Do Bush and Blair deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
 

I saw on the Factor tonight that they have been nominated. I favored the action taken in Iraq but there does seem to be some irony that waging war is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I mentioned this in another thread but did not title the topic correctly. Let me hear your opinion.

definately man bush will be revered as one of the greatest presidents in the united states history.

I can't believe that we actually agree on something for a change :thumbsup

Low point in Nobel Prize nomination history if this is true.

kissinger got his for extending the vietnam war ... so, why not ?

further nominations are:
- saddam hussein (war wouldn´t have started without him)
- jaques chirac (for nuclear shippents into iraq)
- israel (for keeping the middle east stable)
- SARS (some extra pressure for our chinese friends)

- War is peace.
- Freedom is slavery.
- Ignorance is strength.
Let's all bow down to Big Brother.


George Bush Channels George Orwell

By Daniel Kurtzman, AlterNet
July 30, 2002

Here's a question for constitutional scholars: Can a sitting president be charged with plagiarism?

As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell. The work in question is 1984, the prophetic novel about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda, cracking down on subversive thought and altering history to suit its needs. It was intended to be read as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism ? not a how-to manual.

Granted, we're a long way from resembling the kind of authoritarian state Orwell depicted, but some of the similarities are starting to get a bit eerie.

Permanent War

In 1984, the state remained perpetually at war against a vague and ever- changing enemy. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices.

Bush's war against terrorism has become almost as amorphous. Although we are told the president's resolve is steady and the mission clear, we seem to know less and less about the enemy we are fighting. What began as a war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda quickly morphed into a war against Afghanistan, followed by dire warnings about an "Axis of Evil," the targeting of terrorists in some 50 to 60 countries, and now the beginnings of a major campaign against Iraq. Exactly what will constitute success in this war remains unclear, but the one thing the Bush administration has made certain is that the war will continue "indefinitely."

Ministry Of Truth

Serving as the propaganda arm of the ruling party in 1984, the Ministry of Truth not only spread lies to suit its strategic goals, but constantly rewrote and falsified history. It is a practice that has become increasingly commonplace in the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely sanitized to remove the president's gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. 11 get spottier with each retelling, and the facts surrounding Bush's past financial dealings are subject to continual revision.

The Bush administration has been surprisingly up front about its intentions of propagating falsehoods. In February, for example, the Pentagon announced a plan to create an Office of Strategic Influence to provide false news and information abroad to help manipulate public opinion and further its military objectives. Following a public outcry, the Pentagon said it would close the office ? news that would have sounded more convincing had it not come from a place that just announced it was planning to spread misinformation.

Infallible Leader

An omnipresent and all-powerful leader, Big Brother commanded the total, unquestioning support of the people. He was both adored and feared, and no one dared speak out against him, lest they be met by the wrath of the state.

President Bush may not be as menacing a figure, but he has hardly concealed his desire for greater powers. Never mind that he has mentioned ? on no fewer than three occasions ? how much easier things would be if he were dictator. By abandoning many of the checks and balances established in the Constitution to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, Bush has already achieved the greatest expansion of executive powers since Nixon. His approval ratings remain remarkably high, and his minions have worked hard to cultivate an image of infallibility. Nowhere was that more apparent than during a recent commencement address Bush gave at Ohio State, where students were threatened with arrest and expulsion if they protested the speech. They were ordered to give him a "thunderous ovation," and they did.

Big Brother Is Watching

The ever-watchful eye of Big Brother kept constant tabs on the citizens of Orwell's totalitarian state, using two-way telescreens to monitor people's every move while simultaneously broadcasting party propaganda.

While that technology may not have arrived yet, public video surveillance has become all the rage in law enforcement, with cameras being deployed everywhere from sporting events to public beaches. The Bush administration has also announced plans to recruit millions of Americans to form a corps of citizen spies who will serve as "extra eyes and ears for law enforcement," reporting any suspicious activity as part of a program dubbed Operation TIPS ? Terrorism Information and Prevention System.

And thanks to the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has sweeping new powers to monitor phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records. Best of all, law enforcement need not be burdened any longer with such inconveniences as probable cause.

