[Swordmaster]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3449933.stm

Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for waging war on Saddam Hussein.

The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction. It had also laid the foundations for a democratic Iraq, said Jan Simonsen of the right-wing Party of Progress.

This is a bit dated already, but I'm surprised nobody has brought it up yet. There is a petition opposing the idea which has 100,000+ names already; what do you think?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, I agree with you, Swords, but comparing the lovebirds to Hitler and Stalin is too harsh, imo. The latter two tortured and killed millions, the former two just got people pissed off, among other more annoying things.

[Jake]

Argh. Swordmaster, I was hoping your post would open with "... says The Onion." Alas.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Well, I agree with you, Swords, but comparing the lovebirds to Hitler and Stalin is too harsh, imo. The latter two tortured and killed millions, the former two just got people pissed off, among other more annoying things.

Heh, you were too quick. I decided to remove that paragraph after reviewing the post. Although, I must add, the Western forces in Iraq did more than just piss people off...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

.

Yep, that's why I added "...among other more annoying things" in my post. Did you sign the petition, btw?

[DomStLeger]

I signed, though I wasn't impressed by the request to sign up for a bunch of environmental action groups e-letters, or to a Democrat party e-letter straight afterwards. I don't like the idea of signing something without knowing that the site has links to such groups, even if purely financial.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Did you sign the petition, btw?

Yes, I did. Nobel Prize is universally respected and I think it's strange to suggest nominees who are in such a controversial spot about the very things they are being nominated for. Perhaps in hindsight things will look different, but the issue is too current right now.

[Zygomaticus]

I don't know the real specifics of all this, but when a man like Gandhi can't win because certain British Prime Minister didn't want it to happen, then it can't be very presigious ala respectable.

That said, I have little respect for the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of its winners are extremely deserving, however, and my hat is off to them. I couldn't care less if anyone else won it.

And to this:

Andrew Burgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: "This is completely unbelievable. It shows the stupidity of this peace prize that it is given to people for starting wars rather than stopping them."

Bush thinks he's stopping a bigger, more threatening one. Oh as they say, sometimes you need fighting to stop fighting/bad things (WWII, American Civil War...). Gandhi-esque peacefulness worked against the British, but I doubt it'd work against certain spiteful people. Note that I don't think Bush was right in going to war. I don't think he was wrong either. No comment, otherwise.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

I signed, though I wasn't impressed by the request to sign up for a bunch of environmental action groups e-letters, or to a Democrat party e-letter straight afterwards. I don't like the idea of signing something without knowing that the site has links to such groups, even if purely financial.

Well, I don't know what exactly you expect. The type of people who would take the initiative to start (not just sign) such a petition are probably pretty strong-minded politically, and in the case of this particular petition it's fairly obvious that such people would also be more likely liberal, and if they're in the United States they're likely Democrats, since that's the biggest liberal party here. It's not as if they forced you to sign up for anything, they probably figure that many (not all) of the people who sign the petition have liberal leanings and so may be interested in such mailing lists.

[mag]

Originally posted by Intrepid Homoludens
Well, I agree with you, Swords, but comparing the lovebirds to Hitler and Stalin is too harsh, imo. The latter two tortured and killed millions, the former two just got people pissed off, among other more annoying things.

Well, playing devil's advocate for the moment (please don't flame me ), it seems that people are overly protective of the Hitler comparison. I didn't see the paragraph in reference, but it's been my experience that there are times when there is a legitimate historical comparison to be made, but people blow it off because "Hitler" has been turned into a cliche that's synonomous with "evil." I can understand the sensitivity in this matter, but it seems unfortunate that this area of history has been deemed off-limits for comparisons. I personally wouldn't put Bush or Blair anywhere near the same level as Hitler and Stalin. But I have seen their names raised in regards to this Nobel Peace Prize issue. I believe the point is not that Bush and Blair are just as bad, but rather that the fact that people like Hitler and Stalin can be nominated makes the nomination rather invalid.

Originally posted by Kode
That said, I have little respect for the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of its winners are extremely deserving, however, and my hat is off to them. I couldn't care less if anyone else won it.

I agree. Lots of really great people of gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. But so have a lot of incredibly evil people. As a measure of something's validity is its consistency over time, this in my mind kind of makes the Nobel Peace Prize irrelevant. It's a shame too because all that does is take away from those people who won the prize and actually deserved it.

mag

[Ninja Dodo]

Bush is more dangerous to world peace than Saddam ever was.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

Bush is more dangerous to world peace than Saddam ever was.

Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. Even if one considers it technically true, it's an oversimplification and isn't really a useful comparison.

But anyway, I think this whole business is a travesty and I don't mean to suggest that I think Bush and Blair deserve to be within a thousand miles of a Nobel Prize nomination for anything, much less peace.

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by remixor

Well, I don't know what exactly you expect. The type of people who would take the initiative to start (not just sign) such a petition are probably pretty strong-minded politically, and in the case of this particular petition it's fairly obvious that such people would also be more likely liberal, and if they're in the United States they're likely Democrats, since that's the biggest liberal party here. It's not as if they forced you to sign up for anything, they probably figure that many (not all) of the people who sign the petition have liberal leanings and so may be interested in such mailing lists.

I don't expect to have their wares peddled at me. Obviously those who started it have political affiliations, but I'd like to have known before I signed that they were also using the petition to push some newsletters and political causes. I would probably have signed even if I'd known, but it's the principal that they should tell you whose behind it and whose going to benefit or use it, or who is sponsering the site. I don't think thats unreasonable.

