Must be a Joke!

Alias Bob

Please tell me the following is a media joke.

The collapse of the Taleban was deemed enough reward for Tony Blair and George Bush's robust Afghanistan campaign. But now, they have received an unexpected extra: a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Harald Tom Nesvik, a right-wing Norwegian MP with Nobel Prize nomination rights, has put their names forward for the 2002 list.

Do tell me, this is from the joke pages of the tabloids.

Quick beam me up Dr. Spock, it's a mad house down here, on Planet Earth.

Yours
Alias Bob
Don't forget my Guinness
:cool:

bonkey

Check this article

Looks like they *are* among the nominees....which is hardly surprising when you read up on how the nomination process is carried out. (You can find that info here )

I dont see why you'd consider it a joke (well, Blair, maybe, but Bush is a valid case). Dubya has spearheaded the first major offensive worldwide to cut down on terrorism. Despite criticisms from individuals (like myself), the general consensus is that it has (to date) been handled responsibly and intelligently.

Personally, though, I think it would be a very poor sign if Bush was actually awarded the prize. Sure, he has made progress against terror, which ultimately can lead to peace, but his "Axis of Evil" speech is hardly the language of a peace-maker. I mean - he couldnt even get through his Korean visit without being able to contain himself....despite the fact that both Koreas are making moves to have closer dealings with each other.

Hmmm...."friends of terrorists" will be valid targets, and North Korea is evil in this fight against terrorism....which means that South Korea would be evil by association?

jc

ReefBreak

I think heaps of people get nominated every year. Most nominations aren't in with a chance from the start.

BUT, George Bush & Tony Blair you say? Weren't they the two that took a stand against one of the single most destructive terrorist acts in history? While Ireland and the some of the rest of Europe sat on the neutral fence under the defensive protection of NATO (issuing moral high-minded prose from the opinion columns), the US and Britain routed Al-Queda and the Taliban and sent the most evil and ruthless organisation in the world running for the hills.

That being said, I don't think they'll win it, nor do I think they should win it, but I do think they deserve recognition for the way they accomplished the war on terror. It was quick and decisive, it got the job done effectively and it achieved the desired result: ending the rule of the Taliban and destroying Al-Qaeda. Do not forget, the Afgans are living in a better country now than when the Taliban were in power.

...I'll get my coat.

No, wait, I'll stay!

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
BUT, George Bush & Tony Blair you say? Weren't they the two that took a stand against one of the single most destructive terrorist acts in history?

Nope.

Bush took a stand.

Blair took the opportunity to once again prove that the UK is more interested in kissing America's rear-end than in actually presenting a united front with the rest of the EU.

While Ireland and the some of the rest of Europe sat on the neutral fence under the defensive protection of NATO

Err....what?

Check your history books. The US is *equally* under the "defensive protection of NATO". I would also suggest that you go and also check the international reactions from the time in question. Europe did not sit on the fence. They may not have been quite as eager as Tony to lend warships and warriors to anything which the US did, but thats mostly because they usually are inclined to follow the rules they signed up for. The attack on the US did not fall within NATOs remit for mutual defense, nor within any other area where they could just jump on board. The individual nations condemned the attacks, then went about seeing what united front could be presented. Call it a failing of bureaucracy that they were so slow....but never forget that they were following the rules they had signed up for. Tony, as I said, apparently decided that getting in bed with Dubya was more important than presenting a united front with the rest of the EU - which is hardly surprising given how Euro-skeptic even the pro-EU British politicians appear to be.

It was quick and decisive, it got the job done effectively and it achieved the desired result: ending the rule of the Taliban and destroying Al-Qaeda.

Which is why there are currently approximately 2000 allied troops involved in a ground-fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, where the US have suffered more losses in the past week than in the entire Operation Enduring Freedom???

Do not forget, the Afgans are living in a better country now than when the Taliban were in power.

