English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

2007-12-19 00:24:00 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

This is interesting ,I will like to see the ratings from our little poll here,,,happy holidays everyone..f.p

2007-12-19 00:35:21 · update #1

8 answers

I am very upset that Time did not elect President Bush as man of the year. He led our country to great economic successes this year. He also helped the disarming of North Korea. He also is helping Iraq to become more stable. All of these should qualify for Man of the Year.

2007-12-19 00:31:28 · answer #1 · answered by mustagme 7 · 1 6

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't meant to be presented to anti-conflict pacifist hippies. If a million/2 the failings human beings such as you assert have been valid, that would desire to propose the Beatles could win a Nobel Peace Prize. and individuals may well be horrified at that. Obama's no longer a "NO conflict, guy!" hippie. He realizes, like rational human beings do, that advancing in direction of a extra effective international potential making sacrifices. human beings could flow to conflict...this Afghanistan operation is purely to take the Taliban down, finally securing extra peace for each guy or woman -- which includes the midsection East and u.s.. regrettably human beings's minds have been twisted via Bush's conflict into thinking that individuals being in conflict is undesirable undesirable undesirable undesirable. confident, conflict sucks - yet its needed with a view to realize the extra beneficial good. I propose, American Revolution everybody?? Civil conflict?? i'm notably advantageous we accomplished the extra beneficial good, whether some had to die. Bush replaced into too a super number of a dumbo to noticeably flow after the Taliban, nonetheless, and that's what Obama is doing now. So, confident, the Peace Prize replaced into untimely - yet he's have been given the aptitude to earn it.

2016-11-04 00:58:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, to earn the nobel peace prize, you have to do something that involves a step toward bringing peace and unity to the world. Bush can't even bring peace and unity to his own country. This is the last award he'll ever win. As for Time's Person of the Year- I think Micheal Vick is more deserving than Bush. He hasn't done a thing to deserve it.

2007-12-19 00:38:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Ahmadinejad

2007-12-19 00:44:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

obviously A-jad becuase he has magnanomously decided to suspend his nuke program even though being accused of all sorts of nastiness by bush

not only that but he was elected with a clear majority in a free and fair election unlike bush

plus he's way more articulate and will make a much better acceptance speech when he comes to New York and leaves a briefcase nuke bomb in the subway that we all know he didnt develop since he stopped doing that 3 years ago!!

2007-12-19 00:32:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

I think General Petraeus should be Man of the Year. He pushed for the troop surge in Iraq which has obviously worked since we are seeing the lowest levels of violence since the beginning of the war.

2007-12-19 00:38:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think A-Jad would be interesting. (Just wanted to participate in your little poll)

Happy Holidays & wish you all the Best. Peace&Love

2007-12-19 08:54:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think they're the Corsican brothers.

2007-12-19 00:32:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers