Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Nobel Peace Prize to Bush?

Youssef M. Ibrahim writes that "As things stand right now, the whole Middle East political map is up for change." It’s a nice outline of some of the effects of the real regime change going on Iraq, the awe it has created in the Mideast, and some of the likely consequences. This, and the announcement that Sharon and Abbas are going to meet in Egypt next week--the start of things to come since this is the highest level meeting in four years--leads me to a thought. It is probable that this thought will lead you to think that that my wits begin to turn, as the Poet might say. But, maybe not. For it is obvious that the Bush guys are not being given enough credit for things already accomplished in the Mideast, nor is it assumed that they are capable of accomplishing more. This is wrong. Their design is working, and while I don’t think Bush is fortune’s knave, it has fallen in line with his purposes.

So I pose a question. What are the chances that President Bush will receive the Nobel Peace Prize before he leaves office? I think the chances are very much in his favor. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that unless an unseen catastrophe happens in the region, he will receive the Prize. I don’t say this because I think it is important that W. get the prize so that he may be in the company of Kofi Annan (2001), Jimmy Carter (2002), or Shirin Ebadi (2003), but because I look forward to the time when even the international Left will be forced to recognize his accomplishments. Wouldn’t that be something? Yes it would. Fortes fortuna adiuvat.

Discussions - 72 Comments

Wouldn’t it be great if he sent Sasheen Littlefeather to refuse the Nobel for him?

As demonstrated by your citations of past recipients, I consider the Nobel Peace Prize to be rather an honoring of shammery than recognition of accomplishment of real good. I am surprised that Bill Clinton has not received one or two by now, but have cynical (and reasonable) expectations that such awards will follow soon -- he fits the Kofi/Jimmy mold perfectly (note how appropriate his new appointment to U.N. service by Annan). In all seriousness, I would hate to see President Bush receive the award. I think better of him than to consider that he deserves an honor such as the Nobel has become.

They would need to revoke almost all the previous awards before an award to Bush would make sense. Until then, I’m on Bob’s team.

You people don’t have any respect for international institutions like the Nobel Prizes. Don’t even pretend that you do. Those prizes are all about left wing stuff, like Peace, Science, Literature, Learning. Those aren’t conservative values and they certainly aren’t values the current administration holds dear.

The idea that Pres. Bush would win a Nobel Peace Prize is completely delusional. Probably the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Keep up the Krazy Komedy, guys.

I like your phrase, " unless an unseen catastrophe happens in the region". Of course the fact that 400,000 kids are anticipated to die in Iraq in the coming years due to malnutrition, contaminated water and inadequate medical infrastructure as a result of the war and sanctions is a perfect example of an "UNSEEN CATASTROPHE" in the sense that the mainstream media ignores it. It’s not on US television, so it’s "unseen".

There are other examples of "unseen catastrophes", of course. Feel free to add.

400,000 kids are anticipated to die in Iraq in the coming years due to malnutrition, contaminated water and inadequate medical infrastructure as a result of the war and sanctions

I’d appreciate seeing a source for this figure. And exactly what sanctions are you talking about? Do you mean the ones that those who opposed the war wanted to keep in place as a means of "containing" Saddam?

I have changed my mind. Tubino’s made up "facts" were so infuriating that I am now a Bush supporter.

Just exactly how many Cruise Missles launched at a defensless nation must be used to qualify for the "Peace Prize"?

Come on. Everyone here knows that Rduke, Ted, and tubino are all the same person.

I guess that everyody there also knows that Iraq was only 1 minute away from launching an attack on every city in the USA

huh? i’m three people? that’s great news! about as great a news as the prospect of G.W.’s impending Peace Prize...heh heh heh HA HA HA! Seriously, keep the laughs coming.

Bush...Nobel PEACE Prize...Ugh. It would unfortunately make sense in this crazy backwards/upsidedown reality the empire has created. How anyone feels this justifies the war is beyond me. This wasn’t the right way to achieve this end result. It may have been the fastest though, which is definitely not to say it has merit.

People get peace prizes for starting wars?

Just like Henry Kissinger!

Remember Orwell (1984): War is Peace

Hmm...so does that imply the Right is forced to recognize the accomplishments of Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, et al.? I think that would send the wingnuts into a foaming blather (not that it’s hard)

Who cares about the Nobel Prize anyway? The women in Iraq who voted for the first time ever don’t give a damn what a bunch of left-wing Europeans think about W.

If I do recall, the reason Jimmy Carter won his was out of protest against the war in Iraq. For the panel to turn around and give the award to President Bush, it would mean that they would be admitting that they were wrong. Fat chance.

unless an unseen catastrophe happens in the region, he will receive the Prize.
-Peter Schramm

Hasn’t our whole enterprise over there been a catastrophe? If he did win it wouldn’t win him any friends from the left. The left would just think the Nobel committee was full of shit. Kinda like Time Magazine.

Hasn’t our whole enterprise over there been a catastrophe?

Uh, no. We crushed a despot in little over three weeks. We were welcomed with open arms by all but a few thousand Iraqis. Did this stop us from prosecuting the war on terra (is that how Bush says it?). Nope. We have captured nearly all of the high ranking Al Quaeda leaders in the world. Bin Laden is still hiding in a cave and will be vaporized the minute he shows his ugly ass again. Sounds like a huge string of victories for W.

On the other hand, the Nobel Committee is often full of shit, so I guess you are half right.

"The women in Iraq who voted for the first time ..."