It remains to be seen whether or not this proves to be true beyond the initial short term. I sincerely hope that it does, but I find it somewhat disconcerting that the foreign military aid will not go beyond the capital, and yet we hear that the largest problems are to do with tribal chiefs in the various regions, rather than in the capital itself.

jc

Alias Bob

To Bonkey

Re: Your post 07-03-2002 04:21 PM

That was was truly a great posting, bang on subject, bang on target,Boy I'd take my hat off to you if I had one.

Yours
Alias Bob
Dont forget my Guinness Lads
:cool:

ReefBreak

The US is *equally* under the "defensive protection of NATO".

Well, of course they are! Unlike Ireland, they are actually members of NATO.

Europe did not sit on the fence.

I never said they did. Read the post: I was referring to neutral countries like Ireland - who, like I said, have always had the of protection of NATO, without ever actually having to do anything to earn it.

The attack on the US did not fall within NATOs remit for mutual defense, nor within any other area where they could just jump on board.

Oh I'm not sure about this, can you back it up?

Tony, as I said, apparently decided that getting in bed with Dubya was more important than presenting a united front with the rest of the EU

You call it "getting into bed with Dubya", I call it being decisive. Personally, I think he made the right decision - the rest of Europe decided to stand back and dally while US/Britain got on with the job.

Which is why there are currently approximately 2000 allied troops involved in a ground-fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, where the US have suffered more losses in the past week than in the entire Operation Enduring Freedom???

The fact that they've only lost 9 men over the last week and very few before that illustrates my point perfectly - it's been a very effective war. The nay-sayers before the war were predicting another Viet Nam, that the US would get a pasting. But they've been wrong so far. As usual. We'll see over the next few weeks who's correct - is this the end-game for Al-Queda or will they do some serious damage. I'll predict the former.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Read the post: I was referring to neutral countries like Ireland - who, like I said, have always had the of protection of NATO, without ever actually having to do anything to earn it.

When has NATO ever come to Ireland's protection.

You appear to be arguing that neutral countries are at fault for staying neutral. Why?

We'll see over the next few weeks who's correct - is this the end-game for Al-Queda or will they do some serious damage. I'll predict the former.

And I'll predict that a fight in one nation will never stop a terrorist organisation spread over 20-something nations. I'm also questioning whether or not the current political situation in Afghanistan will hold - which has nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda, it has to do with the historical tribasl nature of the country.

jc

Thorbar

Originally posted by ReefBreak
It was quick and decisive, it got the job done effectively and it achieved the desired result: ending the rule of the Taliban and destroying Al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
We'll see over the next few weeks who's correct - is this the end-game for Al-Queda or will they do some serious damage. I'll predict the former.

One minute you're saying the Al-Qaeda are destroyed and then you say their faith is going to be decided in the next few weeks. Which exactly do you mean now? Also isn't the Al-Qaeda spread over several different nations and although their main training grounds have been destroyed in by the recent US actions their international structure is still pretty much intact?

As to Blair and Bush getting a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, in fairness to Blair he was very active travelling around to the different leaders involved in the fringes of the conflict trying to keep some calm.

Sand

The terrorist pocket that the US is busy destroying now is a few hundred survivors of the original taliban/al quaeda force. At this stage its just a mop up operation, which would not be nessassary if it was a conventional enemy as conventional enemies tend to surrender when its clear theyre beaten- suicidal fanatics tend to wait until theyre killed.

The fact that only 9 dead have been sustained in a war in difficult terrain where the soviets lost thousands of men, given the predictions of dread, doom and disaster previous to and during the conflict- its basically an amazing milatary triumph, putting the ghost of vietnam to rest once and for all.

Do Bush and Blair deserve a nomination- Yes, they were extremely decisive whilst others dithered, held hands and wished those bad men would leave them alone. Will they win? Thats highly unlikely.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The terrorist pocket that the US is busy destroying now is a few hundred survivors of the original taliban/al quaeda force. At this stage its just a mop up operation, which would not be nessassary if it was a conventional enemy as conventional enemies tend to surrender when its clear theyre beaten- suicidal fanatics tend to wait until theyre killed.

This, of course, being at odds with the US statements that this was a group which *re-formed* from scattered survivors, and further reports that Taliban an dAl Qaeda are feared to be regrouping, and using the internet as part of their organisation strategy.

