It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Bush should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Sorry. A guy who *starts* two wars, one against a country that had nothing to do with our so-called "reason" for fighting, does not merit the Nobel Prize for peace.

Bush has not made the world safer from terrorists. Well, maybe he did, actually. See, before Bush started his illegal wars, terrorists targeted many Western countries. They'd bomb England, or Israel, or Russia, etc. They weren't particularly selective. Anyone who was doing better than the terrorists was considered fair game.

But after years of bombing helpless, unarmed civilians, after endless disruptions of Iraq's infrastructure, after inflicting hardship on millions of Iraqi people who had nothing to do with terrorism, Bush created a whole new crop of terrorists. These were ordinary people, trying to live their lives, who suffered catastrophic losses as a result of our "War on Terror". You can't bomb a concept. There is no war on terror, it's a war on people.

So you've got these people who lost family, friends, loved ones, and now have little to live for. They are furious with the US for causing their grief, and willing to die in order to strike back. So they do. There are 1.5 billion Muslims out there. You'll never run out of Muslims. The worse you treat them, the more terrorists you'll create.

The rest of the world can thank the US that now, most of the terrorists are focused exclusively on the US. The rest of the world is safer, because Bush made sure Muslims specifically hated the US.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well wouldn't you agree that going to war with a dictator and murderer like Hitler would be a move toward peace? That is much more for peace and justice than to let him indiscriminately kill millions of innocent jews.


Oh, that hurts. You hit the libs between the eyes with that truth.
It's always appease.....appease.....appease the bad guy.
Europe wants Obama to appease Iran. Don't bomb it.
Even NBC is laughing at the Obama Nobel Prize.

Thanks to George W. Bush there will be no more SCUDS raining
down on Israel from IRAQ.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The only day W Bush would get the peace prize is Opposite Day! Bush accomplished nothing but war and fear mongering and polluting America almost to the point of not being able to recover and also taking away regulations that have been in place for decades that have allowed America to become the devastated and almost bankrupt country that it is today.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Yep he should of gotten one, for murdering anyone he wanted, or torturing anyone he wanted, anywhere in the world, just because that person thinks about how bad america is.

Yep bush deserved one just as much as obama, as obama has not changed americas policy one bit.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Dude, the Nobel Peace Prize is only awarded to third world dictators, terrorists, and Liberal/Socialist poster boys nowadays.

GWB could have cured cancer and the world, especially the Liberals, would have complained that he put millions in the Oncology field out of work.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


'.. or torturing anyone he wanted, anywhere in the world,..'



You are aware Bill Clinton authorized the rendition program aren't you?

But, ummm,.. yeah, it was Bush's idea.. yep.

*drinks Kool Aid*



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
This is a troll right? Actually that is blatantly obvious come to think of it. How about we give the prize to some gangsta rapper, or the taliban for that matter. There's a few crackheads down the street, they ought to make perfect candidates.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


'.. or torturing anyone he wanted, anywhere in the world,..'



You are aware Bill Clinton authorized the rendition program aren't you?

But, ummm,.. yeah, it was Bush's idea.. yep.

*drinks Kool Aid*


Bush brought it to new levels. You just do nothing, but have the occasional thought of how bad america is, and they can torture you, or kill you.

I do not know about clinton, but boy bush really drove your country down. Obama has not changed his policies one bit. I doubt clinton started it either, america probably always has been doing thsi to people all over the world.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I am sorta glad about one thing of George Jr's presidencie.
He did take a lot of vacations.Thinking about how much worse it might have been had he really been in charge and on the job,YIKES!
Someone ought to give him a meddle.A metal?No it is medal.Muddle?Whatever it is,he sure earned one.Or two.May he be the last Bush ever to be within a thousand yards of that Office.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by trueforger]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


So basically you are saying since George has got more blood on his hands, he should get the prize?

No I disagree, let's see what George did at home shall we?

--Allowed the torture of so called "enemy combatants" in US institutions overseas.

--Spied on his own people, illegaly I might add, in order to "combat" domestic terrorism.

--Completely destroyed the economy by refusing to actually sit down and read the issues at hand and do anything but spend more money on the war.

--Dissolved the Iraqi army in the days following the invasion. This lead to millions of people without jobs to feed their families, who in turn joined the insurgency that he "quelled".

