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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:14 PM
While I do agree that George Bush has done more to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, I do not agree that either of them should get one.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:37 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
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.

Yeah - I like this analogy. The interesting thing about the fire in Obama's case is - its himself thats on fire.

If only the same had been true of Bush - watching him screaming and burning to death would have been the most watched youtube video ever - years after people would be sitting on their couch when suddenly someone would say, "Hey you remember when Bush burned to death?" and everyone would have a good laugh, and then they would roll out that footage for old times sake and watch it nostalgically.

Oh if only ..

What is the media saying about Obama these days? I don't have TV - is the media balance in his favor? If the media is against him - then maybe he is actually trying to do some good - tough luck though, that will just get him shot.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:42 PM
Now that Obama is here, I'm sure a lot of us miss Bush. Nobel Prize for Bush, no! He was still evil just like most politicians.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
George Bush is much more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama has been to date. Let us look at his accomplishments.

1. He signifiganlty increased aid to the African continent.
2. He helped to rid the world of a huge number of terrorists.
3. He worked for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, well until they elected a bunch of terrorists in Hamas to be their leaders.
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.

On the other hand, Obama is a newbie, so maybe he will live up to the title some day. We can keep our fingers crossed and hope.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

Mr Bush, is that you? Nice to see you made it here to ATS. I'm sure only you can state such a comment as this one

Seriously though, I can't believe you're serious with that so I can't resist, have to answer.

Number one of your list, I have no comment, I don't know about that so I just leave it there.

Terrorists ... I'm not sure do they even exist in large scale or is it all just made up by his goverment.

Peace between israel and palestine? Is giving israelis freedom to kill palestines as they please something that is how you make peace? Kill every palestinian there is, no war anymore, right?

It's absurd to say that killing innocent people who HE claims to be terrorists without any real proof to support those claims, can be taken as he wanted peace to the world and to bring the terrorists down.

Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy, still he was not the worst guy in this planet as well. And check it out yourself, they made up the evidence to attack into Iraq, took the country into the chaos, killed a lots of innocent people, tortured them in prisons, took over the oil fields and installed quite rogue politicians to lead the country.

So, goverment lies to it's people get war started, whatkind of goverment is that, a rogue goverment, right?

Going into Afganistan, I actually agree that was not too bad idea, something had to be done to those Talibans, but are they terrorists? No. Reason Americans went to Afganistan are far from official explanations.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by StinkyFeet

Hi Stinky, that's quite a bold proposal that you are making. I may be wrong but do you think that because he is perceived as a war criminal by many leaders in Europe that's the reason they bypass him?

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Ameneter

That figures that a bunch of European leaders would think he is a war criminal. Most of them love to complain about America. The truth is they are "guilty" of the same thing in their wars and Bush kept them safer for the last 7 years of his Presidency then they would have been left to their own appeasing devices.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Ameneter

That figures that a bunch of European leaders would think he is a war criminal. Most of them love to complain about America. The truth is they are "guilty" of the same thing in their wars and Bush kept them safer for the last 7 years of his Presidency then they would have been left to their own appeasing devices.

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

Could you please name those European leaders you are talking about?

There's quite a few countries (except bush's puppet Tony Blair's UK) who have been really critical towards wars for real Not just by words but also what they have been doing.

So I would like to hear which leaders you really are talking about here?
Thank you.


Spelling mistakes

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Luppakorva]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:01 AM
Your insane! George Bush was a tyrant, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, torture and unheard of human suffering! He also bankrupted this country and helped fleece the public of untold wealth!

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:04 AM

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.


A man who thought Osama flew planes into the twin towers? riiiiiiiiiiiight. Really working hard there.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
Wait, this is a joke right?


Which one? Obama or Bush getting the Nobel Peace Prize?

Honestly....They're both a joke.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Revolution-2012]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
The far left will always portray Reagan, Bush any republican as evil.

In order for the left to exist, they need someone to hate.

Be it smokers, overweight people, caucasians, christians, hunters, etc.

