Bush and Blair nominated for Peace Nobel Prize!

[Haltickling]

Heard it on the radio today: George W. Bush and Tony Blair are nominated for this year's Peace Nobel Prize!

Of course, they have tough competition, about 150 other people have been nominated so far, among them the Pope and the former Czech President Vaclav Havel, but also the French President Jacques Chirac.

OTOH, we've already seen weird Peace Nobel Prize winners like Yassir Arafat... :rolleyes:

What do you think: Should somebody who started a war win the most noble award for peace? In the same league as Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa?

PS: The nominator was a Norwegian Member of Parliament.
PPS: I'd like to nominate Myriads! :cool:

[drew70]

...Another Bush bashing thread! You think of everything, Hal!

[Cosmo_ac]

i wouldn't call it a bush bashing thread. If he was nominated, then sooner or later somebody would post something i'm sure. Hal is just asking who would vote for him. Personally, i can't say he or blair would get my vote, but then i'd have to see who else is on the list.

[kis123]

Please don't get me started with this one.......

Nominating George Bush for a Nobel Peace Prize is like using a scud missle to kill a fly! I wouldn't do it no matter how many drugs you gave me.:sowrong:

[MrMacphisto]

The irony of Bush and/or Blair winning this award would be fitting, considering its namesake, Alfred Nobel, was the inventor of dynamite....

[Knox The Hatter]

You can't make this up.

[ShiningIce]

Heard it on the radio today: George W. Bush and Tony Blair are nominated for this year's Peace Nobel Prize!


God I hope you're joking Hal

[Haltickling]

I didn't make this up, it's all over in the press tomorrow. Here's ABC Network Australia, for example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1035353.htm

[Knox The Hatter]

I'm genuinely glad that Dr. King isn't alive to witness this. This would surely have made him violently ill...

[dreamboy]

With no disrespect to P.M. Blair, this announcement really does make you reconsider the significance and value of that once-prestigious award, doesn't it?
:disgust: :sowrong:

[Jimblast]

It's about time that because of our technology and our military might, we are able to begin the process of peace in the Middle East. Nothing will bring that region together other than force. So yes, both Bush, Blair, and even Reagan should of course be recognized for delivering peace throughout the world. Reagan naturally should be honored for stopping a possible civilized ending war with Russia. I hope Bush and Blair win this one, it is well deserved. Wait, isn't this a tickling forum? lol! Also, those that are liberals please do not attack my character or intelligence as many liberals tend to do. This is merely my opinion, I respect yours, please respect mine. The great thing about this great country of ours is that we are allowed to state our opinion through free speech. Many fought and died so we could all benefit. :D

[tklgal226]

i agree with the nomination, but i don't necessarially think that he should win it...im torn about how i feel, but i am happy he was nominated. i mean, even bush-bashers hafta admit that he DID help this country through Sept 11th....maybe some of the decisions he made after it were a little....eh....but he has been a pretty good president- it could have been a lot worse!! So yes, i think he should be reconized, but not really placed in the catagory with some of the past recipients of the award...

and there's my 2 cents :)

~clair ;)

[ShiningIce]

God, this sickens me to no end whats wrong the world today.... :sowrong:

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Jimblast
It's about time that because of our technology and our military might, we are able to begin the process of peace in the Middle East. Nothing will bring that region together other than force. So yes, both Bush, Blair, and even Reagan should of course be recognized for delivering peace throughout the world.

To quote Albert Einstein, himself a former winner of this prize...

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth who refuse military service."

Considering the degree of artificialness about most wars I've studied, Bush and Blair should be more in line for a war crimes tribunal than the NPP.

[the_Baron]

MAKE TICKLES, NOT WAR.

[red indian]

.....if they win it. Bush looks like he is manouvering to isolate Blair as the Presidential election looms. Noises are being made by the Bush administration about investigating what went wrong with the intelligance reports that they acted on. Colin Powell made a big deal out of some Brit intelligence at the U.N. it looks like they are repositioning themselves to put the blame on poor Brit intelligence in order to offset any bad poll results running up to the election.

So things could get a little awkward on the vicory podium if Bush really does cut Blair adrift.

[Knox The Hatter]

You get nominated for a peace prize by sending your nation to war, trying to avoid peace by any means possible.
I was wrong. You can make this up. Lewis Carroll already did.

[Moses25]

Originally posted by Jimblast
It's about time that because of our technology and our military might, we are able to begin the process of peace in the Middle East. Nothing will bring that region together other than force.
uh huh (i.e., are you farked in the head, sir?)

So yes, both Bush, Blair, and even Reagan should of course be recognized for delivering peace throughout the world. Reagan naturally should be honored for stopping a possible civilized ending war with Russia. I hope Bush and Blair win this one, it is well deserved.I'll let BigJim or Knox handle this one...Wait, isn't this a tickling forum? lol! It used to be...Also, those that are liberals please do not attack my character or intelligence as many liberals tend to do. Why? What are you trying to hide? (That you're a white racialist with a low IQ?)This is merely my opinion, I respect yours, please respect mine. If it's so "merely", why post it at all? Btw, you seem to be confused; I respect your right to voice your opinion, sir - doesn't mean that I respect what you have to say...The great thing about this great country of ours is that we are allowed to state our opinion through free speech.There is nothing great about your country; there is nothing great about any country in the world...just a bunch of humans trying to survive...
Many fought and died so we could all benefit.
What is beneficial about a cadaver? Oh wait, that's right, there is one:

ONLY THE DEAD HAVE SEEN THE END OF WAR - Plato (aka Moses :p )

Cheers.:D

[desdemona]

It always amuses that Nobel is more known for his invention of dynamite than any of his other accomplishments. Here's an excerpt from the Nobel e-Museum:


"Nobel invented dynamite in 1866 and later built up companies and laboratories in more than 20 countries all over the world. A holder of more than 350 patents, he also wrote poetry and drama and even seriously considered becoming a writer.

