where the judges are ultra-elite liberal Scandinavian intellectuals. Read the article - it even says that Bush and Blair don’t stand a good chance of winning the prize because ‘the war in Iraq wasnt popular among Norwegians’. Its just another thing people use to feel good and important about themselves.
Originally posted by Dragon Tear
(a prize, certainly, is always as valuable as the thought behind it and the value you give it)
And if it loses its value, it’s a sad thing.
… FUCK. Lemme put it this way: Giving anyone who WAGES WAR a frickin’ PEACE PRIZE is like giving a bank robber a reward for protecting peoples’ money. Or an AOL user a prize for use of good English.
When you consider that under “peaceful” American control, Iraq is suffering more civilian casualties per day than the average per day under Saddam Huusein’s control, it would seem that Saddam is the better choice for a Noble Peace Prize.
I don’t know how you could justify in any way giving a “Peace” Prize to a man who makes open accusations, declarations of war, and states public enemies. Nor could I understand giving a “Peace” prize to a man who has resorted to war tactics worse than the people he’s declaring a war against “terrorism” on. It’s just sickening that someone with the power to nominate peace prize recipients would nominate Bush and Blair.
It would be a complete travesty if they actually won it.
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.
You’d better watch out. Keeping your head up your ass like that could hurt after awhile.
I could NOMINATE Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize if I wanted to.
“That, and I think Bush handled 9/11 a hell of a lot better than any Democrat would have.”
I think John Kerry handled the Vietnam War a lot better than any member of the Bush administration.
“Name some civil rights that have been oppressed.”
I’ll play your fucking game.
[I tried to paste the PATRIOT Act here, but it was some 100,000 characters too long.]
Ah, yes … I hearing that once, in a recent speech, Dubya mentioned that the Patriot Act had almost expired – in a tone of voice which indicated that this was a Bad Thing – and everyone cheered.
I base my decision that Bush and/or Blair deserve their Nobel Peace Prize nominations on the reasons I gave before. I feel Bush handled 9/11 as best as he could and definitely better than Gore would have if he was elected. Hell, I’d bet he would still be sitting in a bunker after 9/11 going “What the hell do I do?”. Bush on the other hand took action. Many hate him for it, and I agree he’s a little trigger happy, but he definitely had good intentions.
I hate to burst your bubble, but all Bush really did about 9/11 was recite some pretty words written for him by his presidential writer.
If anything, one could say that Bush has dealt with 9/11 poorly, seeing as he has used it as a basis for starting an unjustified war. He’s using the image of 9/11 to make people feel bad enough to the point where they don’t care what the Gov. does, just as long as it’s in some remote way related to 9/11.
Again, I’m not saying I’m right or wrong here, I’m just expressing my opinion. We’re all biased in some way. Personally I just don’t trust democrats. I don’t think threre’s been a good one since JFK.
If Blair gets any award I think I will lose all faith in humanity. He merely followed Bush’s lead in the war, and ignored his own government’s concern over the accuracy of intelligence reports.
And now, Blair wants to bring in new legislation which will allow a trial behind closed doors, without a jury in certain cases. Surely that’s a breach of human rights. I thought everyone had the right to a fair trial.
Originally posted by Chris StarShade
Name some civil rights that have been oppressed.
Go read the “Patriot Act” and other related acts. The “Patriot Act” alone is something like 800 pages long, but surely you’re up to it. But since it looks like you’re not, I’d be glad to summarize some things that it and other acts allow:
Surveillance and wiretapping of any domestic political organizations. This is why antiwar activists have been put on “no-fly lists,” meaning that they’re not allowed to fly on airplanes for as long as they live. No one knows what one has to do to get on the list, and there’s no way to get off it.
Secret searches, phone surveillance, and Internet surveillance of individuals by police. Unlike with regular searches, the individual under surveillance does not have to be informed of it at any point in time.
Full criminal investigation of any American citizen without “probable cause.”
Imprisonment of any non-citizens for an indefinite length of time without conviction, judicial review, or even formal charges, based on a “suspicion.”
