nobelprice

[captain-dickhead]

what is going on in this world?Bush is second kandidate in the nobelprice?!thats impossible,you get the nobelprice by doing somthing good like mother Theresa BUT NOT BY WAR,the nobleprice is for PEACE and not for WAR

[DrNatchKilder]

Well, maybe, but if you see it from another point of view you have an answer

Why they give them to some people? Because they are the most influent in their speciality
What country is the most influent around the world? The US
Who is his president? Bush
Is he saying he is fighting for peace? Yes, he is

Well, let's give it to him

[Ted-Easton]

Except that he isn't really fighting for peace.

What do we have right now with Iraq?
Peace

What is Bush trying to make us have?
War

[JMHX]

At 2/19/03 03:40 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Except that he isn't really fighting for peace.

In his eyes, he's fighting for peace and righteousness. He's just going about it the wrong way.

[swayside]

At 2/19/03 03:40 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Except that he isn't really fighting for peace.

What do we have right now with Iraq?
Peace

peace doensn't mean no war, you idiot. peace is the absense of people who would disturb it. we don't have anything close to pease with iraq right now.

What is Bush trying to make us have?
War

war is the only to get rid of the people who would disturb peace. there is no way we can talk sadaam down.

[swayside]

you people really make me sick.

[DrNatchKilder]

At 2/19/03 04:29 PM, swayside wrote:

What is Bush trying to make us have?
War

war is the only to get rid of the people who would disturb peace. there is no way we can talk sadaam down.

Okay, there are lots of people who fit in this definition. Why are you attacking him? And why did you give him weapons for "disturbing" peace, if you only want to get rid of those people? And why don't you start with our little friend Sharon who is the most "disturbing element" in this area?

[Nevah73]

At 2/19/03 04:29 PM, swayside wrote:

peace doensn't mean no war, you idiot. peace is the absense of people who would disturb it. we don't have anything close to pease with iraq right now.

war is the only to get rid of the people who would disturb peace. there is no way we can talk sadaam down.

Uhm... But, see, if Bush plans to have a war, then he is disturbing peace. If he is disturbing peace, then to have peace, he must be gotten rid of. By your definition of "peace", the only way to attain peace would be to assassinate Bush, Saddam, and, hell, all the world leaders. In fact, everyone in the world has the potential to disturb peace. So maybe a large-scale nuclear holocaust would bring about peace. Maybe I could get a nobel prize for destroying the Earth!

[JMHX]

If Bush plans to have a war, then he is disturbing peace. If he is disturbing peace, then to have peace, he must be gotten rid of. By your definition of "peace", the only way to attain peace would be to assassinate Bush, Saddam, and, hell, all the world leaders...So maybe a large-scale nuclear holocaust would bring about peace.

That depends on what your definition of the word "peace" is.

[TheEvilOne]

If you merely define peace as the absence of war, then you could probably say that Bush doesn't deserve the prize. But what if you must fight to preserve peace? I think Bush is only doing what he has to do to protect the nation, so that its citizens may continue to live in peace and freedom. The Nobel people apparently don't see it that way, and define peace as the absence of war, and thus, instead of giving it to Bush, they give it to Jimmy Carter. Damn them.

[implodinggoat]

The Noble Peace Prize has a history of fucking up.

Interesting fact Ghandi doesn't have a Nobel Peace Prize but Yassar Arafat does.

[implodinggoat]

Note I think that an agressive foreign policy is sometimes neccasary but The Nobel Peace Prize isn't an appropriate prize.

[Nevah73]

Personally, I'd say that someone who has helped the underpriveledged, done many foreign embassarial visits, and generally worked his ass off to get to peace without having to have war is far more deserving of the Nobel Prize than someone who's attacking foreign countries without provocation so that he can raise oil prices and protect his own economic interests.

The nobel prize is not handed out to people who just protect their country. If that was the case, any president during wartime would be eligible. Even Hitler would be eligible, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden. Those three all have believed that they were on the defensive, and thus would fall into the same category as Bush, except in that you disagree with them.

[implodinggoat]

At 2/19/03 08:27 PM, Nevah73 wrote: The nobel prize is not handed out to people who just protect their country. If that was the case, any president during wartime would be eligible. Even Hitler would be eligible, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden. Those three all have believed that they were on the defensive, and thus would fall into the same category as Bush, except in that you disagree with them.

Sadly it is in some cases, the Nobel Prize selection is often corrupted by politics as in the case of Yassar Arafat.

[NEMESiSZ]

First off, ass, it's nobel prize, not price.

Secondly, there's more than just the peace prize, but I'll assume you knew that.

Bush has done more for peace than any of the assholes running around burning flags at embassies and attacking police officers (they call themselves 'protestors' to romaticize their crimes)

[Perseph0ne6]

The history of the Nobel Peace Prize's creation is just as paradoxical as any of the events that came later in its history. The peace prize group was set up by Alfred Nobel, the man who invented dynamite.

[NEMESiSZ]

Yeah...because that's the only thing he ever did, right?

First off...dynamite isn't a weapon, it's a construction tool, and wasn't made to be used to kill people, even if it occasionally is.

