PAIR UP FOR PEACE PRIZE

February 1, 2004 7:33 PM

PAIR UP FOR PEACE PRIZE It is possible to see the war against Iraq as a good thing,finally, but this Orwellian War is Peace seems a bit strange: :Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for waging war on Saddam Hussein. They have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said ousting the dictator had reduced the threat of a war with weapons of mass destruction."
posted by Postroad (26 comments total)

Satan should be putting on hockey gear about now.
posted by jonmc at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2004

If someone had assassinated Hitler in February of 1942, which stopped the European part of WWII cold, should he have been given the Nobel Peace Prize?

Sometimes violence *is* justified in the pursuit of peace. And freedom.
posted by kablam at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2004

bzzt. horseshit analogy. next?
posted by quonsar at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2004

Kablam, the issue is the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction.
posted by Hildago at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2004

Other nominees: Adolf Hitler; former Czech president Vaclav Havel; former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

The Nobel Peace prize is pretty crappy really. Everyone has an arguement with it. I think the only way it could truly be justified is if potential recipients have to have used no violence what-so-ever in working for peace.
posted by Jimbob at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2004

I think the Nobel board should be acquainted with a classic George Carlin joke: "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity!"
posted by clevershark at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2004

Nominations? The Nobel Peace prize became a joke when Henry Kissinger WON it.
posted by skallas at 8:04 PM on February 1, 2004

Unrelenting horseshit.

I just debated this pretty much to death (on an unrelated topic) here, so I'm going to save my breath. My username there is nosaJ.

quonsar++
posted by loquacious at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2004

There's no real cause for a fuss, given that nominations mean precisely nothing. It's not like other awards where your being nominated means that you were really on a meaningful short list, and almost won the award. All it means is that someone who is permitted to write a nomination wrote one naming you.

A wide range of "competent" people can nominate people or organizations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Members of national legislatures and executives are on the list. I'm a professor of social science, so I can, according to their page, nominate people. I can nominate postroad for the Nobel Peace Prize if I want to, and I nominate him on the grounds that postroad can fart Ode To Joy in 3-part harmony out his magnificent ass, and he would be duly nominated just as much as Bush and Blair.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2004

"I can, according to their page, nominate people. I can nominate postroad for the Nobel Peace Prize if I want to, and I nominate him on the grounds that postroad can fart Ode To Joy in 3-part harmony out his magnificent ass" - So, umm, hypothetically speaking (of course) - what could we offer to convince you to submit this nomination ? I'd be willing to pony up $20 to begin a Metafilter "gratuity" fund. We'd give it to a charity of your choice, of course.
posted by troutfishing at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2004

1. True - nominations in & of themselves are relatively meaningless.

2. The Nobel Peace Prize is, truly, a joke. Yassir Freakin' Arafat? Please.

3. Bush & Blair DO deserve recognition for working towards a safer world.
posted by davidmsc at 8:38 PM on February 1, 2004

Bush & Blair DO deserve recognition for working towards a safer world.

Such as a comfortable retirement, ASAP.
posted by kickingtheground at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2004

Bush & Blair DO deserve recognition for working towards a safer world.

Even assuming this was true (and I think it is debatable), the Nobel Peace Prize would not be the appropriate recognition. It is, after all, to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

So fighting a war to save the world from evil is all well and good, but being nominated for a Peace prize because of it is idiotic.
posted by moonbiter at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2004

"Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth & violence. Even if my belief is a fond delusion, it will be admitted that it is a fascinating delusion."

-Mahatma Gandhi
posted by loquacious at 9:23 PM on February 1, 2004

3. Bush & Blair DO deserve recognition for working towards a safer world.

Cheaper gas != safety, and neither does a new generation of terrorists.
posted by The God Complex at 9:23 PM on February 1, 2004

Moonbiter wins. Debate pretty much over. Go home.
posted by Hildago at 10:08 PM on February 1, 2004

Yeah, Hidalgo's right. The hot action's all over at that post about Janet Jackson's rogue tit.
posted by troutfishing at 10:19 PM on February 1, 2004

Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity!

If you know of a better way of making more virgins, let us know.
posted by spazzm at 1:53 AM on February 2, 2004

2. The Nobel Peace Prize is, truly, a joke. Yassir Freakin' Arafat? Please.

davidmsc, you knew when you typed this that Arafat wasn't nominated alone but rather in conjunction with Rabin and Peres for their efforts in the Oslo process.

What a tawdry attempt at misrepresentation, all because you have an ideological axe to grind.
posted by dmt at 6:04 AM on February 2, 2004

dmt, that just makes the "Peace" prize some sort of award for wishful thinking on a grand scale.
posted by clevershark at 6:26 AM on February 2, 2004

clevershark: perhaps, but I'd prefer to think of it instead as a prize for leaders with the vision and the courage to do what had previously been thought to be impossible for peace. I mean seriously, when this happened we all thought that peace might have been a possiblity didn't we? And it was a good thing. The Peace Prize was awarded to the three men for daring to think and - to do - the unthinkable.

The fact that it went splat subsequently doesn’t necessarily mean that they shouldn’t have striven for peace in the first place does it?

Besides, what's wrong with wishing for peace on a grand scale?
posted by dmt at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2004

How about also giving it to Saddam Hussein for not having any "weapons of mass destruction", and for not fighting back when the U.S. invaded?

How about Moammar Qadafy for abandoning attempts to develop weapons?
posted by lathrop at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2004

troutfishing - I throw US$20 at that proposal as well.
posted by Nauip at 1:06 PM on February 2, 2004

Yeah, well, I'd actually be way too embarrassed to have that under my name and my department's letterhead... If you wanted me to actually write the Nobel people a letter like that, you'd have to gift me with an utter lack of shame (me being Anglo, I'm good at shame).

But I still enjoy knowing that I could nominate Marvin the Martian.

I'll do it when I'm fixin' to retire, howzabout that?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:27 PM on February 2, 2004

ROU_Xenophobe - I knew that it was an unfair proposal, as it could be a quick career killer. But when you are ready to retire.........well, I'd be glad to honor that offer and to pass the hat.

Nauip - Alas. Another time. Perhaps there is another way though. (scratches head, adopts thinking posture)
posted by troutfishing at 8:06 PM on February 2, 2004

2+2=5
posted by crunchland at 8:32 PM on February 2, 2004