Thought Police

Charged with eradicating dissent and ferreting out resistance, the ever- present Thought Police described in "1984" carefully monitored all unorthodox or potentially subversive thoughts. The Bush administration is not prosecuting thought crime yet, but members have been quick to question the patriotism of anyone who dares criticize their handling of the war on terrorism or homeland defense. Take, for example, the way Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha answered critics of his anti-terrorism measures, saying that opponents of the administration "only aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies."

Even more ominous was the stern warning White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer sent to Americans after Bill Maher, host of the now defunct "Politically Incorrect," called past U.S. military actions "cowardly." Said Fleischer, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

What would it take to turn America into the kind of society that Orwell warned about, a society that envisions war as peace, freedom as slavery and ignorance as strength? Would it happen overnight, or would it involve a gradual erosion of freedoms with the people's consent?

Because we are a nation at war ? as we are constantly reminded ? most Americans say they are willing to sacrifice many of our freedoms in return for the promise of greater security. We have been asked to put our blind faith in government and most of us have done so with patriotic fervor. But when the government abuses that trust and begins to stamp out the freedom of dissent that is the hallmark of a democratic society, can there be any turning back?

So powerful was the state's control over people's minds in 1984 that, eventually, everyone came to love Big Brother. Perhaps in time we all will, too.

Daniel Kurtzman is a San Francisco writer and former Washington political correspondent.

Guess who was nominated in 1938. :winkwink:

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

nice joke...

-> a. hitler

btw: ghandi was nominated in 1938 too

Agreed.

Cheers,
Matt

the bone has spoken correctly

That's worse than last year's Oscar nominations.

yea, if while still on stage, bush gets assassinated.

As much as I agree that they shouldn't have been nominated, I believe the low point in nominations still would be Hitler...

Point is that nominations are open to a very diverse group of people:

Members of national assemblies and governments; members of international courts of law,;university chancellors; university professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; former Nobel Peace Prize laureates; board members of organisations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; committee members must present their nomination at the latest at the first committee meeting after February 1); former advisers at the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

In other words, it is almost inconceivable for a head of state to not be nominated if they want to, and unless you're an "ordinary person" with no strong affiliations to anyone in any of the above types of positions behing nominated means absolutely nothing.

"A Nation who sacrifices Freedom for Security deserves neither"

-- Abraham Lincoln

Woh how Republicans have changed.

Compare some of the people who HAVE gotten the Nobel Peace Prize and look over Bush.

He doesnt add up, he has no accomplishments.

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/index.html

1964 Martin Luther King
1979 Mother Teresa
1985 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1988 United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
2002 Jimmy Carter

Id like to take this time to quote Jimmy Carter.

"Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to the individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

I agree with your assessment and I seriously doubt that either will win a Nobel Peace Prize. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would have nominated them.

If they win the peace prize, I should win the chemistry nobel for making a perfect gin&tonic.

...or the literature one from my posts @ gfy.

hit me with your email fletch @ fletchxxx dot com ill get that mp3 to you when i get it ;)

I thought Ben Franklin said that.

This is equivalant to Anna Nicole Smith being nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics

You're kidding me! There's no way you can get Peace prize for waging war, despite the ultimate goal being 'peace in the world' - which we will likely not have for quite some time with all the Osamas and lil Saddams hatching right now in a refugee camp near you!

Jimmy Carter...........sheeesh !!! :321GFY

Lousy president; awesome person.

Good quote.

It may be a good quote...but what percentage of people that are busted are busted when using MJ in "private and for personal use"?

I have couple of humor sites. Might use this as the joke of the day .......

*ahem*

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." - Ben Franklin

No offense, but Abe Lincoln though very cool, was no Ben Franklin. :thumbsup

Do Bush and Blair deserve the Nobel Peace Prize ?
ABSOLUTELY NO!

Gorbachev won it for being an overthrown dictator. Yasser Arafat won it for talking about possibly doing something to bring peace with Israel which hasn't happened. The Nobel peace prize is a joke.