Beg pardon? Women have had equal rights in Iraq since ... the 50’s. Of course I learned that information from an Iraqi female. Only since the American occupation have women in Iraq been treated poorly. That’s not likely to get better with the rise of cleric power and Shari`a.

Wait, I better quit. The username of the person I’m arguing with doesn’t give me confidence that logic will have any effect.

I think it’d be a gas if Bush won the same peace prize that has been awarded to Henry Kissinger and Yasir Arafat.


Bush’s chances of receiving the Peace Prize, ever, are zero. Unless, of course, he drifts very far off to the left. Then he might have a one-in-ten chance. The European Left, which controls such things, has become utterly incapable of rationality.

I think he might win one, depends how this works itself out ten years from now.

Ah, yes. The "equal right" to not have your vote matter because Saddam was always going to get 100%. I’m sorry, I guess I overlooked that. Then there’s the "equal right" to be tortured if you refuse to join the Ba’ath Party. Did your invisible Iraqi friend happen to mention that one? How about the "equal right" be be raped and killed on Uday’s houseboat? Or the right to be raped, tortured, and shot because your soccer team lost a game at the Olympics? I guess those are "equal," since men are potential victims too.

I’m sorry. You are absolutely right. Life under Saddam ’twas a paradise indeed.

Only since the American occupation have women in Iraq been treated poorly. Huh? I guess Uday a Qusay, those jolly brothers, sons of Sadaam, were treating women okay? Taking 15-16 year old girls, repeatedly raping them, then killing them, is an example of good treatment?

"unless an unseen catastrophe happens in the region"

Do you mean ANOTHER catastrophe?

By the way, President Lincoln was shot a while back.

Yeah...No Left Turn is nuts...the man most responsible for not one, but two wars, and countless hikes in aggressive feelings in all countries of the world...to be given the Nobel Peace Prize. We are indeed living in Bizarro World if that is the case.

If this is not an indication of the depravity of Republican minds...the utter poverty of their thinking and inability to rationally link two themes (peace prizes go to peaceful people, not "war presidents", as Bush has admitted he is), I don’t know what does.

I can VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE...right now...Bush will not even be NOMINATED for the prize.

"Comment 18 by Cornholio

Who cares about the Nobel Prize anyway? The women in Iraq who voted for the first time ever don’t give a damn what a bunch of left-wing Europeans think about W."

The women in Iraq are collectively CURSING Bush’s name right now...thanks to his "liberation" they now have the unenviably privilige of losing all the secular rights they had accrued under Saddam’s Iraq. For all the tyrranous and murderous aspects of Saddam’s regime...women in Iraq had the most advanced, Westernized, secularized lifestyles in the entire Arab world. Now...ALREADY there are Shiite towns and cities that are instituting TALIBAN-style restrictions on women...all hail the new Shiite theocracy.

Quite the contrary...I think Iraq’s liberalized women are wishing they would be celebrating greater freedoms...rather than the prospect of oppressive theocracy...

Wow!

Comments on this topic from the left really show a warped sense of reality!

Blinded by their refusal to see anything good in Bush’s policies and the (now obvious) results of those policies the left comes up with the absurd comments made by many of the people posting here.

The often stated (By Bush, but not reported by the MSM) goals of US actions in Afganistan and Iraq were at one time goals dear to the hearts of liberals -- getting rid of right-wing dictators, promoting democracy and women’s and minorities’ rights.

The US and its allies aren’t at war *with* Iraq, they are at war with a band of Hussein extremists holed up *in* Iraq who want to turn the clock back to the 12th century. Nearly all Iraqis want to move ahead to at least the 18th century, judging from the election turnout.

Even in the US women weren’t able to vote until the 20th century.

Partly off-topic Observation: It is intersting that the "Bush lied" crowd picks WMD as the chief lie since at the time the existence of Iraqi WMD was so well accepted that it was the one thing in the US list of reasons to invade Iraq that everyone could agree on! That’s how Bush/Powell were able to get the UN to agree on resolution 1441.

Jamie Foxer-

"the man most responsible for not one, but two wars, and countless hikes in aggressive feelings in all countries of the world..." Are you perhaps insinuating that Afghanistan was an unjust war? Last time I checked, we were attacked on September 11, 2001. We have acted in retribution in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we removed a despot, a tyranny, a totalitarian government. We have instituted a Democracy. People are free. Last time I checked that meant that there are going to be significantly less torturings. No more government policies of raping. Of killing. Less atrocities. People are now able to critisize their government over there, if they see fit. They can have basic human rights. That is new for them. This is a result of Hussein no longer being in power.

"The women in Iraq are collectively CURSING Bush’s name right now...thanks to his ’liberation’ they now have the unenviably privilige of losing all the secular rights they had accrued under Saddam’s Iraq." I would love to see a source showing us all exactly how u arrived at the conclusion that "The women in Iraq are collectively CURSING Bush’s name right now." And also, what are these "secular" rights you speak of? Surely you don’t mean voting and whatnot? Because the only voting that went on under Hussein was a tyranneous voting system. If you did not vote for Hussein, you were killed. A vote is an expression demonstrating one’s own opinions. That means not Hussein’s opinoins; not what he wants you to vote. But what you OWN opinions.

It is an interesting proposition, but not likely. We’ll see though. I do think that as the government gets moving in Iraq, in the wake of elections, that Bush will gain more legitimacy and support in his vision.

I also like how the negative comments are nothing really more than that. Name calling is such a trademark of the left. Instead of a good conversation and discussion, they had to turn this into such an ugly affair.

