2007-06-11 00:39:08 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Arafat got it , Mandela got it , surely Bush deserves one too.
2007-06-11 00:50:41 · update #1
has he not raised billions and billions for the reconstruction of Iraq , surely everyone can see he is a good builder , you can't really call him a wrecker.
2007-06-11 01:05:09 · update #2
Because people who win Peace Prize's don't also have death tolls.
2007-06-11 00:42:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
Not sure if there is sarcasm attached to your question.
Nevertheless,i believe Bush actually does deserve the award.,unlike terrorists Mandela and Arafat,who were awarded the title becasue of panderring to the apologists,appeasers and anyone who blindly worships the underdog.
in years to come,George Bush will be recognised as a visionary.One cant make an omlette without breaking eggs.One way or the other,there will be a war between Islam and christians and as the saying goes,"never give a sucker an even break".
What is so wrong in planting democracy into the heart of the middle east?We recognise the problems stemming from there.Do we really expect these crazed oil rich dictators to stop hacking off limbs and building nuclear weapons because the UN issued strong words?
Its so easy to view the world through rose tinted spectacles ,preaching peace and love.If the enemy was a partner for peace then perhaps military action could be avoided.unfortunately ,the only thing that stands between death to all "infidels" is those who have the guts to stand up to those who would harm us.
2007-06-11 01:08:49 · answer #2 · answered by private 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is early days yet. He will share the prize with the other one.
And the UN prize as well. Darfur and Iraq. Twinned. In one you have Sudanese troops in the other you have American troops. In one 500 000 civilians killed and displaced, in Iraq the figure is closer to 3 000 000. Whos speaking up for them?
2007-06-13 08:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Welcome to the real world. The purpose of the Noble Peace Prize is to those who work for peace not starting a war. As to bringing democracy to Iraq Bush has failed again destroying democracy in the US with his Patriotic Act. Do they give award for biggest fibs?
2007-06-11 05:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
jings crivens help ma boab are ye for real hen,all bush wants from iraq is oil
if its main crop was only onions then the usa wouldnt give a fig
it all boils down to cash and how fast they can fill their pockets,
deaths of us and british soldiers is a heavy price to pay just to line some yanks pockets
sadam got the rope
i bought his suit of ebay it hangs well but its a bit tight round the collar
2007-06-11 01:38:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You joke is flawed he DOES ACTUALLY DESERVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
As a thank you for not starting a war that has resulted in the destruction of the world (and he has tried his best, bless his ape like feet).
2007-06-11 09:22:17 · answer #6 · answered by David 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The obvious reason is the lack of appreciation the Iraqian people have they still adjusting to no longer being the terrorist capital of the world.
2007-06-11 00:51:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
he isn't getting a nobel peace award, because he started the iraq war, and is not really helping keep the peace in iraq, if he just removed his soldiers then the peace may happen, and the bombing will stop.
Next you will ask way Al-Quida hasn't got a nobel peace award!!
2007-06-11 00:45:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
He's not liberal enough for a Nobel Peace prize. That's fact.
2007-06-11 00:54:17 · answer #9 · answered by AngeloPC.net 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's called a "Peace Prize", not a "Dumbest leader in American History" prize.
2007-06-11 00:53:14 · answer #10 · answered by ~RedBird~ 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because people like Hitler and Yassir Arafat have won it before.
2007-06-11 00:41:53 · answer #11 · answered by John 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