Topic awaiting preservation: Just when you thought that Orwell was fiction... (Page 1 of 1)

....this happens.(NY times)

Guardian article

I'm sorry, what's the connection to Orwell here?

. . : slicePuzzle

Whilst, personally, the Nobel Peace Prize will lose all appearance of nobility in my eyes should either Bush of Blair win it (those two having done more to forment war in the last 3 years than either of them could have dreamed of, and done nothing to assist peace (I don't agree with the whole 'have a war to bring about peace' idea)), I too am not seeing the connection to Orwell here. Care to enlighten us Rauthrin?

quote:

---

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
George Orwell, 1984

---

I think that this falls under the "War is Peace" in that they've been nominated for a peace prize because of a war...

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 02-03-2004).]

That's what I figured, but I thought I would ask just in case.

War has, and can, bring about peace. It's a simple fact of life.

War has brought about far more peace than the Nobel Peace Prize ever will. It is virtually meaningless when it comes to working for peace on this planet. If you think it's crazy to nominate Bush or Blair, how do you feel about it actually going to someone like Yasser Arafat?

. . : slicePuzzle

OK...I didn't know Yasser Arifat got it. As I've previously stated, i don't beleive in the 'War cuases Peace' viewpoint, mainly becuase I've never seen it come about. War begets War. Violence begets Violence. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right and so on and so forth. War is, in the end, one big blood feud. People go into war shouting things like 'Remember Pearl Harbour!', a battle-cry which is rarely heard in it's most pure form; "Remember the atrocity commited against us that will forgive the atrocity we are about to commit! And so on! Hurrah!"

[edit: Spelling. Damn Docilebob's fat fingers!]

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 02-03-2004).]

They are in good company :

quote:

---

Being nominated for the award is not necessarily an honour in itself. Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic have been nominated in the past, along with US pop star Michael Jackson.

---

www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=14278

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

I've never seen it come about.

---

Skaarjj, but you can read about it in history books. Hitler began to conquer Europe and war stopped him. It also stopped the Japanese imperialism in Asia and the South Pacific. Sometimes war *is* the answer.

The tragedy is that it doesn't *have* to be necessary. If every one agreed to live according to certain values war could become unnecessary. It would be nice but it's very unlikely unless you have a good idea how to convince everyone on the planet to become saints.

. . : slicePuzzle

and yet another Bumper Sticker:

"Wars don't kill people,People kill people."


maybe we should stop........Nahhh, besides making more people, killing them off seems to be what the human race is best at.

Bugs: Those wars were started for a reason that was obviously needed such as the examples you gave of conquest and inperialism. The current war in Iraq was pitched to the American people as a war to find Saddam's WMD. It's almost a year later, no WMD. No apology from Bush to lying to the American people either...

Norm: but....we can't keep killing people off if we don't keep making them.....and.....we can't keep making people if we don't keep killing them off....

Bugimus - I would heartily agree that sometimes war is in fact the answer. Sometimes in order to stop someone from hurting you, you need to hurt them (I'm pretty sure that's in the physics books...).

However, Bush and Blair getting such a prize? I find it unthinkable, and can only hope that it doesn't come to pass.
Given the circumstances at the time that Arafat (along wth Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin) was awarded the prize, the actions of the people involved were enough to merit it. His actions after that point removed all of that merit, and it could be said that it was forseeable, but it was logical at that time.

That is not the case with Bush. . .

". . .done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations"

HA!

Bugs:

quote:

---

Hitler began to conquer Europe and war stopped him

---

True, War did stop Hitler's advance...but did it really bring about peace? World War 2 gave us the Hydrogen and Plutonium Bombs, and they sparked the Arms Race...the so-called 'Cold War'. That kept us in a state of fear and anxiety for many, many years. Fear and anxiety are two things that are not usually found in a time of peace. Then we had the Korean and Vietnam wars, things brought about, indirectly though they may be, by the cold war, which was brought about by World War 2, which was brought about by World War 1, and so on and so fifth.

quote:

---

It also stopped the Japanese imperialism in Asia and the South Pacific.

---

History books aren't facts, they are the story told by the winners of the war. At the end of ww2 the south pacific was "liberated" from the japanese... and occupied by the u.s. I lived on a pacific island for the last several years. Their sacred land was taken away by the u.s. to make military housing. They're taxed by the u.s. and don't receive any federal recompense. The native people are governed by the laws of the u.s. while the military runs rampant over the island. People are constantly finding chemical and H.E. ordinance in the ****ing backyards which the government claimed to have cleaned up but refuses to take responsibility for even when it's clearly marked which government it belongs to.

It's easy to read the history books and try to belive that it happened just like that. It would be nice to think that everything always turns out nicely, but the hard truth of life is that things are rarely that simple or pleasant.

I do believe that sometimes conflict is inevitable, but it's been said, "If you must resort to violence, you have already lost". We may disagree about just about everything, but you're a smart guy, I would hope even you would concede that much...


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

can you post the contents of the article to this thread? when I visit the link it asks for my subscription login name and password in order to view the content...

War is not an answer. Waging a war in order to bring peace is a complete no-no in my humble opinion. I really don't understand how one can imagine solving a problem by killing people. There are other ways to proceed. Mankind claims it is an "super-evolved" animal species. Therefore, I think humans should stop acting as animals and find more intelligent answers to their problems. Not wars. Wars never allowed to determine who was right, but who survived. I don't care whether they are lead in the name of the world peace by G.W. Bush or not. They are wars.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy ?"

Mahatma Gandhi


If either G.W. Bush or T. Blair gets a peace Nobel, I think I'll stop considering the Nobels as a reward for a great work



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 02-11-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 02-11-2004).]

Boudga: Check the second link

[EDIT]Hmm, the second one doesn't exist anymore..

quote:

---

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the European Union were among known nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize as the nomination deadline expired Sunday.

The five-member Norwegian awards committee, which keeps the names of candidates secret, accepts nominations postmarked by Feb. 1.

Last year there were a record 165 nominations for the prize, which went to Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi.

Even though the committee keeps the nomination list secret for 50 years, those making the nominations often announce their candidate.

Norwegian lawmaker Jan Simonsen of the right-wing Party of Progress has nominated Bush and Blair several years in a row, including this year.

Simonsen wrote that by removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, they lessened the chance of a war using weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and laid the foundation for the development of democracy.

Norwegian experts, including Stein Toennesson, director of the Peace Research Institute-Oslo, last year gave Bush and Blair no chance of winning, mainly because a vast majority of Norwegians, including members of the awards committee, were deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.

Former Labor Party leader Thorbjoern Jagland, also a former Norwegian prime minister, nominated the European Union for ensuring peace and security in Europe.

Others believed to be nominated include Pope John Paul II, the Salvation Army and former Czech President Vaclev Havel.

The committee is appointed by but does not answer to Norway's parliament. It will announce its decision in mid-October.

The Nobel Prizes are always awarded Dec. 10, the anniversary of their creator Alfred Nobel's death. The peace prize is awarded in Oslo, and the other prizes in Stockholm, Sweden.

The prize includes a $1.35 million cash award.

---

Here's the article.

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 02-11-2004).]

quote:

---

Wars never allowed to determine who was right, but who survived.

---

Certainly.

And given the option, I'd like to survive. If the only way to survive is to fight someone who means to kill me, I will fight.

That is obviously a far cry from the US involvement in Iraq, but I feel that your blanket statement is just silly as the notion that the US had to go into Iraq to protect its people.