Bush, Blair nominated for Peace Prize

A nomination for the nobel price does not mean much, as any member of any national government can nominate someone. Michael O’Connor Clarke has an interesting weblog-entry and some links on this:

http://michaelocc.com/archives/20040101_archives.html#107548773957920687

It would make sense if the Nobel Peace Prize were awarded by, say, the editors of The Onion - and it were called the Nobel Piece Price or something.

Since the actual Nobel folks have not been known to pull pranks for laffs ‘n gigglez, and have never displayed a very dry sense of humour (or any kind of humour, for that matter) we are left with “Simply Ludicrous.” The dictator has, so far, not been gotten rid of (simply being held on ice for the time being) and the world has certainly not gotten safer by any stretch of the imagination.

It is, perhaps, evidence of recreational smoking going on in Norway’s parliament.

Well, last time they were nominating Berlusconi for Peace Prize, unitl someone in Europe asked:

Berlusconi? But he is being investigated for corruption.

And he didn’t won.

Pietro

I think Simonson is the same guy that nominated them last year, at which point I yelled, “You’ve got to be f—king kidding me!” This year, I just rolled my eyes.

But, you know, would it be that ridiculous if they joined the likes of Kissinger?

Well, this will leave the door open for a major letter-to-the-editor campaign, writting in disgust of this — another chance for the grassroots to speak out again.

Why nominate Bush and Blair only and not give any credit at all to the rest of the “coalition”? Oh.

Iraq is probably the only truly rememberable and perhaps worthwhile endeavor of the Bush Administration (assuming there’s only one). After Arafat getting the award for “peace” in the middle east, the award is somewhat questionable anyway. But we’ll see how things look there 5 or so years after the Iraq war.

And where’ s John Howard’s nomination?!?! And the Spanish bloke’s?!?

Geez, be part of the coalition and no one ever remembers… ;-)

What does Berlusconi have to do with this? Or John Howard? Or the Coalition? I think the point of this nomination is to recognize the men who lead, not those who signed on. Perhaps you don’t agree with the nomination but surely it is not surprising to you that there are those who do. I’d agree that it’s a bit early to trumpet the efforts of these two men, but still it’s not shocking to see their names here.

If the world were a safer place, our troops would be at home instead of dying in the desert at the hands of unknown enemies.

Considering that Arafat and Kissinger are Nobel Peace Prize Laureats, and considering that Hitler came close to getting the prize in 1938, I am not nearly as shocked as you are.

So far, the Iraqi body count is 60,000, I reckon (extrapolated from 15,000 during the first 4 days of Shock and Awe and 37,000 by late August). Saddam killed this number of people every four years, on average. So maybe Saddam should also be nominated ;)?

Jan Simonsen is primarily known for helping his dubious friends get permission to open and serve alcohol at their dubious bars - as long as he gets ‘paid’ for it with free beer… Heh, though i think he sued the tv station that made the documentary so I probably should’nt be spreading that..

Don’t worry, that man is a standing joke. (Even though it is a bit embarrasing that he’s still a parliament member…). Don’t waste your energy getting pissed at relatively harmless maniacs. Bush and Blair won’t win any peace prize, but they’re much more worth having a go at every day of the week than Jan Simonsen..

Sychophantic little twat. Or raving lunatic. Maybe all those long winters and snow have addled his brain ?

Considering the long list of villans already nominated, the Nobel has become something like the Grammy, less an award for talent, and more a acknowledgement of vast name recognition.

Both of them have my vote.