Yikes. Are you guys delusional? I would put the odds at 1000:1 that Bush gets indicted for war crimes before he gets nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. *pinch* Welcome back to reality.

This has got to be a joke. No one is that stupid...

I would basically echo Dave here. Considering that Bush basically lied the U.S. into an unconstitutional, illegal invasion of another country that hadn’t attacked it, coupled with the fact that outside of the U.S. pretty much, well, everyone loathes him with a passion, I’d put the chances at around nil. The Ig-Noble Prize? He may have a shot.

wow u guys are so out of touch with reality its disgusting. I wonder if Hitler will win a Nobel Prize too? After all, his war caused the creation of the UN and the unification of Europe. Just cuz you start a war and something positive comes out of it doesnt mean you are entitled to a peace prize. Bush winning a peace prize, omfg what a joke...There is a much higher possibility that Bush will be impeached than win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nice post. You’ll get many, many more repsonses yet.

1. Nobel made his fortune by inventing better explosives, not better double-chamber bongs, you hippies!

2. KISSINGER got a Nobel Peace prize for ending war in Vietnam, and covertly prolonged it for three years after that.

3. But he’s a WAR president! He should get the Nobel War Prize.

Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill did a lot more for peace than the likes of Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, who have very little to show for their utopian efforts at "peace." Where was the U.N. when genocide and ethnic cleansing swept through many areas of the globe? Where is the U.N. and Annan as terror threatens global peace? It is filled with corruption, getting billions from dictators, and putting Syria and such states on the human rights commission. Real statesmen who faced down forces of darkness and global terror of facism, communism, and Islamofascism to preserve self-government, liberty, and the dignity of human beings, often through force of arms are the true heroes that we celebrate for freeing humans from oppression out of self-interest and the better angels of our nature.

If there was no Churchill facing down the Nazis in World War II or Bush was not president (God help us if Al Gore was president) after September 11th facing down terrorists, then the history of and manly defense of civilization would be different. If Annan or Carter were not around, would the world really be any different or there really any less lasting peace?

Bob Hawkins: That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time! Thanks for giving me a good laugh!

Do they give a prize for torturing foreigners? I hadn’t realized...

I agree that the chances of Bush getting the award are about nil. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee judges would likely prefer having their hands hacked off by a Saudi "judge" to using them to sign anything in support of Bush. So the proposal is a bit ludicrous...

But the real fun is watching the hard left make up reasons why Bush=Hitler!

"Considering that Bush basically lied the U.S. into an unconstitutional, illegal invasion of another country..."

Lied? Everyone thought there were WMD so there is no lie there. And other justifications he spoke explicitly of, such as spreading liberal democratic ideas in the states of the Middle East as an antidote to Islamic Fascism, have now been largely - if imperfectly - realized.

Unconstitutional? - The war was duly voted upon by the US Congress and duly approved. How the hell is it "unconstitutional?"

Illegal? By what measure? Indeed, the original Iraqi war had not "legally" ended since Saddam had not kept his end of the negotiated peace. The only meaning of illegal is "not approved by France and Russia in the security council." Given what we now know of Saddam’s bribes to France and Russia, how can you make this argument with a straight face?

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the attempt to democratize the region has gone much more slowly or poorly than could have been the case. It is rational to argue that the whole venture is not rooted in reality, but the anti-Bush "arguments" I see here are just empty slogans and muddle-headed twaddle. Wake up folks: put down that ANSWER brochure and learn to think.

Response to Christopher Stone

Are you perhaps insinuating that Afghanistan was an unjust war? Last time I checked, we were attacked on September 11, 2001. We have acted in retribution in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we removed a despot, a tyranny, a totalitarian government. We have instituted a Democracy.

The people of Afghanistan never attacked the United States...the de facto and ILLEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan had not attacked the United States. The United States was attacked by a non-governmental terroristy entity named Al-Qaeda...which had certain bases in remote areas of Afghanistan.

The proper procedure would have been for the United States to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Afghanistan to give up its Al-Qaeda members. This was particularly easy to do (and it started to work, before Bush unilaterally invaded). Afghanistan was virtually isolated by the entire world...not even Wahhabi Saudi Arabia had relations with fundamentalist Afghanistan. Only Pakistan had relations with Afghanistan. After 9/11, and after the United States brought pressure to bear on Pakistan, Pakistan suspended diplomatic relations with Afghanistan and trade with the country...a move that alarmed the Taliban rulers. The Taliban rulers replied by offering to turn over any Al-Qaeda members in its territory IF the United States could provide evidence of their part in the 9/11 crime. This is not an unreasonable request...it’s called "international extradition law". The United States could have had all of the Al-Qaeda leadership in its hands, right now, without having shed a single drop of American or Afghani blood in Afghanistan. We decided to, instead, engage our bloodlust for revenge, which has nothing to do with the concept of justice for 9/11. There was no justice...we’ve killed mostly people who are totally innocent of any crimes (Afghani people) and allowed the criminals to largely get away and spread out throughout the Muslim world...all to satisfy our bloodlust.

