Bush and blair nominated for Noble peace prize in 2004

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well... I nominate Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan to share it with them... Stalin and Tojo too... All six should share... wait... Idi Amin Dada should join in too...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: AEB
why genghis khan didnt do anything for peace....

When he got done there was peace.... no opposition... but, peace none-the-less..
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I nominate Yassar Arrafat No wait, he has one already.

And look how much Arafat has done for the peace process.
rolleye.gif
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
I find it ironic. yes. but anyone can be nominated by the nominating committee which is practically anyone with a PhD or a legislator from any country.
Nobel Peace Prize nomination FAQs

I could in theory nominate myself. But I haven't done anything to further world peace this past year. :)

Anyone else also find it ironic that a Bald Eagle from the National Zoo died on July 4th?
Bald Eagle Dies at National Zoo
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I nominate Yassar Arrafat No wait, he has one already.

And look how much Arafat has done for the peace process.
rolleye.gif

yes if only they could see the future through their crystal ball, damn thing doesnt work
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I nominate Yassar Arrafat No wait, he has one already.

And look how much Arafat has done for the peace process.
rolleye.gif

yes if only they could see the future through their crystal ball, damn thing doesnt work
No crystal ball needed, they have only to look at history.

 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
great i have another joke to add to my greatest jokes ever list.

ridiculous how people want to judge the committee for acts after someone has won the award. it's only supposed to be for actions done by that person/persons in the last year, it's not supposed to be a lifetime achievement award. arafat won it with rabin and someone else, unfortunately an israeli decided that this was too much and assassinated rabin.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: chowderhead
I find it ironic. yes. but anyone can be nominated by the nominating committee which is practically anyone with a PhD or a legislator from any country.
Nobel Peace Prize nomination FAQs

I could in theory nominate myself. But I haven't done anything to further world peace this past year. :)

Anyone else also find it ironic that a Bald Eagle from the National Zoo died on July 4th?
Bald Eagle Dies at National Zoo

The death comes shortly before the start of an independent review, conducted at the request of Congress, into recent animal deaths at the zoo.


A bald eagle died last year after becoming infected with the West Nile virus (news - web sites). Two red pandas that ate rat poison died in January and two zebras starved to death in January 2000. There has been at least a dozen other deaths including a lion, orangutan and elephant.

Very ironic
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I nominate Yassar Arrafat No wait, he has one already.

And look how much Arafat has done for the peace process.
rolleye.gif

yes if only they could see the future through their crystal ball, damn thing doesnt work

czar, why is arafat worth $250 million dollars? What financial ventures has he started that we don't know about?
 

dirtcheapII

Member
Jul 4, 2003
39
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well... I nominate Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan to share it with them... Stalin and Tojo too... All six should share... wait... Idi Amin Dada should join in too...

here I add one more to the list . Hitler
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,581
6,127
126
Arafat's winning of the award is the very reason that Bush shouldn't win, at this time anyway. Arafat was awarded prematurely, Bush has not done anything to further Peace yet, as far as we know. Carter was awarded it in the proper manner, long after he did his part and it successfully stood the test of time.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Arafat's winning of the award is the very reason that Bush shouldn't win, at this time anyway. Arafat was awarded prematurely, Bush has not done anything to further Peace yet, as far as we know. Carter was awarded it in the proper manner, long after he did his part and it successfully stood the test of time.

EXACTLY WHERE IS THERE MORE PEACE NOW THEN THERE WAS BEFORE AS A DIRECT EFFECT OF BUSH?!?! He has brought more strife than peace, he is the most hated man in iraq, I fail to see how this falls under the category of peace.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Arafat's winning of the award is the very reason that Bush shouldn't win, at this time anyway. Arafat was awarded prematurely, Bush has not done anything to further Peace yet, as far as we know. Carter was awarded it in the proper manner, long after he did his part and it successfully stood the test of time.

I agree, it is too early to tell if the removal of Saddam who was backing the Palestinian terrorists and the peace initiative that is slowly making progress will lead to a stable and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. We can only hope that the progress continues, there are many in that region which do not want it to succeed.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,581
6,127
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: sandorski
Arafat's winning of the award is the very reason that Bush shouldn't win, at this time anyway. Arafat was awarded prematurely, Bush has not done anything to further Peace yet, as far as we know. Carter was awarded it in the proper manner, long after he did his part and it successfully stood the test of time.

I agree, it is too early to tell if the removal of Saddam who was backing the Palestinian terrorists and the peace initiative that is slowly making progress will lead to a stable and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. We can only hope that the progress continues, there are many in that region which do not want it to succeed.

So we should just do it then, even if it leads to more planes in buildings or something else a year from now? We have no idea what the effect will be, the Peace deal in Israel hasn't been completed yet. Hell, fighting is still going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing *has* improved, the potential for improvement exists, but only time can tell if it materializes.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Dude, the removal of Saddam wasn't even a blip on the Palestinian terrorist radar . . . what a red herring. Furthermore, Bush delayed publishing the roadmap to accomodate Sharon's re-election. There's certainly no guarantee that a ceasefire would have come earlier (and it is reasonable to assume Arafat was going to be a persistent obstacle) but the delay certainly did not advance the cause of peace in the region. Arguably, Bush guaranteed a questionable peace advocate, Sharon, would remain part of a process that he's never endorsed in the past.

Shouldn't Blix get the prize instead of Bush/Blair? If not for inspections, Saddam would have dozens more missiles at his disposal and certainly his WMD capacity (whatever that may be) would have been at hand instead of hidden (assuming there's something there). Didn't Blix's actions support a quick coalition victory which spared the Iraqi civilians a protracted urban campaign?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, the removal of Saddam wasn't even a blip on the Palestinian terrorist radar . . . what a red herring. Furthermore, Bush delayed publishing the roadmap to accomodate Sharon's re-election. There's certainly no guarantee that a ceasefire would have come earlier (and it is reasonable to assume Arafat was going to be a persistent obstacle) but the delay certainly did not advance the cause of peace in the region. Arguably, Bush guaranteed a questionable peace advocate, Sharon, would remain part of a process that he's never endorsed in the past.

