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: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Lets bring back George W. Bush for a third term.
Sarah Palin could be his V.P.
Bush/Palin ticket!
Who cares about the Nobel Prize?
It's liberals handing our prizes to other liberals.
It's a joke. Now more than ever.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well, obama supports abortion, so I wonder how many people have died over the last 30+years of abortion and how many will continue to die once he passes "healthcare" with tax-dollar funded abortions.



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

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Lets bring back George W. Bush for a third term.
Sarah Palin could be his V.P.
Bush/Palin ticket!
Who cares about the Nobel Prize?
It's liberals handing our prizes to other liberals.
It's a joke. Now more than ever.


What? You mean when Carter then Gore got it, it has been tarnished?


It's about as unbiased as the Oscars.

"And this year, we're giving the Oscar for best director to a guy who hasn't made any movies yet, but we hope that he does, and we hope that they're good!"



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Bush angered the American public, and it's allies, and left us with a failing economy.

If the peace prize was in the form of a shoe, I would say it fits.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Please don't use out of context arguments to make a point. Hitler was not Saddam Hussein, not even close, and to compare the two is really funny.

I will agree that Saddam was a problem, but let me ask you a question.

Where was George durring the genocide in Rwanda? Why did he not, "remove" the dictators there?
~Keeper

Could it be there was no 'Oil"



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
BUT GEORGE BUSH DID NOT GET A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! After 8 long years of being overlooked by the pretentious nobel prize committee he was NOT chosen. Hm, wonder why? He's not too PEACEful



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Rwanda? Wasn't Bill Clintons watch?
92 - 2000?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The Bush Administration is the reason our country is in the state that it is in currently.

Do not forget this.

In my opinion the man deserves nothing but the contempt he has earned.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinesolis
The Bush Administration is the reason our country is in the state that it is in currently.

Do not forget this.

In my opinion the man deserves nothing but the contempt he has earned.


I have already forgotten it.

The Bush Administration kept us safe for 8 years.
Numerous terrorist attacks stopped. You just didn't hear about
them. The economy is getting worse because Obama
is just making it worse with his "solutions".
Cap & Trade - ObamaCare



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I have used this analogy many times in the past, but it still holds true.

Bush tried to put out a fire using a bucket of gasoline.

Obama is just using a bigger bucket.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Everyone here should receive the Nobel Prize.

None of us has done more horrific things than Jimmy Carter, Obama, Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, and Al Gore.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Sorry Liberals, but I have to interject a little "fact" for the purpose of education and to "deny ignorance".

The Iraq war was NOT illegal, period.

It's a fact that the first gulf war in 1991 was NOT ended by a peace treaty between Saddam's Iraq and the Untied States and NATO.

It was ended by a "Cease Fire Armistice". What's the difference you ask??

Under International law any party in said cease fire agreement is able to resume armed conflict if either party violates the terms of said cease fire agreement. Saddam violated them repeatedly.

The United States was full within her right to resume the conflict at the FIRST violation of the armistice. Don't let the DNC or the mainstream media fool you into believing it was an "unjust" or "illegal" war, this is false.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well, obama supports abortion, so I wonder how many people have died over the last 30+years of abortion and how many will continue to die once he passes "healthcare" with tax-dollar funded abortions.


I tend to agree with the alternative. anyone whom opposes abortion gets assigned 2-3 adopted children that would have been aborted...sort of like a 18 year buddy system...gratz on saving a life, here it is, now take care of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
4. He worked to concentrate terrorist fighting into Afghan and Iraq, so the rest of the world was more safe from Terrorism. In fact, he kept our country safe from any major terrorist attack for 7 years and drove the numbers of attacks around the world down.
5. He rid the world of the evil dictator Sadaam Hussein.
6. He set the people in Afghanistan free from the hands of the Taliban and their restrictive and ridiculous laws that are harmful to women.
[edit on 10-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]


Several problems with these statements:
1. I consider US soldiers to be citizens of our country. Their deaths in foreign countries are as meaningful as the deaths of Americans on our own soil. As of September of 2009, this amounts to 4,326 in Iraq and 804 in Afghanistan. Source

Moreover, several thousands Americans who died on 9/11 died on Bush's watch. Bush didn't keep them safe, did he? I guess that Bush did keep us safe as long as you don't count 9/11 deaths or any of the Americans who have since died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are pretty big exceptions.

2. With hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we've most likely angered many people who previously had no personal beef against the United States. If you lose your entire family, you have nothing left to lose and a strong motivation to commit a terrorist act against Americans.

2. Although the Bush administration indicated that the war in Iraq was simply another front in the War on Terror, Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda or worldwide terrorism. Moreover, Al Qaida had no presence in Iraq until after the US led invasion. So, I'm curious how spreading terrorism to an area that it did not exist previously is an accomplishment?
Sadaam had no WMDS, let alone the intention of using the nonexistent weapons against the US. So, the invasion of Iraq had absolutely no effect on the safety and security of the United States - at least according to the Pentagon:

Pentagon: Hussein and Al Qaeda were NOT linked

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said. The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."


2. The evil dictator, Sadaam Hussein, was financed and his troops trained by the American government during the Iran-Iraq war. You can't take credit for curing a disease that you yourself played a key role in creating. Moreover, taking out this dictator at the cost of 100s of thousands of innocent civilians is a cost that is far too high. Those people didn't choose to die for the cause - we chose for them.

3. Even today, the people of Afghanistan are not free from the hands of the Taliban - they are blown up on almost a daily basis. What good are equal rights when you can't go to the market without getting yourself blown to bits?



[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:46 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.


So you are saying that war, is a good way to get to peace..... I'm sorry I just don't follow your logic.

Usually war and fighting leads to hatred, hard feelings, and eventually more war.

I mean, how many people have you felt peaceful with after they punched you in the nose, or called you a dirty named? I can't speak for everyon else, but the times in my life when I have gotten into a fight, it was not a peaceful experience.... for anyone....

Now at this point in time, while I do think Obama is a great diplomat I think that there were people out there more deserving if the prize then him.

But George Bush is not and never would be one of those people. He is one of those rare presidents, where the majority of both democrats AND republicans ended up hating him.... There is a reason for his world wide unpopularity you know.... Perhaps you should look into that reason.

Oh well, That is just my two cents.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Starting multiple wars and threatening on a weekly if not daily basis of starting more wars does not usually earn one a peace prize. Did he ever make a speech without threats in it?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What happened to personal responsibility? Oh yea, the government took that away and gave us welfare checks! Instead of someone else taking care of the kid, it should be the job of the people who created it. Taking the easy way out is not the American way, just the way of some sick, self-serving individuals who have no problems creating then destroying the life of another person.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Sorry Liberals, but I have to interject a little "fact" for the purpose of education and to "deny ignorance".

The Iraq war was NOT illegal, period.


If the United Nations is not qualified to define what is or is not illegal under International Law, who is?

UN Secretary General: Iraq War Was Illegal

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal". Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction. However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order.

Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council. Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


You know the old saying..... Can't have peace without war.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join