Bush for Nobel Peace Prize?

Ahem, not for Iraq, or Afghanistan, but for Northern Ireland?? I’m afraid we’ve already got two of those already (three if you include the literary one for famous Seamus) and we still haven’t got a deal. Enough said.

  • James

    Ya sure you couldn’t wave that red flag a little more vigorously, Mick?

  • peteb

    If Tom Lehrer hadn’t already given up on political satire, he would now.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Oh dear…

    The author is basically saying that for his own self-interest, Bush should cash in on a well-developed peace process. What a principled writer(!)

    Bush could play a useful role, but not for a feckin’ peace prize. He could be the ‘Unionist Clinton’!

    Aside from that, the author doesn’t seem very well informed. Maybe it’s a humorous article. It’s so hard to tell with some bad journalists.

  • murphii4word

    With the blood of a hundred thousand Iraqis on his hands the only prize he’ll get is butcher of the year.

    Bob Murphy New jersey

  • Keith M

    Bush was nominated this year for the liberation of Afghanistan, but was disgracely overlooked in favour of some unheard of African female gardener. Given the embarrassment of the previous longterm ineffectivness of winners from Northern Ireland (not only Hume/Trimble but also the Williams/Corrigan) a Nobel Prize is a bit of a poison chalice. I’m sure Dr.Paisley would prefer a place in the House of Lords at any rate!

  • Neal

    Bush was nominated this year for the liberation of Afghanistan, but was disgracely [sic] overlooked

    Wonder how the people of Afghanistan would vote? Aside from that, the idea of W being selected seems rather, well, contradictory, does it not?

  • 6countyprod

    Sean Connery once had a line in a movie which said: Sometimes true peace can only be found on the other side of war. In the case of tyrants like Saddam, there is a certain truth to Connery’s words.

    Now that Iraq, like Afghanistan, is making slow, but steady progress towards freedom and democracy, and, hopefully, lasting peace, is it not time to consider nominating George W Bush for the Nobel Peace prize? After all, without him, millions would still be under the jackboot of a bloodthirsty dictator.

  • Alan McDonald

    6cp,

    A few years ago, I went to a luncheon here in the US where John Hume was the speaker. Most of the audience was very impressed, except one (who happened to be an Irish Republican) who said that Gerry Adams should have gotten the Nobel Peace prize instead of Hume and Trimble. I think that person would agree with your Sean Connery quote.

    Personally, I always thought that the blessed peacemakers were the ones that avoided war, not those who waged war and then stopped when they figured they had won all they could get.

  • maca

    6pc
    “is it not time to consider nominating George W Bush for the Nobel Peace prize?”

    The word “peace” doesn’t belong in the same sentence as Bush. I thought the peace prize was worth something, it would be worthless if it was given to Bush.

  • 6countyprod

    The appeasement of murderous dictators never brings peace.

    A peacemaker is not someone who sits back and tolerates the wholesale slaughter of the innocent, like most liberals were willing to do with Saddam. A peacemaker is someone who is willing to do what it takes to relieve the suffering of others.

    If western liberals had had their way, Saddam would still be in a position to continue his carnage against the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq. Estimates vary widely, but conservatively speaking, between 1991-2003, at least 300,000 were massacred by Saddam. That’s an average of 2,000 people a month.

    Where’s the peace in that?

  • Alan McDonald

    I’m not sure how the Nobel Committee determine the timing for the award of a peace prize. Do they wait until the wife beater has stopped beating his wife, or do they accept the promise that he’ll stop real soon now?

  • 6countyprod

    And, hearty congratulations to the Iraqi people who have had the courage to come out in their millions to grab the opportunity for peace and freedom which the US-led coalition has presented them with.

  • 6countyprod

    And, shame on all those liberals who would love Iraq to descend into civil war just to spite George Bush and Tony Blair.

  • foreign correspondent

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  • ch in dallas

    6countyprod,

    I’m afraid you’re wasteing your breath with this lot. They can’t see beyond thier ideological blinders that peace is the absence of violence, not of war. Their idea of “peace” is mass graves from the dictator of Iraq, genocide in Rwanda, and old women whipped in the streets of Kabul. Chamberlain was a “peace-maker” by selling out the Czecks. In our time they were stangely silent over bombing Bosnia because a liberal Clinton was doing it. They also go to do homage before Castro.