Shouldn't Blix get the prize instead of Bush/Blair? If not for inspections, Saddam would have dozens more missiles at his disposal and certainly his WMD capacity (whatever that may be) would have been at hand instead of hidden (assuming there's something there). Didn't Blix's actions support a quick coalition victory which spared the Iraqi civilians a protracted urban campaign?


Dude, read the news and get informed about the subject.


Palestinians mourn fall of their hero Saddam after flow of dollars for 'martyrs' dries up

"With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the flow of millions of dollars that the Iraqi leader sent to support the Palestinian intifada has abruptly ended...."

To Palestinians Saddam remains a hero

"BETHLEHEM: He may be facing his last desperate days in Baghdad, weakened, beleaguered and isolated as American and British forces close in, but Saddam Hussein remains as much a hero to Palestinians as he ever was.

They celebrated every Scud missile that streaked across the West Bank sky en route for Tel Aviv in 1991 and they long for a repeat performance.
...
It is among Palestinians that the embattled Iraqi leader still finds widespread support. Since the beginning of the Intifada in 2000, Saddam's popularity has further increased thanks to his donations to suicide bombers and people whose lives have been damaged by the violence. Unlike other nations, Saddam's representative give cheques directly to the people, as much as pounds sterling 15,000 for the family of a suicide bomber
..."

Palestinians, sheltered under Saddam, are outcasts again

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Nearly 80,000 Palestinians live in Iraq, and since Saddam Hussein's government fell, they feel as homeless as they did before they came.

The Palestinians came to Iraq in waves, fleeing the region's numerous wars, first in 1948, when the state of Israel was created, and again in 1967, 1973 and 1991. The vast majority settled in Baghdad.

Under Saddam, Palestinians got free or subsidized housing, causing widespread resentment. As the value of the Iraqi dinar plummeted in recent years, some of them paid only $1 a month to rent apartments.

Then Baghdad fell April 9, and looting, chaos and revenge filled the sprawling city's streets. Scores of property owners evicted their Palestinian tenants, often at gunpoint.

Now the Palestinians are refugees again, this time in Baghdad.

"In general, Palestinians loved Saddam Hussein," said Dr. Mohammed Qusay, the director of the Haifa Sports Club, a Palestinian center in Baghdad's al Baladiyyat neighborhood. A photograph of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hangs in his office, and the Palestinian and Iraqi flags fly over the makeshift tent.

"Hussein believed in liberating Palestinians from Israel, and he was the only Arab leader who supported the intifadah (uprising). Now everyone is worried about their future, and some Iraqis resent Palestinians because they think that we have not suffered like they did."
..."

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
So let me guess . . . the best way to certify truth is to take the pulse of "The Arab Street"?

Despite the fact Saddam was a despotic POS, don't you think it was decent of him to provide highly subsidized housing for Palestinian refugees in Iraq?

Furthermore, being admired by people living in refugee camps is akin to coming in last place at an Ugliness Pageant. Who do you expect Palestinians to admire . . . George W. Bush, the abject failure Arafat, oh how about Sharon . . . now there's a great humanitarian every Palestinian can look up to.
rolleye.gif


The keys to peace between Israel and Palestine are 1) committed leaders, 2) a legitimate Palestinian Security Force, and 3) a helpful world community. Saddam's support for Palestinian terrorists is a minor subplot compared to roles played by Syria and Iran.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let me guess . . . the best way to certify truth is to take the pulse of "The Arab Street"?

Despite the fact Saddam was a despotic POS, don't you think it was decent of him to provide highly subsidized housing for Palestinian refugees in Iraq?

Furthermore, being admired by people living in refugee camps is akin to coming in last place at an Ugliness Pageant. Who do you expect Palestinians to admire . . . George W. Bush, the abject failure Arafat, oh how about Sharon . . . now there's a great humanitarian every Palestinian can look up to.
rolleye.gif


The keys to peace between Israel and Palestine are 1) committed leaders, 2) a legitimate Palestinian Security Force, and 3) a helpful world community. Saddam's support for Palestinian terrorists is a minor subplot compared to roles played by Syria and Iran.


When you are discussing the opinions held by Palestinians than the "Arab Street" or the Palestinians is the correct place to get the information. Of course we could all just take your opinion as the truth and ignore the people and the reports from that area. I don't think I will though.

I see that you seem to think that the opinions of the people living in refugee camps are some how less than that of other people. That's rather discriminatory of you BBD.

You ignore a lot with your dismissal of Saddam and his support of the Palestinians and Palestinian terrorist groups.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I see that you seem to think that the opinions of the people living in refugee camps are some how less than that of other people. That's rather discriminatory of you BBD.
Did I discount their opinions or say their choices were inherently limited? Reading is fundamental . . . try it. Arafat's popularity rises dramatically every time Israel cracks down. Is that a reflection of genuine support or a lack of options?

You ignore a lot with your dismissal of Saddam and his support of the Palestinians and Palestinian terrorist groups.
I dismiss Saddam as a pre-eminent concern. He was not. The administration latched onto this idea b/c it was somewhat more credible than other administration arguments. If Saddam still ruled Iraq but Syria and Iran ended all sponsorship of groups in the Occupied Territories there would a significant and enduring lull in terrorist activity regardless of the status of the peace process. I ignore nothing but I choose to focus on the big picture and major players before cooking up the small fry.