It would also be at odds with the US figures which estimate that over half of the Taliban militia remain unaccounted for, but are believed to be dispersed *for now*.

The fact that only 9 dead have been sustained in a war in difficult terrain where the soviets lost thousands of men, given the predictions of dread, doom and disaster previous to and during the conflict- its basically an amazing milatary triumph, putting the ghost of vietnam to rest once and for all.
[

The fact that 9 US died, out of a completely unknown total when we include allied Afghani casualties, in a "mop-up" operation which smacks of similarity with the mop-up operations the Russians began shortly after they walked over the initial "organised" resistance means that nothing is an amazing military triumph.

Yes, the initial conflict went far more successfully than the decriers (myself included) thought it could. However, to claim that it was a US victory is incredibly facetious. No war in history has ever been won without men on the ground, and it is invariably those men on the ground who suffer casualties. The fact that US casualties are so unbelievably low is because, quite simply, they let someone else do the dying.....and we still habe yet to hear a single figure quoted for how many actually died.

I would further point out that the pro-US supporters lauded their triumph when the Taliban were deposed. The war was over, and at such a small cost. Now, we hear they have 2000 troops, bombing raids, and so on....but its not the war...no....its a single mop-up operation. Except for the other reports of regrouping.

The truth lies in teh centre. The war has gone well for the US to date, but no amount of pontificating from anyone will change the fact that it is not over. The very fanaticism and willingness to die that you ascribe to this "last pocket of resistance" is what bled the Russians over 10 years. It is also what removes credence from the idea that these 450 men (of whom "hundreds" have allegedly already been killed, and yet "fierce fighting" still rages) are the last vestiges of the resistance is completely foundless - it is a wish rather than a fact.

I would love to see the war over. I would love to see peace i Afghanistan. I do not believe it has it yet, nor will I believe it has it until the international toops pull out, and peace reigns in their absence for at least 6 months. Then, and only then, might this war be over.

Do Bush and Blair deserve a nomination- Yes, they were extremely decisive whilst others dithered, held hands and wished those bad men would leave them alone. Will they win? Thats highly unlikely.

Exactly what did those bad men do the "the rest" that made them wish to be left alone? Last I checked, the bad men attacked the US. The rest of the world offered sympathy, and despite claims of "it could have been your Eiffel Tower" and so on, there has been no pattern of attacks from Al Qaeda directed at any western nation other than the US. The US, on the other hand, has been attacked multiple times - an embassy, a warship, and then on its home soil in 9.11, to pick but the most well-publicised of these events.

The rest of the world sympathised with the US, and condemned the attackers, but there was never a single credible reason to believe that any western nation other than the US was or would become an Al Qaeda target. So, eexactly why should they have been rushing into someone else's war???

jc

Sand

I dont see how its at odds Bonkey. We both agree theyre a group of several hundred survivors. We both agree that the US is busy crushing them before they can link up with other groups to pose a serious threat.

As you say these mop up operations will continue. But the US have a large backing amongst the Afghanis that the Soviets didnt enjoy. The remaining enemy is not being equipped and trained by a superpower as they were when they were fighting the soviets. All in all the survivors do not pose any real threat. The main reason that US tropps are on the ground is due to the fact that during the battle of Tora Bora the US was suspicious that its Afghan allies were letting the enemy escape in exchange for money. The Afghan casualties, well weve discuseed this before, as far as im concerned the Afghan casualties arent the Americans problem tbh. Whatever figure they were they were a lot lower than they would have been had the Taliban been still beseigning them in their tiny pocket of northern afghanistan.

The rest of the world sympathised with the US, and condemned the attackers, but there was never a single credible reason to believe that any western nation other than the US was or would become an Al Qaeda target. So, eexactly why should they have been rushing into someone else's war???

Well Im not so worried whether they contributed troops etc or not. As Ive said before the US is quite capable of unilateral action, much to the annoyance of some. But having sympathised, condemed and made noises about everybody being american that day they then gradually got colder and colder feet as they actually realised that the US might actually attack the terrorists. The situation degenerated a great deal and the EU for one wasnt quite as helpful as it might have been. It took bush 2 days to freeze terrorism related bank account, it took the EU 3 months to carry out a fairly reasonable security measure.