Now that they are in power, they still feel the need to hate. Domestic terrorists, bloggers, tea baggers. . . .you get the idea.

I find it ironic that the party that touts itself as full of love and unity has the most hate and vitriol for anyone that choses not to believe the same way as them.

This is just a stupid right - left paradigm that exists only because your told it exists. Your as stupid as stinkyfeet.

Reagan was an excellent president - he was overly heavy handed in dealing with communism, and certainly too interventionist for my liking - but he had an excellent tenure as president for many other reasons.

Bush was just a retarded rogue puppet - what a waste of space even letting him continue to breath.

Reagan actually did some good - and was shot by the Bush gang for his trouble.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:03 AM
I think I should get the Nobel Peace Prize. I've done just as much as Obama in Promoting Peace.

I've contributed absolutely Nothing, Same as Obama. I promise to promote peace, Just like Obama.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:07 AM
Grow up. First and foremost, Bush was a warmonger and had more scandals than any other president in American history. We were attacked on 911 on his watch, and he had every chance in the world to prevent it from the warnings that they received. I shouldn't have to remind you of this and its sad that I am.

You're saying this crap because of your partisan differences which shows that you are still fooled by the system at large and it also proves that you're holding on to the past (the good ole days, of when our system was being raped and our economy was being destroyed by non-stop warfare and lies were being spread like California wildfires.)

Obama is no more deserving than Bush, but, the fact that you're still bringing up Bush's name puts a big label right over your forehead. Bush is not qualified to even receive a high school diploma let alone the Nobel Prize.


Open your eyes.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:43 AM
Oh, and your other argument for Bush receiving the Nobel Prize was that he rid the world of Sadaam Hussein??? Again, you need to grow up and look at facts.

You do realize that the Reagan and Bush administration created Sadaam Hussein...don't you??? Here's a reminder...Iran Contra Affairs.

We supported, funded, and weaponized Sadaam Hussein during the late 80's into the 90's. We did so even after he attacked his own people and the people of IRAN. It was not until he invaded Kuwait and affected our oil supply that we found fault with his genocidal ways and then used our previous knowledge of his murderous history to create propaganda and a reason for attacking him. So, all they did was "correct" their own mistake when they should have been hunting down Osama Bin Laden. But, that's under the assumption that Osama Bin Laden actually had something to do with 911. think Bush deserves the peace prize for putting a lid on the jar that he opened??? So either your logic is flawed or you are very undereducated.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:44 AM
The thing about voting...

mmm... I'm sure I saw something that rang a bell in another post.

It was someting about 'A heartbroken father shows us how to protest' I think it was father of Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, murdered for MONEY.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:24 AM
That's funny. George Bush should have been given the War prize for continuing another fruitless war. War does not bring peace; war is the opposite of peace. LOL

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by December_Rain

Nope not kidding. Just look at the list of major accomplishments toward peace that I gave.

No were just kidding, because no one of even marginal intelligence could take your list seriously except for someone who is delusional, retarded, illiterate, uneducated, not from this planet, only has one brain cell, has been in a major and mentally debilitating accident, or is just a brainwashed conservative still wanting to be part of the gang. Your partisanship is your weakness because you cannot see things objectively. If the last 8 years was your idea of success for this country, then I would hate to see how you would party when poo really hits the fan.

By the way...reforging the Geneva conventions on WAR (remember that little word...because its the opposite of peace) so that we could TORTURE enemy combatants does not qualify one to receive the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. The Geneva Conventions were forged for a specific reason...I hope you realize that.

I am no more of a fan of Obama than you, so, I can easily see the holes in both the republican and democratic parties. Your hero Bush, who is no more intelligent than a fruit fly, seems to still have you fooled which makes you far less intelligent than he.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:36 AM
You can't promote peace by starting wars, it doesn't make sense.
the only thing bush should get is a bullet to the face.

But then again, why the hell is obama getting the Nobel?
What did he do?

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in