Does anyone else here think it’s a little…I don’t know…<b>WRONG</b> that Tony Blair and George Bush Jr. were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
I mean, it’s not like they behaved as true peacemakers would, such as Ghandi. They started a war! Of course, I really should have seen this coming…After all, the awards WERE named after the man who invented dynamite :dubious:
I certainly do. But keep in mind anybody can be nominated. I can’t imagine them winning, especially since the committee actually criticized them when awarding the most recent Prize to Jimmy Carter.
I do not. While it would be nice if every terrible situation had a clean, easy, morally black-and-white, Star Trek-ish solution, the real world often has down and dirty necessities.
I look at it like an equation. On one side of the equation, X, has it that Saddam stayed in power. On the other side, Y, has it with the US and UK going in and ousting him. As long as X has the result being a greater level of mayhem and violence misery, I see nothing wrong with the US and UK’s joint action being, ultimately, one that helped the cause of peace.
You might be surprised to know that the Nobel Peace Prize is voted on by some country’s parliment (Sweden?). As such, the the recipient is usually chosen for political reasons.
And IMO, Bush and Blair are clearly inappropriate choices. People who wage war are, by definition, not peacemakers.
Since this is not a factual question it doesn’t belong in this forum. And since there was a thread about this in GD, I’ll just close this one rather than move it.