As for the threat to Europe? Well given the pictures we had of territorial army outside of sellafiled, french troops patrolling paris, and so on its quite clear somebody thought it was possible. Especially given the mass of terrorist arrests across europe that have uncovered evidence of plots to attack targets in europe, including dumping cyanide into Romes water system. And as I recall someone on these boards mentioned that plans detailing an attack on the City of London had been discovered in Afghanistan.

I hope it never happens, but I fear that until Europeans get targeted theyll still disagree that this terrorism is an evil on the scale of Nazism and its defeat just as vital.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I dont see how its at odds Bonkey. We both agree theyre a group of several hundred survivors. We both agree that the US is busy crushing them before they can link up with other groups to pose a serious threat.

Yup - wer're mostly in agreement, except that my stance is that these mop-up operations are an on-going part of the war. As someone on CNN pointed out last night, the Russians set up a replacement government inside a week. They announced in a few months that the country was now under control. It was only a few years later that the organised resistance bled them dry.

I agree that this is a different situation - its not a unified nation fighting a common aggressor, but I do not believe for a second that the war is over.

There are stories - not widely reported but not denied also - that there is much tribal conflict happening in almost the entire country. There is talk of non-Taliban Afghanis joining up with the rebels to to fight the allied forces - a typical Afghani side-switching move which they are renowned for. There is talk of retribution-kiollings by allied-friendly Afghani troops, and also of "friendly" troops being little more than mercenaries.

Some analysts point out how impossible it is to "seal off" the mountains the rebels are currently in, especially in the bad weather, pointing out how this is continuously mis-reported. They also point out that this was to be a 3-4 day operation. Now we hear that intelligence reported incorrect numbers (too few), and that the operation will last at least 2 weeks.

In short....I am highly skeptical that the war is over in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, the Taliban are ousted. Yes, Al Qaeda probably do not currentlly have any serious stronghold left in Afghanistan, but these were just battles. The war itself continues, and will continue for some time to come. Having gone this far, the allied troops can only continue, and I am heartened to see that the US troops are on the ground. Not because I want US soldiers dying in place of Afghanis, but at the very least they are a trained, professional army, which I can have more humanitarian faith in than the Afghan rebels-turned-army.

The main reason that US tropps are on the ground is due to the fact that during the battle of Tora Bora the US was suspicious that its Afghan allies were letting the enemy escape in exchange for money.

Absolutely - and as a result of such actions, they have also learned that the "ruling faction troops" are not so keen to go and risk getting shot when they have a superpower backing them who will put its own troops on the line. In short, the US have learned that if they want the job done, they will have to do it themselves.

What concerns me is that the Afghanis have a tradition of "capture and hostage/release", much like medieval Ireland would have had. If the US kick enough ass, you may find even their allies deciding that "this is not the way we fight", and everyone turning on the US. I sincerely hope not, but I have this niggling doubt....

The Afghan casualties, well weve discuseed this before, as far as im concerned the Afghan casualties arent the Americans problem tbh. Whatever figure they were they were a lot lower than they would have been had the Taliban been still beseigning them in their tiny pocket of northern afghanistan.

Agreed - but I just find it intellectually dishonest for the US to claim such a "low moratlity war", when they were not the ones in danger of dying.

As for the threat to Europe? Well given the pictures we had of territorial army outside of sellafiled, french troops patrolling paris, and so on its quite clear somebody thought it was possible.

Always better safe than sorry. There was no real threat, but better sage than sorry - and always keep the populace mollified....

Especially given the mass of terrorist arrests across europe that have uncovered evidence of plots to attack targets in europe, including dumping cyanide into Romes water system. And as I recall someone on these boards mentioned that plans detailing an attack on the City of London had been discovered in Afghanistan.

London, I could possibly understand, especially with how tight Tony and Dubya are. Even then, I'd take it with a grain of salt - I mean, America have plans for invading every country in the world....doesnt mean they intend to, just that they have the eventualities covered. If the US were ever to gain a single major ally in the world, who is the best cadidate? The UK.