In Iraq, we have not instituted a democracy. We have, at best, instituted a POLYARCHY (look it up in political science dictionaries). Polyarchy is a regime ruled by elite classes/individuals, which is regularly legitimized by either honest or corrupt elections. Democracy is largely defined as rule by the majority of the people. Originally, the United States did NOT want to give democracy to Iraq, later it changed to Polyarchic Caucus elections, and only through the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, were mass elections held, which seem to have given power to legitimate representatives of the majority of the Iraqi people (the Shiites...through their Dawa and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution Parties). The statement you made about us bringing them democracy is self-serving and false...we did not go to Iraq to bring them democracy...we went there to establish a pliant client state that would assure the West oil...the real authors of Iraqi democracy are Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the Shiite people...with some assistance from the Kurdish group. Get your facts right...here’s an article from Time Magazine to confirm my words

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1022720,00.html?cnn=yes

Voting is not the only rights in a society. When you compare the Arab world, it’s a given that most of the Arab world doesn’t have any voting rights (only a few Arab countries have municipal and regional assemblies...but most are monarchies). Withint THAT context, Iraqi women had more liberalized, Westernized rights than other women in the Arab world. They could wear what they wish, forced wearing of the Hijab (headcovering) did not exist (although it was voluntarily allowed). This is because Hussein’s regime is Baathist Socialist and was deeply opposed to Arab fundamentalist monarchies. Women could walk around freely, without men to escort them, etc. Now, because of the U.S. invasion, whatever rights women had will be gone. Women are being forced to wear, not only Hijabs, but Burkha style TOTAL BODY coverings. Religious police walk the streets of Shiite areas restricting people’s actions and banning alcohol, music, dancing, and even certain TV broadcasts. So...when you speak of bringing democracy and women’s rights to Iraq...I ask...what rights? If we are going to compare Saddam’s Iraq vs. Shiite Theocratic Iraq...it’s a no contest...women had more rights under Saddam, even with Uday’s abuses, even with the raping of women, even with their killing. You don’t think killing of women is going to occur in Shiite Iraq? We haven’t brought freedom to Iraq, we haven’t brought democracy to Iraq...and we DEFINITELY did not bring increased women’s rights...we set them on a backwards path. get your facts right.

Would you agree to:
1. Spend $500 bill
2. Lose 3000 American lives
3. Put the budget into massive deficit

To accomplish:
Ousting the tinhorn dictator of a third world nation so that his subjects can vote?

Didn’t think so.

"Wow! Comments on this topic from the left really show a warped sense of reality! Blinded by their refusal to see anything good in Bush’s policies"

And you’re warped and blinded by your refusal to acknowledge all the bad that went on. I’ll acknowledge good stuff when he does something good. The best I can say about Bush is he just recently raised the benefit for military families that loose someone in combat. I will give him that, but that’s about the only thing I can think of that he actually did that was good and done positively. Blah blah Saddam yeah yeah I know. I don’t know that I completely agree that the world is safer without Saddam. Our actions have increased terrorism where there was none. The violence is just less centered on an individual and his government constituents

I think it’s hilarious that some people here insist that why he won’t get the peace prize is because the Nobel org is leftist. BLIND! IGNORANT! STUBBORN!

"We were welcomed with open arms by all but a few thousand Iraqis"

Delusional!

"We have captured nearly all of the high ranking Al Quaeda leaders in the world"

DELUSIONAL!!

Do a little research and disprove this for yourself. Have you even tried to look farther than your TV set??

"Grrrrr look look, someone that’s not on "our side" is calling us names. We better take the high road, point it out and act like angels."

Puh Leez

Response to Wildmonkn

Lied? Everyone thought there were WMD so there is no lie there. And other justifications he spoke explicitly of, such as spreading liberal democratic ideas in the states of the Middle East as an antidote to Islamic Fascism, have now been largely - if imperfectly - realized.

Who is everyone? Not me...not my "leftist" friends. Not the rest of the world. Who is everyone? I distinctly remember many voices (Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohammed ElBaradei, etc.) telling the U.S. that, according to the evidence in their hands, Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction...only the SUSPICION that he might have a covert WMD program. That’s what the U.N. inspectors were trying to uncover...before being unilaterally pulled out for the bombing to begin. And even if Saddam DID have WMDs, he had no delivery mechanisms to threaten beyond Israel, let alone Europe or U.S. And when has having WMDs or missiles to launch them been a rationale for war? If that is the case, let’s go to war with China, Russia, England, France, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and so on...the WMD war rationale was bogus from the beginning...it was grasping at straws, coupled with fearmongering the nation into thinking that a mushroom cloud of Iraqi WMDs would soon hit them. Totally bogus.

And who appointed us the "spreaders" of liberty? By what right? What liberty? Were is the documentary evidence to prove that we are spreaders of liberty? Let’s examine the historical record, shall we?

1898- Spanish American War - result - colonization of Guam and Puerto Rico and neocolonization of Cuba - NO SPREADING OF FREEDOM.

1900-1930s - various invasions in Central America and the Caribbean (Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, etc.) - result - American military interventions and direct colonial rule of these areas and the imposition of American corporate parasitic companies (such as the United Fruit Company), which made billions of profit off the natural resource of these nations, while the peasants were kept subdued by our marines - NO SPREADING OF FREEDOM

1910-1919, World War I - war was not fought for freedom, but balance of power politics...U.S enters the war on the side of the British/French alliance...beats the German/Austrian/Ottoman alliance - end result - Germany and Austria defeated, but not occupied. Made to pay tribute to the British, French, and Americans - NO SPREADING OR TAKING OF FREEDOM.

1945 - World War II - U.S enters the war after being attacked by Japanese...Germans and Japanese defeated...U.S. helps defend the rest of the world from the fascist juggernaut - end result - FREEDOM PROTECTED IN EUROPE, however, old colonial British and French empires re-established in India, Africa, and Indochina...FREEDOM NOT SPREAD TO THIRD WORLD.

