Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Not a very Nobel suggestion...

Not Here Still

07:10 / 06.02.02

WHAT?

No, really. Bush and Blair nominated to win the Nobel Prize for peace?

I think not, somehow.

But what do you think?

Sauron

07:22 / 06.02.02

See thread in the conversation- God Bless Dubya - I don't know how link.

Not Here Still

07:28 / 06.02.02

oops. Kill thread, please, moderator...

Sauron

07:32 / 06.02.02

But you could carry it on here- makes more sense ... And we could heighten the cerebral horizon.

If anyone can be nominated for the prize, does this not make a mockery of it's existance?

The knowledge +1

07:41 / 06.02.02

TK in the house!

I'd say Blair deserves it.

Not Here Still

07:53 / 06.02.02

Originally posted by Sauron:

If anyone can be nominated for the prize, does this not make a mockery of it's existance?

Well of course, the idea of a peace prize set up by the man who invented Dynamite always seems a little odd to me.

I don't think they should win the prize by any stretch of the imagination - but I don't mind them being nominated for it, somehow.

However, it looks as though the only people who can nominate are those who are part of a national legislature, which is always going to screw the odds. Why not allow ver people to nominate too?

Knowledge - why do you think Tony Blair, who has ordered his forces into battle more than any other British post-War PM, should win it?

I'm presuming you aren't on a wind-up.

The Sinister Haiku Bureau

08:29 / 06.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Not Me Again:

Well of course, the idea of a peace prize set up by the man who invented Dynamite always seems a little odd to me.

well the way i heard it at school, (but of course we all know that our schools tell us whatever line they need to support the status quo patriarchical establishment

) he invented dynamite for peaceful purposes- like engineering and suchlike, and was shocked to see it being used for war/terrorism/etc. So he invented the nobel prize to clear his name in the eyes of history, as it were...

[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Johnny Haiku ]

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:29 / 06.02.02

Henry Kissinger also won the Nobel Peace Prize - bit harder to justify that one, I suspect...

MJ-12

10:20 / 06.02.02

Well, Kissinger had gotten the Nobel for negotiating the end of American combat troops in Vietnam. Of course, since part of the agreement was Le Duc Tho's assurance that the North only wanted to support southern independence, and had no intentions whatsoever of annexing the south, this really should cast some doubt as to Kissinger's abilities even in the nasty brutish realpolitik world. He's not only evil -- he's a sucker.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:23 / 06.02.02

This is, to my annoyance, harder to be appalled by than I wanted it to be. Although I think this stinks, the reasoning is not something I can argue against wholeheartedly: the idea being that acting against perceived evils (Milosevic, anyone?) is a necessary, if unpleasant, duty.

What it comes down to for me is ways and means. The failure to use the UN, the continuing refusal to address the global issues which produce this situation - those are reasons to object. Now, can we get Chomsky nominated?

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:49 / 06.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Nick:
This is, to my annoyance, harder to be appalled by than I wanted it to be. Although I think this stinks, the reasoning is not something I can argue against wholeheartedly: the idea being that acting against perceived evils (Milosevic, anyone?) is a necessary, if unpleasant, duty.

What it comes down to for me is ways and means. The failure to use the UN, the continuing refusal to address the global issues which produce this situation - those are reasons to object. Now, can we get Chomsky nominated?

I forgive you for that last bit. But basically I think the key word here is "perceived" - as Bush's State of the Union address demonstrated with shocking clarity, the US is always going to label any nation that doesn't act in accordance with US interests as "evil".

Not Here Still

10:57 / 06.02.02

Surely a result would be useful in acting against 'perceived evils?'

Otherwise, where is the peace?

The perceived evil in this war was bin Laden et al - it's just a side effect that the Taliban have now been removed from Afghanistan.

But as far as I can see, they haven't caught bin Laden, and further terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and other actions have been carried out.

Indeed, the only thing which has prevented a further major terrorist attack in the West (which let's face it, is all that really matters to Bush and Blair) - is the heightened state of fear among the general public and the security services.

Whisky Priestess

10:58 / 06.02.02

I actually can't think of any other nominees less likely to win, unless of course someone nominated Osama Bin Laden.
Robert Mugabe perhaps?

NB is the national legislature thing a stipulation for nominators of the other prizes - medicine, literature etc? If not what criteria do apply? I'm all intrigued now . . .

odd jest on horn

12:44 / 06.02.02

omg "no" is down to 75% from 95%. What's the matter with people??

Add Your Reply