It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by Angus123

Amazing there are people still trying to justify this train wreck huh?
Know what you mean.
We really are screwed.
We will destroy ourselves with the most powerfull weapon yet, our ego.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:35 PM
Bush may of begun the 2 wars which arent Illegal in the first place. Which was authorized by members of the house and senate aka congress. so which are gone some that are still there. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc

and your golden boy Obama has continued these wars so if they are wrong and illegal why is he still doing it. He has yet to have soldiers leave Iraq and Afganistan. Has put more money towards the wars and pushed more troops into battle. Is about to authorize more troops possibly 60,000

Increased attacks and troop depths are the norm now.

Tell me who to blame now its not Bush hes gone 10 months ago its on Obama now. Why cant he keep his promises damnit. Its simple he doesnt know what to do.

Not only he doesnt know what do to. He doesnt listen to the COmmanding GENERALS in the WAR. HE has no right...Obama is a fool.

Only thing he did right was calll Kanye a jack### hahahahaha other than that FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL DAMN WHERES THE TELEPROMTER HAHAHAHAH

Answer my question for a few posts ago, you still cant do it?

[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:41 PM
i]reply to post by KonigKaos

Just more proof this country was bought and sold a long time ago.
The politicians are put there to make us think we have some control!

Heres some more comedy for this funny thread!

[edit on 11-10-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by candide

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.

Are you kidding? You think Clinton lifted a finger during his eight years towards terrorism? Those years were the worst of my 28 years in the military and I lived his weak/nonexistent policies every day of them. 911, which was planned out over most of the Clinton’s administration was just one example of his utter failure to do anything…

I'm just glad it was ONLY 911, for we were at our weakest in 80 years at the end of his presidency.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:43 PM
Bush was nominated along with Blair in 2004.

So really, why are so many of you surprised that someone might think he deserves it? Obviously someone who matters to the committee thought so.

I don't think either of them (Bush/Obama) deserve the prize. But if I had to choose one over the other......

Bush back in the beginning of 2004 (not today, but 5 years ago)
Obama back in the beginning of 2009. (Feb 1 2009)

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:46 PM
The sound bite intelligence of a nation shows in this thread.
George Bush created despair within a what I thought to be a just nation on many levels.

From GITMO to his general neglect of the internal needs of the nation.
An oppressive administration that warranted torture. Peace prize?

The world breathed a sigh of relief when he left office.

As for Obama, he exercises diplomacy. And as president, that is what I expect.
When it comes to war, no rush to judgment. A thorough dialogue with an allowance for a response.

Lastly, the star post thing for some of these threads, as an old ATS member seems a bit ridiculous. Are these threads getting botted?

GW Bush the Nobel Peace prize. Laughable.

Obama, perhaps undeserved in the manner we understand, but then again, who here TRULY knows the parameters for the delivery and issuance of the award.

Therefore I leave you with this link...Myths regarding the Nobel Peace Prize

- Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by HIFIGUY]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:51 PM
Instead of realizing who really controls things,
we blame the other guy!
Anyone else see this happening or what?

Um, duh, who gave the banks billions with no accountability?
Who lied? Yep, both of them.
Is that not enough of a friggin' clue people? C'mon.

Gad, you'd think we would have learned by now.
This craps been going' on for a long time!

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:56 PM
I completely agree that George Bush was more deserving of this prize than Obama. Just for the aid he sent to Africa alone. NO president supported Africa more. People truly in need, people the world's ignored. True humanitarianism to the tune of billions of dollars.

Those that malign Bush have been programmed by the liberal (communist) media to hate him. The incessant Bush-bashing by the press only let up when Sarah Palin came on the scene. Funny, but rarely if ever can Bush-haters give reasons of their own for their venomous hatred of a good president and a great man. They just spew what the press programmed them to spew.

NO ONE can question Bush's loyalty to the USA and his love of country. I wish I could say the same about Obama. I'm convinced the reason he was awarded this prize is specifically for his ANTI-American rhetoric.

We're going to look back and REGRET how we treated Bush. In Obama, we've elected someone that hates our form of government and all that America represents.
That's why he got the prize. For the destruction he's about to bring to our nation and our way of life.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:57 PM
I have only read the first page.

Start trolling thread

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by IamLael

Got news for ya.
We had an actual budget surplus when bush took office!

The tax cuts for the rich, cheney's false flag war costs and the
big banker bailouts sure didnt help us much did they?

Don't ya think there might have been a better way?

He's considered the worst president ever for a reason.

Do you know what a war criminal is?

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by dodadoom

You're right about that surplus.

I'm sure you'll also remember that during Bush's presidency, Democrats controlled the House and Senate. You'll also remember that Congress controls spending, not the president. They had a veto-proof majority. So, don't blame Bush.