[mag]

Originally posted by Ninja Dodo
Bush is more dangerous to world peace than Saddam ever was.

Originally posted by remixor
Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. Even if one considers it technically true, it's an oversimplification and isn't really a useful comparison.

I have to agree with Ninja Dodo on this one. Not because of anything in particular Bush has done, but the President of the United States is always the most dangerous man in the world. Fortunately, most of the time we have a president who is responsible enough to not get us all killed, but the fact remains that the guy has enough firepower to destroy the world. Even if Hussein was the most ruthless person in the world, what was he gonna do about it? I mean...it's Iraq.

mag

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

.

Yep, that's why I added "...among other more annoying things" in my post. Did you sign the petition, btw?

You mean "annoying things" like the 8000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who were "collateral damage?" Yeah, I am sure their family members are definitely "annoyed..."

[Titan]

On the other hand, over the same amount of time Saddam probably would have killed more than 8000+ innocent civilians.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Titan

On the other hand, over the same amount of time Saddam probably would have killed more than 8000+ innocent civilians.

The war was a lie. The war was based on "bad" intelligence. The war was therefore unjustified based on the the very reason for it in the first place. For this reason alone Bush and Blair are not justified in acting with war in the name of peace.

The amount of innocent civillians that have been killed by Saddam since the first Gulf war is completely open to scrutiny. We are classed as innocent civillians based on our compliance with the rules of the system within which we live. Most of the people who disappeared and killed under Saddams system were guilty of breaking some law or rule within the society that he ruled. The same happens in many other countries around the globe, and yet I don't see the US looking to attack the likes of China, North Korea, Iran or any of the countries that may exist within his so-called Axis of Evil. Nobody is planning to invade Saudi Arabia to save all the thieves and pick-pockets who are going to get their hands cut off for their crimes. Nobody saved the young pickpockets in Victorian London who faced hanging for their crimes - only time, public opinion and a change of policy altered that situation. A Country has to modernize and humanize within itself. Sure, outside forces can offer help and advice and try to exert pressure in more peaceful ways but it is a very dangerous thing to interfere in a foreign culture, as the British and US have found out many times to their cost.

The deaths of innocent civillians can never be justified, and even more so in this age of precision weapons, and I think the most degrading and disrespectful description of these victims is calling them "Collateral Damage". That description alone dehumanizes them. And to offer a comparison of how many civillians were killed by Saddam compared to how many are being killed by the Coalition is just wrong. Civillians are still dying in large numbers in this war, many at the hands of their fellow Iraqis in a way that was not possible under Saddams tight rule. The Human Rights Watch organisation have themselves said that the situation of Human Rights violations within Iraq prior to the war were not bad enough to justify the war.

Bush never went to war over Saddams system and how he treated his citizens, he went to war over the apparent immediate threat that WMDs posed to the US and the "free world". It may be a war that had its intentions in creating a more peaceful world (which I don't really believe), but if it was then it has failed miserably.

A UK security survey of top government experts has within the last week determined that the supposed "War on Terror" has created a world that is in fact more dangerous for the UK citizen. Just how many Brits and other international citizens will become "Collateral Damage" as a result of the war cannot be determined, not to mention how many more INNOCENT Iraqis will yet.

The US and Britain have created a situation that they must now get under control. There is no turning back. But every person who dies now because of this war, their blood is on the hands of our "illustrious" leaders. Therefore I doubt there is much point in signing the petition as I doubt very much that they have a hope in hells chance of ever winning it. If they did however win it then I doubt that a petition would have prevented it. These awards are given within a closed community that none of us actually have any control over. Our only hope is that they will use their common sense of right and wrong.

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by mag

Lots of really great people of gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. But so have a lot of incredibly evil people. As a measure of something's validity is its consistency over time, this in my mind kind of makes the Nobel Peace Prize irrelevant. It's a shame too because all that does is take away from those people who won the prize and actually deserved it.

mag

Sigh...
I just lost the little respect I had for the Nobel Prize....
I used to say: "What is the world coming to if a soccer player is more important than a scientist?"
When I saw the headline of the thread, I was going to say: "What is the world coming to when Bush and Blair might win a Nobel Prize?"

Now I just say: "Meh! I just don't care anymore...."

[Curt]

Originally Posted by remixor

That's irrelevant to Titan's point.

You're welcome to your opinion. The fact that you've made your opinion in such an insulting manner as to call my posting "stuff" only serves to make you look arrogant. If you don't agree with me, say so by all means. Just don't insult me.

edit: the fact that you've deleted it doesn't excuse the fact that you posted it, btw. Too little, too late.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Curt

You're welcome to your opinion. The fact that you've made your opinion in such an insulting manner as to call my posting "stuff" only serves to make you look arrogant. If you don't agree with me, say so by all means. Just don't insult me.

edit: the fact that you've deleted it doesn't excuse the fact that you posted it, btw. Too little, too late.

Sorry, when I deleted my post nobody else had yet responded. It would have been pretty foolish of me to delete it knowing that you'd quoted it already. It wasn't in an attempt to excuse anything, though I didn't intend the result that occurred. I quite often replace people's quotes with words such as "stuff" and "etc." because it takes up less room. I was originally going to put "blah" but I didn't want it to sound insulting. I intended nothing more than to say exactly what I did: that your lengthy post was not really related to Titan's point. I stand by that.