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: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:57 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.


There's a small problem with your reasoning. No one knew about the Holocaust until after the defeat of Germany. The US went to war with Germany as an ally of Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Your reasoning is similar to those who claim we invaded Iraq to free its people when in fact we invaded Iraq to find WMDS that we were worried he would use against the United States. You can't retroactively rewrite history - Sorry Bush and Cheney.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:58 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.

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.


"Wars" are declared by congress and the consent of the people. Also by definition, there need to be TWO armies fighting.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


I go with a third alternative. You created a child with another person. Take responsibility for your actions and step up.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Exemplar]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


What is funny about a man busting his hump for 7 years to keep the world safe. I don't find that funny.


Its hard to keep from lauging whenever you hear people bragging about keeping us safe for 7 years.

If it only werent for that pesky other year of his 8 year term where the Bush administration dismantled the Clinton anti-terrorist task force, repeatedly ignored specific warnings, allowied big slow commercial jets to OWN our air defense and to top it off, never apprehend the dude responsible.

Yea, he kept us super safe except that for all that.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:09 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.


The biggest problem with the GOP is that it stops caring about people after they are born. From the comments from the conservative media and the neocons on this site, it is clear that they would have no moral qualms about wiping all Muslims off the face of the Earth. These are the people who called that abortion doctor mini-Hitler, baby killer for years and yet refused to take any responsibility for the man's brutal murder.

Abortions are currently legal. How can Obama be responsible for a practice that has been occurring legally within the United States for decades prior to his election? Even now, Obama is only the president. The role of the executive branch is to enforce the law passed by Congress. The legal status of abortion is question for Congress and its constitutionality is question for the courts. If you don't like it, lobby Congress and submit an amicus brief to a court examining the issue.

The Republicans had control for quite a while. So, why didn't they pass a federal law making abortions illegal? Perhaps that law would have been challenged by someone under Roe v. Wade but then the GOP could argue their case before a federal court and possibly the US Supreme Court. Even if they would eventually lose, at least they could say they tried.

Instead, we have a country of GOP whiners who do nothing on an issue they are argue is paramount and complain that nothing is getting done.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
People - This is a Peace Prize - Not a War Prize. Once they come out with a War and a # You Prize then Bush would be the Winner! Palin and simple!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kick Flip
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


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


The United States and the Soviet Union never went to war. If they had it certainly would not have brought peace unless you consider billions dead after a nuclear apocalypse to be a peaceful outcome. Peace doesn't require the complete annihilation of anyone who doesn't like you or could possibly be a threat to you at some point in the future. Diplomacy is the alternative to war and it can bring peace that is far more appealing and long lasting because it is peace that has been chosen voluntarily by both sides, rather than peace that has been forced on one side by the other with a gun pointed at the latter's head.

The Great War (World War I) was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." Its atrocities were supposed to serve as a permanent deterrent against modern warfare between superpowers. That line of reasoning didn't work out too well, did it?

War has become a profitable venture for defense contractors as part of the military industrial complex. These same contractors have powerful lobbies. The future casualties of an unnecessary war have no lobby and they aren't alive to complain later. For defense contractors, peace is merely the "off-season" and a severe detriment to profits. If you don't think a trillion dollars in government contracts served as any motivation behind the Iraq war, you're lying to yourself.

While it is prudent to be prepared for a war, peace through diplomacy should always be the first route we try to take.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Heres a simple questions, Now Libs answer it! What has Obama actually done in his Presidency to win the Nobel Peace Prize, hell anything hes done in 10 months worth mentioning. Lets make it complicated though without bashing Former President Bush, Former Vice President Cheney, Former Governor Sarah Palin or any other Republican or third party member for that matter?

Bet ya cant do it?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Heres a simple questions, Now Libs answer it! What has Obama actually done in his Presidency to win the Nobel Peace Prize, hell anything hes done in 10 months worth mentioning. Lets make it complicated though without bashing Former President Bush, Former Vice President Cheney, Former Governor Sarah Palin or any other Republican or third party member for that matter?

[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]


Your presumption is based on the premise that the Nobel Peace Prize is only awarded to those who have successfully achieved peaceful outcomes in the past. This is simply not the case. In fact, many of its past winners have died prior to seeing their dreams fulfilled or those dreams are, even now, yet to be fulfilled.