1950s - Korean War - U.S. retaliates against North Korean advance into South Korea. Cease-fire established, and mine-border established. -end result- SOUTH KOREAN SOVEREIGNTY DEFENDED, SOUTH KOREANS ESTABLISH DEMOCRATIC REGIME, NORTH KOREA CONTAINED IN ITS TERRITORY.

1961 - Bay of Pigs invasion attempt - U.S. supports exile invasion of Cuba, in violation of Cuban sovereignty and clear violation of U.N. aggressive war clauses - end results - CUBANS REPEL AMERICAN INVASION, ATTEMPT AT RE-ESTABLISHING NEOCOLONIAL AMERICAN PUPPET RULE FAILED - FREEDOM NOT SPREAD.

1952- Overthrow of Guatemalan elected President, Jacobo Arbenz - CIA planes dropped bombs and pamphlets, while supporting Col. Castillo Armas to lead CIA-organized "Rebel Army". - end result - FREEDOM TAKEN FROM THE GUATEMALAN PEOPLE, WHO ELECTED ARBENZ BY 65% OF THE VOTE.

1965 - Overthrow of Dominican Republic elected President Juan Bosch - U.S. sends 20,000 Marines to overthrow Bosch, whose moderate Social Democratic policies are considered "communism" by Lyndon Johnson. Fearing "another Castro", U.S. violates DR’s sovereignty and overthrows the first elected President of DR in 38 years - end result - FREEDOM TAKEN FROM THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE.

1955-1973 Vietnam War - U.S. to reconquer the Vietnamese people, which had recently overthrown their colonial masters, the French. U.S. first installs a puppet regime (Diem) in South Vietnam, but Diem has no support from the South Vietnam people (who support the Vietcong). U.S. begins to install concentration camps for the people to isolate them from the guerrillas (and take support away from the guerrillas). U.S. directly engages Vietcong, loses war, Vietcong ride into Saigon, U.S. leaves in helicopters - end result - ATTEMPT AT DENYING FREEDOM AND SELF-DETERMINATION FOILED, VIETNAMESE PEOPLE OVERTHROW A SECOND COLONIAL PRETENDER, VIETNAMESE SUFFER 3 MILLION DEATHS AND UTTER DESTRUCTION OF THEIR TERRITORY.

1953 - Overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran - U.S and British institute navy blockades and support a coup attempt by the Shah of Iran. - end result - Highly popular Mossadegh replaced by hated Shah (which later leads to 1979 Islamic Revolution). FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY FROM IRANIAN PEOPLE/PUPPET RULE INSTALLED.

1978-1990 - Contra War against Nicaragua - Sandinistas overthrow dastardly U.S. puppet dictator Anastacio Somoza. Become highly popular rulers of Nicaragua. u.S. fears "another Cuba", and begins policy of makiing another CIA-organized "Rebel Army", following the model used against Juan Arbenz in Guatemala (1950s). Contras wage a brutal war against the Sandinista and Nicaraguan people. Tens of thousands die...Sandinistas hold election...Nicaraguan people, fearing more death and destruction, vote for a pro-U.S. regime to end the struggle. - end result - FREEDOM NOT SPREAD...THIRD WORLD PEOPLE COWED INTO ACCEPTING A FOREIGN-SUPPORTED REGIME. THOUSANDS DIE AS A RESULT OF ILLEGAL WAR. U.N WORLD COURT CALLS THE CONTRA WAR "TERRORISM".

1983 - U.S invades TINY Grenada - Using the argument that TINY Grenada was a vital threat to U.S. security, U.S. invades Grenada when Maurice Bishop is assassinated by fellow party member Baird. U.S. cooks up phony excuse of American students being "under threat" and invades Grenada, overthrowing the regime. Popular Jewel movement removed from power - end result - FREEDOM TAKEN FROM GRENADAN PEOPLE.

1989 - U.S. invades Panama - Former School of the Americas graduate Manuel Norieg (ex-CIA member, and puppet ruller of Panama) decides to not take orders from U.S. anymore. U.S. invades Panama, kills thousands, denies their deaths, despite widespread photographic and video footage of civilian deaths. - end result - PANAMA CONTINUES TO BE FREE, HOWEVER PANAMANIANS ARE MADE TO SUFFER THOUSANDS OF UNNECESSARY CIVILIAN DEATHS. FREEDOM NOT SPREAD NOR TAKEN.

1990 - U.S. invades Iraq - U.S. invades Iraq to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. - end result - SOVEREIGNTY RESTORED TO KUWAIT, BUT KUWAIT REMAINS AN ELITE RULED COUNTRY. FREEDOM NOT SPREAD NOR TAKEN.

1994 - U.S. invades Haiti - U.S. invades to restore elected President Jean-Bertrande Aristide. U.S. restores freedom. - end result - U.S. RESTORES FREEDOM.

1999 - NATO attacks Serbia - U.S./NATO forces attack Serbia to repel Serbian attempts at subjugating Kosovo. Serbian leader Milosevic is overthrown by his people after massive bombardment of Serbia. Democratic elections held in Serbia - end result - U.S. AIDS SERBIAN PEOPLE IN OVERTHROWING THEIR DICTATOR. FREE ELECTIONS HELD, DEMOCRACY BEGINS IN SERBIA.