    So, they are not “peace-makers”, they are simply against Bush, and don’t care how many millions must die to make their political point.

  • foreign correspondent

    ´´peace is the absence of violence, not of war.´´
    What the hell does that mean?
    Some of the left do support Castro´s dictatorship or at least ambivalent, that is true. They are wrong to do so. And the left should have protested more at Clinton´s bellicose actions.
    None of that justifies the Iraq war in the slightest. It stank to high heaven from the start and still does.
    If Bush ever gets any kind of peace prize then the world will have gone truly mad.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Their idea of “peace” is mass graves from the dictator of Iraq

    I think a lot of people believe that peaceful people do not fund or arm such dictators, in the way that the USA did through the 1980s. Hussein was an evil man, and he was an ally of the US. Or do you believe that Rumsfeld had no idea exactly what Hussein was about when that infamous picture was taken ?

    So, they are not “peace-makers”, they are simply against Bush, and don’t care how many millions must die to make their political point.

    Iraq is now a far more dangerous and unstable place than it was prior to SH’s removal, and when the Americans pull out following their imminent defeat at the hands of the insurgents, it’s going to get worse. You may labour under the impression that you’ve successfully bombed the place into being a Jeffersonian republic (the British tried that in the 1950s – it didn’t work then either), but the truth is that the people who are behind the present insurgency are going to cause us very serious problems in the not-too-distant future.

  • Comrade Stalin

    By the way Clinton supported the Iraq war and moved quickly to back Bush whenever the whole thing started off. The Democrats in general, Kerry in particular, took a long time to object to it. Had the Democrats won in 2000, I’m sure an Iraq invasion may have at least been a discussion topic during the course of that administration.

    This isn’t about pro-Bush or anti-Bush. It’s just a discussion about whether the invasion of Iraq war wrong or not. At the minute the predictions of those who opposed it – that there were no WMD, that the country would become more unstable if invaded, that a war would quickly end up looking like Vietnam – all appear to be coming true.

  • ch in dallas

    Comrade Stalin says: “This isn’t about pro-Bush or anti-Bush. It’s just a discussion about whether the invasion of Iraq war wrong or not.”

    I agree that a discussion of whether the invasion was right or not is appropriate. My point was that most people that oppose it b/c they are “peaceful” are being disingenuous at best. They oppose it in order to oppose American hegemony, IMHO.

    Also, I wouldn’t want the President to receive a so called “peace prize” once given to the terrorist Arafat.

    Also, I do think Iraq is stablizing, as seen by the Constitutional election held today.

    FC, ´´peace is the absence of violence, not of war.´´
    What the hell does that mean?
    Just what it says. Say a woman is being beaten in the street outside your house. Do you help her using violence (war) if necessary, or do you shrug your shoulders and say you’re a pacifist and she’s on her own. I must say, from my point of view, all of this so called pacifism being thrown about is simply cowardice, pure and simple.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Alan MacDonald: “Personally, I always thought that the blessed peacemakers were the ones that avoided war, not those who waged war and then stopped when they figured they had won all they could get.”

    What, you mean like Neville Chamberlin? Peace is not the absence of war. A whole lot more “peace” could have been achieved if Neville had the stones to back the Czechs and their fortified, mountainous border, rather than making a deal in the name of peace, dismantling the Czech’s defensible border, thereby guaranteeing another territorial demand on the part of the Third Reich.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Alan McDonald: “I’m not sure how the Nobel Committee determine the timing for the award of a peace prize. Do they wait until the wife beater has stopped beating his wife, or do they accept the promise that he’ll stop real soon now?”

    I’d tell ya to ask Yasser Arafat, since the crufty old bastard had one, but he’s gone on.

  • ch in dallas

    Dread, Amen to that.

  • maca

    6pc
    “A peacemaker is someone who is willing to do what it takes to relieve the suffering of others.”

    And this does not define George Bush. His one and only aim is to defend American interests NOT to relieve the suffering of others. Why did so many die in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Liberia? Where were the peacemakers there? Standing back watching.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Maca: “And this does not define George Bush. His one and only aim is to defend American interests NOT to relieve the suffering of others. Why did so many die in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Liberia? Where were the peacemakers there? Standing back watching.”