--Has the blood of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civillians.

--Black Water Scandals

--Oil For Food Scandal

--Mission Accomplished Speech

Ok, so that last one was just a shot at him I will admit. But people who receive the prize should be receiving it for having done something positive, that didn't direcly cause the death of thousands of people and the dissolving of a constitution and the systematic destruction of foreign relations for corporate profit.

~Keeper


1. There is proof that water boarding thwarted several terrorist attacks. It might be immoral, but at least he valued the safety of his citizens over "so called enemy combatants."

2. Apparently you've never heard of the mid-Atlantic drop? The British have been spying on us forever, and we've been spying on the British. They meet in international waters, and trade information. This is not illegal, and is still happening. However, since you don't know about it, you feel all warm and fuzzy.

3. A lot of assumptions on your part. You don't know what he did or didn't read.

4. We learned from WW2 whether you dissolve a military or not you will still have wolves that will have be to be dealt with. Plus it is common knowledge Hussein has trained his elite guard with insurgency tactics. He even warned of what would come once he was removed from power. His military was primarily Sunni in a country that is multi-ethic, you wouldn't enjoy being policed by an ethic group that believes your trash.

5. All wars kill Civilians. Jimmy Carter recently got a Nobel Peace Prize, and he failed miserably at handling everything while President.

6. Black Water is a company that should be held accountable for their actions.

7. Oil for Food started way before W. That was actually the UN, French, and Iraq. W didn't create oil for food, funny that you would attempt to link him to a UN created problem.

8. The Mission was accomplished at that point. Unfortunately we began nation building after the war, and we are still nation building. This is a total different Mission.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I cannot believe anyone could be so serious.

You have either been utterly brain washed by the mainstream media or you are joking.

Maybe if Bush had won he could have shared the prize with Bin Laden.
After all it was Bin Laden who allegedly was behind the 9/11 attacks which set off this whole war on terrorism.






posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Centurionx
This is a troll right? Actually that is blatantly obvious come to think of it. How about we give the prize to some gangsta rapper, or the taliban for that matter. There's a few crackheads down the street, they ought to make perfect candidates.


Yassir Arafat anyone??

They gave it to a lifelong terrorist.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Now you are going off on a tangent, my point is this: If you didn't open your mouth and blast Clinton for authorizing the program then you look like a massive hypocrite for complaining that Bush used the same program as his predecessor.

So, either blast them BOTH if you really feel that strongly about the program, or never complain about it again. it irks me that Liberals chide the rendition program when it was Clinton's baby.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I can't believe this thread. In a word, it is disgusting.

Was Obama deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe, but probably not. Was Bush the better candidate? Sure, if you believe Hitler should have received one as well.

Stupidity and irrationality on this level would be considered trolling by some, including me.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Actually Bush(along with Blair) was nominated for the nobel peace prize, in 2004 I believe? So how off is the OP's suggestion he should have won after all he was nominated so it could have happened.

With that in mind, I really hope that those who think this thread is a joke also think it is a joke that Obama was actually awarded the noble peace prize.

I am not defending Bush, or Obama. As I believe neither deserve the award. However, Bush did in fact remove a known dictator from power. So at least he did something, Obama on the other has yet to achieve anything.

And for those who say its not about what you have done but more about the vision. Bush's speeches included intentions of peace as do Obama's so there is no difference there really. (whether you disdlike bush or believed his words or not, the same can be said for Obama)



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Also Hitler should be given the Nobel prize, because after his time all became very calm for a long time.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
I sincerely hope you work for the US Government because this is either a joke or has dis info written all over it. I may have given Obama the (worthless) prize simply for NOT BEING BUSH!!!




[edit on 10-10-2009 by Pr0t0]


This is the mindset on why we have this fool in office. This is also why he won that award, though personally I think he was set to win it even before he was elected to elevate him further as a "great man" after all he is our messiah anyway. This comment is even funnier because even though he isn't George W, he really isn't different than him at all. Besides, why is it that when someone on here posts something that is against the ATS grain, he/she is labeled as a government employee or a disinfo agent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I kind of see the OP's point.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


It doesn't matter what accomplishments a president have done, Bush brought to wars to the middle east, that along took away his change for any peace accomplishments he had a change for.




new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join