2001 - Afghanistan - U.S. bombs and invades Afghanistan to apprehend international terrorist criminal organization, Al-Qaeda. Overthrows Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in the process. Northern Alliance guerrillas take over nation. -end result- CONFLICT UNRESOLVED, TALIBAN GUERRILAS CONTINUE TO HOLD LARGE PARTS OF TERRITORY, U.S FORCES STILL IN AFGHANISTAN, STATE OF WAR CONTINUES.

2003 - Second Iraq War - U.S. bombs and invades Iraq under illegtimate and illegal pretenses (under international law). U.N. refuses to sanction war, and most nations of the world oppose conflict by a margin of 130 to 30-40 nations nominally in the "Coalition of the Willing". U.S. occupies Iraq, insurgency rages, initially refuses democracy for Iraq, but is forced to hold elections by insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and Shiite popular pressure (and the threat of the Shiites joining the Sunni insurgency). Elections recently held - end result - CONFLICT UNRESOLVED, U.S. TROOPS STILL OCCUPY NATION, PROSPECT OF SHIITE THEOCRATIC RULE LIKELY, SUNNI INSURGENCY STILL RAGES, IRAQIS STILL NOT FREE UNTIL U.S. TROOPS LEAVE.

Now...all who read that chronology...tell me if the U.S. has a long track record of "spreading freedom"? The majority of conflicts listed above are on the side of "TAKING freedom" rather than "spreading freedom". This is the reason why American "spreading freedom" rationales are looked at with cynicism around the world...and this goes a long way toward explaining the "Why Do They Hate Us" questions. They hate us because we are hypocritical and because in most of our Third World engagements, we’ve supported the dictators and oligarchs against the people’s desires for democratic/popular rulers.

No rational person can look at that chronology and actually believe the U.S. spreads freedom...unless "freedom" is some form of international STD...a plague of colonial puppet dictators, backed by American military force. Any resemblance to UNOCAL employee turned Afghan President Hamid Karzai, or ex-CIA and Baathist thug Prime Minister Allawi are "purely coincidental".

Give me a break, conservatives...

Tony Williams:

“Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill did a lot more for peace than the likes of Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, who have very little to show for their utopian efforts at "peace." Where was the U.N. when genocide and ethnic cleansing swept through many areas of the globe?”

On the contrary, Abraham Lincoln was a lying war criminal who didn’t believe in the South’s right to self-government. He directly or indirectly caused the deaths of close to a million people, many of whom were civilians as a result of his generals looting and burning their cities with his full knowledge and approval. FDR was little better. I don’t know that much about Churchill, so I won’t comment.

Wildmonk:

“But the real fun is watching the hard left make up reasons why Bush=Hitler! "Considering that Bush basically lied the U.S. into an unconstitutional, illegal invasion of another country..." Lied? Everyone thought there were WMD so there is no lie there.”

First, you wrongly assume that I’m on the hard left. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a sizeable number of conservatives who oppose the war and recognize Bush as the empty-headed sock puppet of the Cheney, Rove, neo-con cabal infesting the top levels of gov’t. In fact, you are probably significantly further to the left than I, but try not to make unwarranted assumptions.

Next, no, not everyone did think they had WMD’s, including the administration, who had been planning an invasion long before 9/11- which is why it is such a colossal lie. But even if they had had them, so what? The U.S. has them; so do a lot of other countries. America has no right to dictate to other countries what they may or may not do, when America is doing (or has done) the same thing. Iraq hadn’t attacked America.

Whether they would have done so upon acquiring nukes or chemical weapons (either directly, or by passing them to bad actors) is doubtful. Nevertheless, pre-emptive invasions of foreign countries are criminal, and do not meet the standards of just-war theory.

“And other justifications he spoke explicitly of, such as spreading liberal democratic ideas in the states of the Middle East as an antidote to Islamic Fascism, have now been largely - if imperfectly - realized.”

That doesn’t justify it either, though I’d argue that saying they’ve been “largely realized” is a wee bit of an exaggeration.

“Unconstitutional? - The war was duly voted upon by the US Congress and duly approved. How the hell is it "unconstitutional?"”

Absolutely unconstitutional. The Constitution only gives Congress the power to declare war, which was not done, and short of that the President has no legitimate authority to order the military to invade or fight anyone.

“Illegal? By what measure? Indeed, the original Iraqi war had not "legally" ended since Saddam had not kept his end of the negotiated peace. The only meaning of illegal is "not approved by France and Russia in the security council." Given what we now know of Saddam’s bribes to France and Russia, how can you make this argument with a straight face?”

Easily, because again, it’s illegal to shred the Constitution and the principles of just-war theory in order to unilaterally attack another country which has not attacked you. Forget France, Russia and Germany. I have little use for any of them, but they are red herrings.

“It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the attempt to democratize the region has gone much more slowly or poorly than could have been the case.”

How can that be if the attempt has been “largely realized?”

response to jamie:
"the proper procedure would have been for the United States to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Afghanistan to give up its Al-Qaeda members."

This was tried, and failed, over the course of 8 some years. The simple fact is that you can not negotiate with terrorist or the governments that harbour them. Their sole existence is to eradicate and kill the infidel, ie. you and me.

War is a horrible thing, no doubt, but it is neccesary from time to time. Especially when the enemy you are fighting is unconventinal and opposes any sort of peace.