Source

Let’s get something straight: When Alfred Nobel, a Swedish arms manufacturer and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his considerable estate to establish, among other things, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1895, it was established for "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

Like Martin Luther King Jr., you don’t have to wait a lifetime to win. King was the youngest person ever to win the prize in 1964, the year after his “I Have a Dream,” speech. At that time, the peace associated with the civil rights movement was far from being achieved. The committee could have easily argued that King needed more experience. If they had done so, he would likely have won the award posthumously.

Using those standards, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres would not have won in 1994 for attempting to advance peace in the Middle East. Rigoberta Menchú Tum wouldn’t have won for her efforts at justice and reconciliation in post-civil war Guatemala. Aung San Suu Kyi would still be waiting for her prize since democracy and human rights would remain illusive in Burma. It’s like Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when he congratulated Obama today: “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”

So what hope did the committee glean from Obama over the past year? They rightly saw more movement on the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue than there has been achieved over the past eight years of the Bush administration. They saw U.S.-led efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty—something that Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei noted when he said that Obama "has done in nine months what many people would take a generation to do." They listened to an administration that has pledged to close down Guantanamo and leave Iraq. They noticed that for the first time since Jimmy Carter, American political discourse has focused on accountability of governments and human rights—Hillary Clinton’s recent condemnation of the murder and rape of opposition demonstrators in Guinea being but an example. For the first time in more than eight years, we have an administration that is willing to listen to the Middle East and willing to tackle the challenges associated with that elusive peace process. These struggles are complicated and frustrating and nowhere near from being over.

Any number of Obama efforts could go badly at anytime. But in issuing the prize to Obama, the committee decided to take the chance to do something relevant. It decided to give the prize as a call to action—in short, as a gesture of hope. Should Obama be humbled? He’d better be! He’s no Martin Luther King Jr., and he’s no Nelson Mandela. Anybody with any common sense would argue that much more needs to be done. Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and Yemen are on the back burner when they shouldn’t be. The health care debate in America keeps us exasperated. And we all feel that the critical issue of American joblessness deserves more attention. To be sure, hope is both what defines the Obama presidency and what leaves us so cynical about its shortcomings. But as we count up the reasons for pessimism, let’s also take the time to celebrate what has been achieved. Regardless of the troubles ahead, the message of this administration is being heard. The committee understood that America under Obama is again a part of the community of nations—willing to listen and willing to lead.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Every day George W. Bush is not imprisoned for crimes committed against the United States of America, he should consider himself lucky.


[edit on 10/11/0909 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Heres a simple questions, Now Libs answer it! What has Obama actually done in his Presidency to win the Nobel Peace Prize, hell anything hes done in 10 months worth mentioning. Lets make it complicated though without bashing Former President Bush, Former Vice President Cheney, Former Governor Sarah Palin or any other Republican or third party member for that matter?

[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]


Your presumption is based on the premise that the Nobel Peace Prize is only awarded to those who have successfully achieved peaceful outcomes in the past. This is simply not the case. In fact, many of its past winners have died prior to seeing their dreams fulfilled or those dreams are, even now, yet to be fulfilled.

Source

Let’s get something straight: When Alfred Nobel, a Swedish arms manufacturer and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his considerable estate to establish, among other things, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1895, it was established for "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.

Like Martin Luther King Jr., you don’t have to wait a lifetime to win. King was the youngest person ever to win the prize in 1964, the year after his “I Have a Dream,” speech. At that time, the peace associated with the civil rights movement was far from being achieved. The committee could have easily argued that King needed more experience. If they had done so, he would likely have won the award posthumously.

Using those standards, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres would not have won in 1994 for attempting to advance peace in the Middle East. Rigoberta Menchú Tum wouldn’t have won for her efforts at justice and reconciliation in post-civil war Guatemala. Aung San Suu Kyi would still be waiting for her prize since democracy and human rights would remain illusive in Burma. It’s like Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when he congratulated Obama today: “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”

So what hope did the committee glean from Obama over the past year? They rightly saw more movement on the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue than there has been achieved over the past eight years of the Bush administration. They saw U.S.-led efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty—something that Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei noted when he said that Obama "has done in nine months what many people would take a generation to do." They listened to an administration that has pledged to close down Guantanamo and leave Iraq. They noticed that for the first time since Jimmy Carter, American political discourse has focused on accountability of governments and human rights—Hillary Clinton’s recent condemnation of the murder and rape of opposition demonstrators in Guinea being but an example. For the first time in more than eight years, we have an administration that is willing to listen to the Middle East and willing to tackle the challenges associated with that elusive peace process. These struggles are complicated and frustrating and nowhere near from being over.