As for the Rome one....I think you'll find that it was the
US embassy in Rome which was the stated target. The terrorists even marked it on the map they had, just to be helpful.

I hope it never happens, but I fear that until Europeans get targeted theyll still disagree that this terrorism is an evil on the scale of Nazism and its defeat just as vital.

Now, see, this is just pure war-mongering propaganda - just like comparing the twin-towers to Pearly Harbour was.

On one hand, you would have us believe that Al Qaeda is crushed, Afghanistan just needs some mopping up, etc. etc. and that the US is hot on the heels of the terrorists who are running scared. In short - that as soon as someone gunned for them, they folded.

On the other hand, you would have us believe that this group is a credible threat in terms of its trying to create a NWO of some sort, destroying all that we hold dear.

That is what the "Nazi evil" was. This is nothing close to that. It is a threat, but to be quite honest, that threat wil lremain even if the US killed every single Al Qaeda (and similar) terrorist in the world today. Why? Because the US (and most of the world) has yet to serioulsy look at why these people do what they do. Yes, I condemn their actions fully, but I also ask what drove them to these actions, and what can we do to try and ensure that such conditions do not continue to exist. This is how the war will ultimately be won, and it is a battle which no-one in authority has even had the courage to admit must be fought.

jc

Hobbes

The "Terrorist Pocket" is about 5000+ soliders. The US were paying Afganistan people $200 a week to join the fight but the Al-Quida matched it and getting just as big an army.

The Afgans distrust for forigeners far outweighs thier fight for US intrests.

Afganistan is just as unstable as it was before the war.

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by bonkey
but his "Axis of Evil" speech is hardly the language of a peace-maker.

Ok im sorry i didnt read the rest of the posts(really tired) but what bonkey says here is my point.


A peace-maker isnt someone who makes war even in the name of peace sure then you may aswell(wild tangent here but it makes a point) give a peace prize to the IRA. Sure aren't they fighting for a free Ireland against English oppressors??? And after all they only kill legitamite(sp? again tired) targets.

A peace-maker is someone who brings about peace through words and negotiation not through violence

The fact that Bush and Blair have been nominated for a peace prize is mind boggling

Originally posted by bonkey
Hmmm...."friends of terrorists" will be valid targets, and North Korea is evil in this fight against terrorism....which means that South Korea would be evil by association?

Does that mean that everyone who owns a Daweo(sp? stupid brain no work) is evil???

Xterminator

A peace-maker is someone who brings about peace through words and negotiation not through violence

By your logic Applepie, then Churchill was not a peacmaker, because he fought for peace!

Do you not understand if somene attacks you, and they intend to attack you as long as they are able, then to achieve peace you must disable them.

If they use deadly force, you must match this, or even exceed it!

Then you will bring about peace. If you fail to do so, you prolong the war (e.g. Chamberlain and his peace agreement with 'Mr Hitler'.)

Its not a difficult concept. Peace must be fought for sometimes .And to fight for what you believe in takes courage.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Xterminator

If they use deadly force, you must match this, or even exceed it!

Reminds me of the Transformer story "Distant Thunder".

But isn't that the point? It is easy to fight, but then the easy path isn't always the right one. These years of warfare have conspired to blind me to alternatives.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Mr.Applepie


Ok im sorry i didnt read the rest of the posts(really tired) but what bonkey says here is my point.


A peace-maker isnt someone who makes war even in the name of peace <snip>

A peace-maker is someone who brings about peace through words and negotiation not through violence

Ever heard of Pax Romana? Most periods of peace throughout history came after war. It may be contradictory logic, but it is history. And wasn't it Uris of Eire that noted the future is merely the past happening over and over again? I believe he was referring to Ireland, but the same holds true for the world in many ways; this is one of them.

For negotiating peace, on the other hand, the last ten years have seen the Nobel Peace Prize go to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, John Hume and David Trimble, among others. Some peace that created. Did Churchill deserve a nobel peace prize? In my view he would have deserved one - perhaps more so than any person ever to have received it apart from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Theresa.

bonkey

I dont believe Bush can be compared to Churchill.