Establishment of secret trials headed by military commissions that are empowered to condemn a “detainee” to a secret execution based on hearsay and secret evidence by a two-thirds vote.
Imprisonment of American citizens in military custody for an indefinite length of time without formal charges or access to a lawyer, until Bush declares that “we’ve won the war on terrorism.”
In case you didn’t know, the civil rights curtailed by this are outlined in Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 14 to the Constitution.
Originally posted by BahamutXero
We’re all biased in some way.
I don’t buy this, and neither should anyone else. If you have an opinion, say it and back it up, with reason and facts. Right now you’ve basically accused Gore of cowardice with zero grounds whatsoever. That’s called “character assassination.” Now you’re trying to avoid being held accountable for it. That’s called “intellectual dishonesty.” If you really want to talk about Al Gore “sitting in a bunker” during a war, start with the fact that Gore enlisted in the Army in 1969 and went to Vietnam, while Bush went AWOL from his position back home in the National Guard (his Annual Officer Effectiveness Report states that he had not been observed at his unit from May of 1972 to April of 1973). You’re entitled to your own biases but you’re not entitled to avoid being taken to task when you assert absolute nonsense.
And as for Bush’s “good intentions,” his administration was planning a war with Iraq from the day Bush took office. The neoconservatives Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle had been agitating for one for several years by then. As Paul O’Neill relates, one of the first things they did, in the very beginning of Bush’s administration, was compile maps of Iraqi oilfields and lists of companies that they would consider for contracts after the war. (Since then, those documents have also been uncovered by a watchdog group.) They were dividing up Iraq six months before September 11th.
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.
“Bringing peace to Iraq?” <i>Bringing peace to Iraq?</i> Since the war began, we’ve lost 527 troops, and the vast majority of those losses (387) occurred <i>after</i> the war. Hell, just <i>yesterday</i> there was a huge bombing in the Iraqi city of Arbil where around 70 people were killed. January was in fact the second-deadliest month for us since the “end” or the war (November was the first). Do you not know about this, or is this just the kind of thing you call “peace”?
What about the other measures that are being taken, that don’t result in any American fatalities and thus don’t get bandied about on the news as much? What about surrounding Iraqi towns with barbed wire? What about prohibiting freedom of the press? What about rounding up people in the middle of the night and leading them off to secret detentions with bags on their heads? Not so long ago, there was an incident in Basra where a bunch of British soldiers rounded up some young Iraqi men, put bags over their heads, and then beat and kicked them until one of them died. (They’re now offering the family $8000 to shut up about it.) That’s what occupation is. That’s what happens when a bunch of people are dropped into the middle of a culture and setting they know absolutely nothing about, and then are told to “build a democracy” by a bunch of hypocritical chickenhawks and war profiteers who have never served a day of their lives in the military. And that’s what you call “bringing peace to Iraq”? Or maybe that’s all Saddam Hussein’s fault too, because he “needed to be dealt with”? Why, pray tell? Because he had no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no biological weapons, no Scud missiles, no anthrax, not even an air force to speak of, and posed no threat to us whatsoever? His “weapons-related program activities” that Bush talked about boiled down to a bunch of doodles of missiles on a piece of notebook paper that some Iraqi scientist had. That was a good reason for us to waste 527 American lives and force our troops to fight a war of aggression against a country that was incapable of doing us any harm?
Bush and Blair being given the Nobel Peace Prize would be the biggest error in award giving since Judas Iscariot won the AD 33 “Most Loyal Disciple” competition.
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Or maybe that’s all Saddam Hussein’s fault too, because he “needed to be dealt with”? Why, pray tell? Because he had no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no biological weapons, no Scud missiles, no anthrax, not even an air force to speak of, and posed no threat to us whatsoever?
Maybe he was behind on his payments for all the WMDs Reagan’s cronies sold him in the 80’s? He wasn’t paying the protection money, so we sent our goons over to bust up his shop?
SK: You’re absolutely right. I did bash Gore a little too harshly. Excuse me for sleeping through history class, but I’m not going to do research on somebody I dont’ care about in my spare time. I’m no fortune teller either. I’m just saying that from what I seen of Gore, he doesn’t seem too bright.