Get your story straight, slick.

[JMHX]

At 2/19/03 09:21 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah...because that's the only thing he ever did, right?

First off...dynamite isn't a weapon, it's a construction tool, and wasn't made to be used to kill people, even if it occasionally is.

Get your story straight, slick.

Nobel was a good guy, but everyone focuses on the dynamite. I'm curious to know of his other achievements...seriously. Pardon me while I go look up Mr. Nobel.

[implodinggoat]

At 2/19/03 09:18 PM, Perseph0ne6 wrote: The history of the Nobel Peace Prize's creation is just as paradoxical as any of the events that came later in its history. The peace prize group was set up by Alfred Nobel, the man who invented dynamite.

Yes Nobel invented dynamite and it was an excellent invention that allowed for great progress in counstruction. He created the Nobel Peace Prize because he was upset by the fact that his invention was being used as an implement of war.

[Perseph0ne6]

At 2/19/03 09:21 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah...because that's the only thing he ever did, right?

First off...dynamite isn't a weapon, it's a construction tool, and wasn't made to be used to kill people, even if it occasionally is.

Get your story straight, slick.:

Hey there, partner. Why so angry? I'm not hating on Nobel. Does your father own a dynamite company?

No, Nobel did not intend for dynamite to be used as a weapon, but it was... and in some instances it still is. Further more the then break through tecnology Nobel created allowed for other weapons such as bombs to be created.

The story goes that Nobel created the PEACE prize out of guilt. I thought it was interesting.

Hmmm... peace prize or peace pipe? Which would really spread the love?

[Perseph0ne6]

At 2/19/03 09:30 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 2/19/03 09:18 PM, Perseph0ne6 wrote:

Yes Nobel invented dynamite and it was an excellent invention that allowed for great progress in counstruction. He created the Nobel Peace Prize because he was upset by the fact that his invention was being used as an implement of war.:

Yes! Exactly. I think I've been misunderstood. I'm not saying its ironic b/c a good thing came from a bad guy, but rather that a prize focousing on peace came from what can be and is used as a weapon, since as you said "he was upset by the fact that his invention was being used as an implement of war"

[Interface]

bush is a n00b who is racist sexist and hates any religion other than christian. in fact if any of you aren't christian, bush himself said you arent wanted in america. i hate that fucking moron that talks like a 2 year old!

[NEMESiSZ]

At 2/19/03 09:38 PM, PuritanicalInterface wrote: bush is a n00b who is racist sexist and hates any religion other than christian. in fact if any of you aren't christian, bush himself said you arent wanted in america. i hate that fucking moron that talks like a 2 year old!

Yeah, he's new to politics, he wasn't the Governor of Texas or anything like that, and his dad definitely wasn't head of the CIA and President for 4 years...

I'm SURE he said he hates everyone who isn't white christian, he just got really lucky because no one knows he said that except you, you better tell the people man!

And yeah, he talks like an idiot, this coming from the person who just said "n00b" and seems to have a vendetta against punctuation and grammar.

Seriously, I have respect for most democrats, but these bush bashing assholes who know nothing about politics really make any left-wing person look bad, I feel sorry for you guys.

[JMHX]

At 2/19/03 09:38 PM, PuritanicalInterface wrote: bush is a n00b who is racist sexist and hates any religion other than christian. in fact if any of you aren't christian, bush himself said you arent wanted in america. i hate that fucking moron that talks like a 2 year old!

Now this is just immature.

[NEMESiSZ]

Don't worry about it, I already schooled the kid...

[JMHX]

At 2/19/03 09:44 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Don't worry about it, I already schooled the kid...

Now you see? We can all be friends. It's just politics, nothing personal to anyone. =)

[NEMESiSZ]

I'll respect anyone's opinions, it's just idiots who run in saying things they know nothing about that pisses people off. Most of the time it just happens to be the liberals who do it, since they tend to be less educated.

I'd be just as annoyed if someone ran in here like "OMG iraq is teh suxx0r we need to BOMB0rz all arabz bcuz they have teh turbanz and they SUKC OMG OMG OMG"

[JMHX]

Most of the time it just happens to be the liberals who do it, since they tend to be less educated.

Now, nothing personal again, but where are you getting an idea like this? I'm curious to see some actual backup information on this. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Alright, I can name one. Hah.

[Ted-Easton]

At 2/19/03 04:29 PM, swayside wrote:

peace doensn't mean no war, you idiot. peace is the absense of people who would disturb it. we don't have anything close to pease with iraq right now.

I define peace as the absence of war.So does most of the world. ALmost everyone in the world disturbs peace.

Main Entry: 1peace
Pronunciation: 'pEs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree - more at PACT
Date: 12th century
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom "a breach of the peace"
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 - used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
- at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

I've lost some respect I had for swayside. "...you idiot...". That was a low blow. I may be an idiot, but you don't need to bring it up.

[NEMESiSZ]

I'm just saying from my personal experience, the most people i've heard having opinions based on nothing, and generally acting stupidly, they tend to be doing it in the name of left-wing politics.