Any number of Obama efforts could go badly at anytime. But in issuing the prize to Obama, the committee decided to take the chance to do something relevant. It decided to give the prize as a call to action—in short, as a gesture of hope. Should Obama be humbled? He’d better be! He’s no Martin Luther King Jr., and he’s no Nelson Mandela. Anybody with any common sense would argue that much more needs to be done. Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and Yemen are on the back burner when they shouldn’t be. The health care debate in America keeps us exasperated. And we all feel that the critical issue of American joblessness deserves more attention. To be sure, hope is both what defines the Obama presidency and what leaves us so cynical about its shortcomings. But as we count up the reasons for pessimism, let’s also take the time to celebrate what has been achieved. Regardless of the troubles ahead, the message of this administration is being heard. The committee understood that America under Obama is again a part of the community of nations—willing to listen and willing to lead.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]


In other words, you can't answer his question.

And that is as telling as giving an answer.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by KonigKaos
 

Well, he didn't invade a country so his bro's could make a "killing" did he?
That's something fer sure!


Of course 'we' can always hope though right?


He didn't keep us too safe from the financial terrorists did he?
Answer the questions, we're waiting!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Exemplar
 
War was declared in 1991. Not sure what you are speaking about, and the gulf war was ended with a cease-fire agreement, not a peace treaty, so the original declaration of war is still in effect.

Secondly, the US constitution holds zero weight under international law and treaties. Under international law, once a cease-fire armistice is signed and in effect, if party A violates it, party B can resume military operations.

"An armistice is a situation in a war where the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, but may be just a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and statium, meaning a stopping.

A truce or ceasefire usually refers to a temporary cessation of hostilities for an agreed limited time or within a limited area. A truce may be needed in order to negotiate an armistice. An armistice is a modus vivendi and is not the same as a peace treaty, which may take months or even years to agree on. The 1953 Korean War armistice [1] was a major example of an armistice which was not followed by a peace treaty.
"

Armistice - Wikipedia

"The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:

* Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
* Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
* Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
* Permanently abandon support for terrorism (article H)

As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.
"

legality of the Iraq war

Again,.. Deny Ignorance. No one should be parroting the idea that the Iraq war of 2003 was "illegal" or "unjust", this is a fallacy.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
i just sit and wait 3 more years he will step aside, after pushing his ways of destruction onto the American People, forcing higher taxes on the alread over burdend US tax payer with Cap and Trade, Obamacare, Sugar Taxes, Longer School etc.

Than he will be voted out in 2012 to a Republican President yet to be named. who will take 4-8 yrs to start to clean it up. When he/she will be voted out to another Democrat saying the failed policies of the last 4-8 yrs we need a change.

When in all the Republican president of that time will be trying to fix the mess Obama made and never get started on his own agendas.

Lets take away the telepromter see how he can do! HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Failed Dreams and Broken Promises = Obama



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

In other words, you can't answer his question.

And that is as telling as giving an answer.


In other words, I did answer the question. You even quoted my whole answer in your assertion that I did not answer the question. The peace prize is given for achievements over the course of a year and those achievements have often been significant efforts rather than tangible results. It has on many occasions been awarded in anticipation of success, as a call to action. Please ACTUALLY read the words you just quoted from my post.

Rather than challenge anything I posted, you simply disregarded everything I posted. Frankly, you're lucky I even bothered to point this out to you.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KonigKaos
 


I agree.
When the right wing warmonger machine takes over in 2012,
we will see the end of humanity and the start of the end.

Or at least we will see a bunch more wars anyway!
Probably "tactical nukes" also this time, right?
Good call.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   


Good troll OP. Obama certainly doesn't deserve it, but Bush even less so. He has destroyed your economy by waging two wars with random countries who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Very good.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire."

Again,.. Deny Ignorance. No one should be parroting the idea that the Iraq war of 2003 was "illegal" or "unjust", this is a fallacy.


Don't you think it is somewhat hypocritical to be using UN resolutions as a justification for the war when in fact the UN security Council and the UN Secretary General found the invasion to be unsanctioned and illegal under the UN charter?

source


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. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

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.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 

I have hope in the fact that these people actual justifying wars must have
somewhat of a conscience.
Otherwise why would they even try at all?
Have they actually been in a war?
Suprised one hasnt said, lets just nuke 'em all!

Cheney deserves this prize as much as bush baby does!


My hats off to a funny thread! Great stuff!


[edit on 11-10-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I have... no... words...


 

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/10/09 by DontTreadOnMe]



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join