I would like to put this into prospective: we were never attacked by Germany, the German people never attacked us, why then did we allow ourselves to ally with Britain and invade Europe? Germany only declared war on us after we were attacked by Japan (maybe I’m wrong on that one, I’ll let you respond. There is probaly some reason that was our fault.) By your logic, it seems our actions in WWII were largely illegal and illegitimate.

>> international Left will be forced to recognize his accomplishments

Hey, Jamie, glad to see you have time enough on your hands to write that whole thing. What are you, unemployed? Anyway, I think it’s just great. I suggest you send it to everyone you know. Tell the world exactly what you and your left-wing friends think of America. That’ll really help in the next national election.

Andrew Hulvey -



Oh come on! If the left had a trademark on namecalling, the right would be paying us through the nose for infringement . . . but, I might add, you looked mighty lovely today in Honors Analytical . . .

Matt,
I’m not saying everyone is perfect, including the right. But look at half the comments on this thread....

And thanks, I was having fun.

Well, regardless of why he won’t be winning the prize, I think most would agree that anyone who thinks he even MIGHT isn’t playing with a full deck and therefore shouldn’t be operating heavy machinery or left to supervise small children.

Response to Jean:

One, it was a speculation. There are numerous amounts of pundits, commentators and analyst that offer a variety of the same.

Two, to say Dr. Schram is not playing with a full deck is completly ludicrous.

Andrew, ther’s speculation and then there’s speculation. I might also wake up tomorrow morning covered in chartreuse polka-dots with a horn growing out of my forehead, but I somehow I doubt it. I don’t know why you say it’s ludicrous. Schramm’s initial post is what is ludicrous. In fact, if it’s any normative of his thinking, maybe I should look through his archives and see what other baloney’s in the fridge.

It is still just speculation. Many times in a discussion or debate you throw a very ludicrious point out in order to see what comes of it, but to question ones intelligence on that alone is ridiculous.

Andrew, I hafta say...I’m starting to question your intelligence. Maybe saying stuff in print -to "see what would come of it"- that would lead most readers to conclude it was the result of retardation isn’t unusual for the circles you run in. Heck, maybe you work for the Washington Times or The Weekly Standard. But it’s not something I or my confreres typically engage in.

Jean,
No actually I’m a student here at Ashland and in the Ashbrook Program. And yes that is something I do. We discuss alot of ideas and principles in my classes and it is something we often do. We make the ridiculous or sometimes slightly false argument to see what truths it does bring about. Often I might take a stance in class that I see later, through discussion with disenting opinions, is wrong or false. I’ll make an argument based on what I might pull from a text and later find that my view was slightly or skewed or that I was right. Its a process of learning and education.

Andrew,



While I agree that through discussion my opinions will change on a certain topic (I’m also a student in the Ashbrook Center), I think that to throw out ridiculous statements just to "get truth from it" is a little silly. I’ve never personally tried it. I have said some things out of passion that are somewhat ridiculous, but I try to keep that to a minimum (cause it makes me look stupid). When you can discover conclusions through good honest discussion, why throw out comments that you know are ludicrous?



I don’t know. Just a thought. :-D I mean, we could argue this all day . . . it really doesn’t matter. I just thought I’d share my opinion.

Matt,
Yeah we don’t do it all the time, but there are still times when it happens.

Some of the opinions get a bit ridiculous like this. I’m just saying it happens from time to time.

I nominate Peter Schramm for the prize. He pushed a button and, right on schedule, the little wackaloons have been dancing ever since. Ha ha -this IS rich!

Response to Comment #48

I never said that WWII was an illegitimate conflict for the U.S. I actually think that’s one of the few cases where the issues were clear cut: we were attacked by a clear nation-state (Japan), and Japan had a military defense treaty with Germany. Germany declared war on the United States as a result of the U.S. attack on Japan (Germany was fulfilling its obligations under the military defense agreement). The United States, OBVIOUSLY, joined the side of the British because, A: the British had a common culture with Americans (English, history, etc.), and B: if you’re gonna go to war with an alliance of nations, join up with those that are fighting that alliance.

The Afghanistan War WAS avoidable...your comment that 8 years of negotiations had been attempted is erroneous. For the previous 8 years, the United States had regular contact with the Taliban regime to attempt to fashion out a deal for a pipeline that would go through Afghanistan and into the Caspian Sea. This deal was being developed by the company UNOCAL (it’s a "coincidence" that President Karzai used to be a UNOCAL employee). When 9/11 happened, justifiably, the United States brought its diplomatic pressure to bear on Afghanistan and its only diplomatic partner, Pakistan. Pakistan quickly joined the U.S. "war on terror" effort and cut connections with Afghanistan. This alarmed the Taliban rulers, as their only source of trade would know dry up. In effect, the U.S. had twisted the elbows of the Taliban...and they cried uncle. They contacted the U.S. and offered to give up their "guests" (Osama and his Al-Qaeda operatives), IF the United States could produce evidence of their linkage (something that should have been EASY!) This resolution, while probably satisfying the national bloodlust for revenge, was not enough for the corporate/military interests (who were interested in maximizing military production and budgets), nor the neoconservatives (whose imperial plans necessitated military conflict and imperial actions by the United States). Thus, the more rational solution of providing evidence publicly to the U.N. and having the Taliban extradite the Al-Qaeda terrorists was ignored...and a military option was used. The Afghanistan War was avoidable...and constitute the using of military policies as NOT the last resort. You may verify my comments through research online.

Response to Comment #50

I’m employed...and happy at my job. I don’t suffer any money problems. I type very fast and have advanced degrees in history and politics...so that’s why I was able to come up with that listing for the comment board.