    Most of this is either partially or wholly under the other fella’s watch — y’know, the lip-biting “feelin’ your pain” git who was as useful as teats on a boar hog. Breaking down to cases, initially, Yugoslavia was going to be a European, not NATO effort, iirc, with the EU foreign minister, some hoary old gent nicknamed the “Lion of Luxembourg” prattling on about how this would be Europe solving a European problem. Rwanda was sold down the river by the UN — everyone saw it coming and the bureaucrats didn’t want to get involved — mayhaps the African leadership of the UN didn’t wish to embaress their peers. Zimbabwe has plenty of cover from their African freres, the result of misplaced respect for the “great anti-colonial warrior” Mugabe. I’d worry more about South Africa right now, which seems to be toddling down Zimbabwe’s path (What’s the new saw — what’s the difference between South Africa and Zimbabwe?? about 5 years). We are, hopefully, far enough on the front edge to do something about it. Liberia and the Sudan have almost always been basketcases in recent years — to throw on Bush’s tab is overly convenient, as a minimum.

    Allow me to ask this, Maca — does the United States always have to pick up after Europe? With the exception of Liberia, a creation of the US, all the other places are former European colonies or actually in Europe. Why can’t Europe follow the French example and try and tidy up their own affairs? How many more times should the US intervene to correct the legacy of European colonialism and European diplomacy, such as the welding of several small states into a greater whole, as is the case of Yugoslavia?

  • maca

    DC
    “does the United States always have to pick up after Europe?”

    No. Why should it? Europe should be able to take care of her own problems.
    My point is simply that I don’t believe much of this “relieve the suffering of others” bullshit. The US always acts in her own interests and Europe doesn’t have the balls or even competence to sort out it’s own problems.

  • ch in dallas

    Maca writes: “No. Why should it? Europe should be able to take care of her own problems.
    My point is simply that I don’t believe much of this “relieve the suffering of others” bullshit. The US always acts in her own interests and Europe doesn’t have the balls or even competence to sort out it’s own problems.”

    I actually agree with all of this. I want the U.S. President to commit our armed forces only to further American interests and only after our Constitutional processes have taken place. It seems like liberals here only back US involvement overseas when national interests are not at stake, e.g. Yugoslavia. The E.U. should have been able to take care of Yugo. themselves, but alas, they haven’t spent anything much on defense for 50 years, and haven’t the leadership (since Thatcher).

  • Dread Cthulhu

    DC
    “does the United States always have to pick up after Europe?”

    Maca: “No. Why should it? Europe should be able to take care of her own problems.
    My point is simply that I don’t believe much of this “relieve the suffering of others” bullshit. The US always acts in her own interests and Europe doesn’t have the balls or even competence to sort out it’s own problems.”

    The US has a different problem. When they intervene in matters that touch upon their own interests, they are accused of hegemony and selfishness. Thus, the only intereventions that are laudatory are those to which there is no utility. Please tell me, what deep abiding US interest was there in Yugoslavia? US ultimately had to intervene, due to EU incompetence and unwillingness to address the problem once they had claimed jurisdiction over it. Do you honestly believe that the EU would have been able to sort out Yugoslavia without the US?

    The biggest problem is that, for most of the EU, military matters are not that important. NATO has allowed them to experiment deeply in soft socialistic welfare states. As a result, monies that could and should have gone to creating competant militaries went down the sump of welfare transfers. In economics, its called teh “free rider” problem or some such — structures for the common good are created and some members short or cease their contributions since, as it is for the common good, they receive the benefit without making the sacrifice. Britain maintains a decent army, France comes close. The Germans also do well, or at least did — but they are constitutionally forbidden from leaving Germany or some such. After that, quality in Western Europe tails off. Poland I know has a good warrior tradition, but I don’t know that much about the new Eastern European members.

    Bush comes a great deal closer to 6CP’s description of a peace-maker than his predecessors, back at least to Regean. The problem is that the left wing has a “negotiation at all cost” mentality, having missed the lessons of the Munich Pact and Neville Chamberlin. It is easy to create and maintain peace if you’re prepared for war. Unarmed pacifists, without the will or the means to defend themselves, usually are unable to negotiate peace.