Search youtube and you'll find lots of Bush clips railing on about their spending and Bush attempting to garner support for reigning in Freddie and Fannie. All fell on deaf ears. No one cared about cutting spending. Remember how he raised the issue of Social Security insovency? The press sneered at his plan to partially privatize SS so we could actually keep some of OUR money.

The balanced budgets we enjoyed under Clinton happened because Republicans controlled both houses. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Presidents have virtually no control over Congressional spending.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by IamLael

I agree there is much blame to go around.
We can also blame the stupids for voting in these so called wonderful 'leaders'!

Thanks for the reply!
Funny thread! Love it!

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by andrewh7

Dude, Kofi Annan stated his opinion of what he thought should have happened, but his opinion doesn't trump the international laws in place governing war.

These are fact:

1. The first gulf war was ended by a cease-fire armistice
2. The UNSC found Iraq in material breach of said ceasefire in resolution 1441.
3. Under International Law the US could resume conflict with Iraq.

Opinions don't change facts. That's a logical fallacy.

Now, if there had been a peace treaty signed with us and Iraq in 1991 then the war would have been unjust, this is not the case. facts are facts man, and anyone's opinion on the matter don't change the laws as they are currently written.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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.

Why? Everyone here seems to think that Bush is Hitler. That comparison was running hogwild here on ATS when he was in office.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Where was George durring the genocide in Rwanda? Why did he not, "remove" the dictators there? about Bush wasn't the president when that was going on. Clinton was in office.
Try again.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:43 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
1. He signifiganlty increased aid to the African continent.

It's not altruism when you help people who think just like you, ignore others, and start wars on the side, and end up turning a profit. Sure US aid to Africa tripled, mostly going through Christian groups fighting AIDS. But this was also preconditioned on policies of privitization and opening of markets- US trade in Africa doubled at the same time. (for those of you who think that sounds like a good thing, consider the way the US trades- Ethiopia grows and exports coffee while children starve).

2. He helped to rid the world of a huge number of terrorists.

He created a net increase in terrorism. Many of the young men who we killed in Iraq were minding their own business in Syrian and Jordanian colleges until we sent a bunch of hopped up teenagers into their region brandishing automatic weapons.

When George Bush came into office, terrorists controlled virtually nothing in Iraq, posed substantially less threat of conquering Pakistan than they do now, and in Afghanistan were primarily concerned with fighting amongst themselves.

3. He worked for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, well until they elected a bunch of terrorists in Hamas to be their leaders.

That's right. George Bush stops working for peace the minute FREE DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS don't go his way.

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.

Tell that to the several members of our coalition who were beaten into submission by terrorist attacks on their home soil after they let us coerce them into the war in Iraq. Also tell Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, etc.

5. He rid the world of the evil dictator Sadaam Hussein.

Yes, now the people of Iraq don't have to worry about being tortured in secret prisons. Unless of course the CIA gets its hands on them.

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.

The Taliban is still firmly in control of much of Afghanistan and has a "permanent presence" in 80% of the country. Even areas which used to be relatively safe from the Taliban are now seeing violence on a weekly basis.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge the growing appearance that two unwinnable wars are going to make either a Carter or a Nixon out of Obama (in that either he'll be hideously ineffective or that he'll eventually go out of his mind as inherited problems continue to steal his thunder- or both). The award of the prize to Obama was an enticement and not a recognition of results in my opinion.
But give me a break, Bush? Do you really think that any politician is any better than any other just because he has a different letter after his name? Virtually to the man, our leaders are a pack of maniancs, criminals, and dimwits- in many cases all of the above rolled into one.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by manxman2
post removed

Oh, ain't we chic today!! *snip*
Isn't that a big violation of the T&C, or do they have a "Bush, War Criminal" exemption?

What a geek. Sorry about the "fail" on your part.

mod edit, edit of removed post, and reference snipped

[edit on 12/10/09 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by jerico65

Why is he a geek fly boy?I personly think a bullet to his brain is far too quick he should rot in jail for his crimes with the other liars,but I gave him a star for that beutifull image of bush fadeing to black.

and as for resolution 1441 mentioned above by another poster,that didnt allow america to wage war on Iraq unless the UN agreed to it-and they didnt

Looks like the bush lovers are trying to rewrite history,he was and will always be remembered as one of the worst presidents

The chump was a cheerleader at school,that says it all!

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by manxman2
post removed

Oh, ain't we chic today!! *snip*Isn't that a big violation of the T&C, or do they have a "Bush, War Criminal" exemption?

What a geek. Sorry about the "fail" on your part.

no your wrong i dont just mean 1 ex president i mean his souless father aswell.

[edit on 12/10/09 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Bush may of begun the 2 wars which arent Illegal in the first place....

Honestly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive, it doesn't seem like much more than political trolling, but for those who are still confused on some things listen to the kitty.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in