You made a mistake in your post...it’s not what I or my Leftist friends think...this is the historical record, and I encourage you to verify it. If you will notice, I was fair in my delineation of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom" American interventions, I wasn’t selective to "prove my Leftist case". If the historical record seems to indicate that, as far as the Third World is concerned, the United States has been more of a pro-dictator plague than a liberation force...that’s just what the historical record says. Channel your anger at the Republicans AND Democrats who have made that policy possible. It’s not my fault that the United States supported dictators like Somoza, Pinochet, Mobutu, Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Taliban, Saudi Royal Family, Duvalier, Trujillo, Suharto, apartheid South Africa, and others...that’s historical fact. We have to live with the shame and legitimacy consequences of our actions...which is why very few people in the world believe our Iraq "democracy" efforts. you are probably right...the Christian Taliban and its alliance with Dumb America will probably ignore this history (even if they know it...which most don’t) and continue to vote for right-wing parties. That’s sad for America...but not really my problem. I have a healthy lifestyle and education...so I’m not too worried about the after-effects of America’s policies (except...dying as a result of the backlash terrorism...but...that’s life).

With all your talk of treaties, alliances, and nation-states (I’ll ignore your "war on terror" in quotes, imperialism, corportate interests, and bloodlust nonsense alone), you ignore the moral framework in which nations fight wars and defend civilization. Yes, the U.S. fought Germany only after that nation declared war on the U.S. But, the U.S. did not join with Britain merely because it was on the other side of the enemies. Read Churchill and FDR’s "Atlantic Charter" for a statement of principles that animated the amity and common war against the forces that threatened to tear down civilization. The war on terror is similarly fought against the forces that threaten civilization and thus the war is fought in with an objective rightness in the cause against evil. The Taliban, being an evil regime that annihilated its own citizens and destroyed their natural rights and freedom of religion, was not to be asked to extradite the other evil forces that they were harboring and abetting within their borders. That is why the regime was torn down rather than a careful diplomacy to arrest the terrorists peacefully.

Although the history of American foreign policy is filled with some sorry episodes about support for repressive right-wing dictators, like many New Left historians, you willfully ignore all of the depredations on the Communist and other revolutionaries’ side of the equation, which were often far worse. Kolko, Hobsbawn, and his ilk can decry America all they want while they try desperately to ignore that Mao and Stalin killed untold tens of millions. Unfortunately, this is the claptrap that is taught in most graduate schools where students get advanced degrees. You also ignore the fact that America stood virtually alone in self-government based upon the consent of the governed in 1776 and this was the beginning of a wide sweep of freedom throughout the civilized world and set the standard for measuring whether governments were defined as free or repressive.

Foxer, your account of what the Taliban was up to after 9/11 doesn’t hold water. The Taliban wasn’t making good-faith offers to cough up Bin Laden & Co and to carry out or permit the verifiable destruction of the terrorist infrastructure in its entirely. Instead, Taliban spokesmen (remember the illiterate with the eye patch who said he was their "foreign minister"?) were playing for time with equivocal jibber-jabber (e.g. talk about "sacred Afghan hospitality traditions" and Bin Laden as their "guest") of a sort well-known in the broader Middle East, the homeland of the souk. These were stalling tactics and nothing more. I’m sure they were hoping precisely that we’d waste time with months of the sort of UN jaw-jaw that you seem to love so much. We probably should have attacked the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime in Afghanistan even earlier than we did, instead of giving them almost a solid month of breathing space. Giving your enemies time to figure out how to prepare for or respond to your next move is seldom a good idea.

By the same token, we gave Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist thugs in Iraq way too much warning in the fall and winter of 02-03 b/c Colin Powell mousetrapped Bush into doing the UN dance for six months. Elaborate kow-towing to the UN gives our enemies time we shouldn’t be giving them, and that can cost American lives.

Like a gentleman scholar and teacher, Peter gives us a thoughtful reflection and allows his students to debate the point, even with personal vitriol against him, and quietly allows the debate to proceed without comment. Hats off!

I don’t think that’s it, Tony. Unless his initial post was meant to be satirical he’s probably too humiliated to say anything else. This entire thread has been a joke, however. It’s all neo-con Republican party hacks vs. "Progressive" leftists sniping at each other, with no acknowledgement of any perspective in between. You’re all clueless. Puuuke.

Since I know Peter, I’ll take a stab at continuing this discussion. I doubt that Peter is humiliated because of his reflections that the Nobel Prize committee is guided by internationalist, utopian visions that have brought no real peace based upon freedom, consent, self-government, and a respect for the human person and his natural rights as is embodied in American principles and for which Bush stands. He can correct me if I am wrong.

By the way, I don’t think that I’m a "neo-con party hack" and definitely not a "progressive leftist," but I welcome your wisdom O enlightened one to help us shed our cluelessness.

hey andrew,
the left certainly doesn’t monopolize name calling...read the blog buddy...you’ll find that jamie and many of the other "liberals" are saying that the idea of bush winning the nobel is ridiculus not the person...although it seems that quite a few of the "conservatives" here are dissing jamie’s job and education...attack the arguements not the person, people. btw the fact that she didnt include the cold war could be because technically it was not even a conflict it was a state of tension. also she included many events during that time where freedom was not spread.

Yes. A Nobel Peace Prize for W. Bush!
The War President. It certainly makes a lot of sense. The Nobel prizes would become worthless after this.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5836