For a start, despite what people may wish us to believe, the current situation is not comparable to WW2, the Nazis, or anything else of that ilk.

Secondly, I would point out that, for me, part of the reason that Bush is probably not in the same ballpark as people like Churchill is because Bush is making aggressive noises at others, rather than insisting that they come to a negotiating table, and discuss their differences. He is laying down his law, and insisting that it be met with. Even if his law is reasonable, Bush is not the world's dictator, and threatening violence on other nations for simply not kowtowing to his demands is not the act of a peacemaker.

I would also point out that Churchill turned to violence when no practical alternative was available. Bush turned to violence when Afghanistan refused to meet his initial demands. Right or wrong, the simple fact is that every avenue to avoid war was not explored. War should be the final option, after all else has been tried. Simply saying "we know that would never work, so why try" is not a sufficiently good excuse.

Finally, I would also point at the ongoing situation in Cuba, and the legal cases being brought against the US government to challenge its right to hold foreign nationals without charge, without trial, and without rights. Again, look at WW2 - the aftermath of which was a set of open trials. Justice was seen to be done, and was carried out with the strictest adherence to the law of the day. In the current situation, the law of the day is being disregarded because our vaunted "peacemaker" is deciding that it shouldnt apply.

jc

Xterminator

I agree with you JC, about there being no comparison between Bush and Churchill.

I never meant to draw a direct comparison.

What I did say is that the sh¦te .....

A peace-maker isnt someone who makes war even in the name of peace <snip>

is wrong , flawed and poorly thought through. And it is easier to stay neutral, that to have the conviction of your beliefs, and join in a 'just' war which will cost the lives of your fellow men, and perhaps risk losing, exactly as Britain fought Germany, even though Britain was not directly threatened (at the time), and didnt back down when Hitler took Normandy and isolated them.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey
I dont believe Bush can be compared to Churchill.

I don't think anyone was comparing Bush to Churchill. If anyone was, that's a pretty foolish comparison IMO.

Sand

Actually Bush and Churchill might have some similarities. They both spoke their mind, to the point of not being quite diplomatic. I honestly dont see what the fuss is over calling a spade a spade.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

It remains to be seen whether or not this proves to be true beyond the initial short term. I sincerely hope that it does, but I find it somewhat disconcerting that the foreign military aid will not go beyond the capital, and yet we hear that the largest problems are to do with tribal chiefs in the various regions, rather than in the capital itself.

jc

Gee, I don't know -- at least there aren't the public executions during soccer games and people can take pleasure in basic things, like flying a kite and singing. No civil war now -- just a few limited engagements against al qaeda/Taliban holdouts.

But you are correct in that the real test is what are the long-term effects are and how is the West going to solve social problems that the Afghans haven't solved for themselves in the past -- ever.

Still, better to try for their sake and ours than to do nothing.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
The "Terrorist Pocket" is about 5000+ soliders. The US were paying Afganistan people $200 a week to join the fight but the Al-Quida matched it and getting just as big an army.

The Afgans distrust for forigeners far outweighs thier fight for US intrests.

Respectfully, this doesn't seem to be the realities of the situations. Money is a precious commodity in an impoverished community and even assuming that you are correct, the al Qaeda managed to sign on a few thousand locals -- most of which are now dead. If signing on to al Qaeda will be shown as signing one's own death warrant, fewer Afghanis will be willing to sign on in the future.

By the way --- you COMPLETELY forgot that al Qaeda are mostly Arabs, Chechens, Pakistanis.... FOREIGNERS...relative to Afghanistan.

Afganistan is just as unstable as it was before the war.

Of course! The country is a mess. Positive progress is always too slow, but please don't give up trying because things aren't all fixed in the first few months of trying.

adnans

someone buy Satan a snowshovel.

one has ordered his forces into battle more times than any other postwar british leader. the other threatens military action against "evil" nations and keeps a scorecard of dead al-qaida leaders, marking each fatality with an X.

adnans