The idea of giving away his fortune was no passing fancy for Nobel. Efforts to promote peace were close to his heart and he derived intellectual pleasure from literature, while science built the foundation for his own activities as a technological researcher and inventor."

Per his will, the Nobel Peace prize is to go to "those who, during the preceding year, 'shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind' and that one part be given to the person who 'shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'"

"Who is Eligible for an Award?
To be considered eligible for an award, it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person competent to make such a nomination. (Nominators for the Nobel Peace Prize »)

Confidential Nominations
According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize.

Selection
The Nobel Committee starts its preparatory work on February 1 and submit the ensuing recommendations in the early autumn of the same year to the respective Prize-Awarding bodies which have the sole right to decide. Even a unanimous committee recommendation can be overruled by the adjudicating Prize-Awarding Institutions. The prize awards must be made not later than November 15; the decisions are final and without appeal. The deliberations as well as the votes are kept secret. Only the results are made public."


So, according to this site, anyone is eligible for nomination. I don't begrudge the value of the award, but I do rue that we have no great humanitarians today that come to mind to honor with this distinction. Anyone have someone they would care to nominate (other than Hal's suggestion of Myriads, which has merit based on Nobel's original guidelines :P )

[Jimblast]

As I mentioned before, there are liberals out there who resort to character assassination as opposed to merely differing in terms of opinion. I hope Moses doesn't represent all liberals, I actually know some that are both intelligent and amiable. Let's take for example Moses and his comments directed at me:

'uh huh (i.e. are you farked in the head, sir?)

LOL! And are we still in the first grade?

And the ever so clever:

Why? What are you trying to hide? (That you're a white racialist with a low IQ?)

First of all, as someone who does have a very high intelligence quotient..um...I don't understand what a RACIALIST is.

So....let's discuss how the United States became a country. If we want to talk about racism and unfair tactics, we certainly should mention the Native American plight, which I am one quarter. Secondly, getting around to all of our rights to call one another names (again, which tends to be a liberal tactic, not all mind you, just those who follow the Al Franken school of reasoning). If the colonial generation did not decide to fight the Brits, are you saying we would be better off? Unfortunately, it would be great if we lived in a perfect world. However, we don't. Should we have stayed out of WWII? Somebody mentioned Albert Einstein and the nobel peace prize in the same breath. Wasn't he instrumental in creating the atomic bomb? If you know of anyone who is of the WWII generation, especially an American serviceman, how about asking them if dropping those atom bombs in Japan was the right thing to do. Maybe I saw something different on 9/11. Bush and Blair are preserving the Free World. If you dispute that, I'm sure there are plenty of other countries you can move to! I resent being called a 'racialist' (whatever that is) or a 'racist'. Calling me a 'white racialist (racist)' is actually a racist comment. Racism comes in all forms. We're all Americans. Your President is fighting to preserve your way of life. How about a little gratitude. And by the way, I have served this country in the military, side by side with many ethnicities. The only color I see is green. I feel with these slanderous character assassinations like this Moses person (hmmm...wasn't Moses a peaceful man in the bible?), it sheds a very bad light on liberals in general. I respect your opinion Moses, I don't agree with it, yet I certainly don't resort to calling you names or questioning your intelligence. Keep it clean, brother. Chill.

[Krokus]

Remember people, if your a republican, you are automatically racist.:rolleyes:


(I no longer consider myself a republican, my support of Bush ended awhile back, and my vote is going to Kerry this year, just to clear up some things...I consider myself an independant)

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Jimblast
we certainly should mention the Native American plight, which I am one quarter.

If that's you in your signature photo, about 70 pounds of you is NA then?:D

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Jimblast
Wasn't he instrumental in creating the atomic bomb? If you know of anyone who is of the WWII generation, especially an American serviceman, how about asking them if dropping those atom bombs in Japan was the right thing to do.

No, that was a bloke called Oppenheimer. Einstein's use of physics certainly allowed scientists like Oppenheimer greater ease in creating the weapon, but Albo himself wasn't on the project. Einstein's research was neutral and could just as easily have been used in the production of a cold-fusion unit. (Something that will never happen under the current world regime, because it would mean free energy which takes away the ability to control through inflated costs.)

As for the actual dropping of the bombs, did you read what I wrote about it? It was in one of the other three threads I linked to, but I'm not sure if you read them or not.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Moses25
I'll let BigJim or Knox handle this one...

Already did before you posted this.

Wanker. :D :p

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by desdemona
Per his will, the Nobel Peace prize is to go to "those who, during the preceding year, 'shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind' and that one part be given to the person who 'shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'"
Thanks, desdemona! I was looking for these words on the web but couldn't find them. Considering these words, I find it highly inappropriate to nominate Bush and Blair. But if you read my link further up, you'll see that somebody even nominated Adolf Hitler! :sowrong:

[Moses25]

Originally posted by Jimblast
LOL! And are we still in the first grade? Touche.
First of all, as someone who does have a very high intelligence quotient..um...I don't understand what a RACIALIST is.Nope. I ain't calling you a racist - very hard for me to fall into that trap, you see. For a complete definition, you may want to check out the following website:
http://www.stormfront.org/
Although it may be convenient, please don't confuse the two terms...
I respect your opinion Moses, I don't agree with it, yet I certainly don't resort to calling you names or questioning your intelligence. Keep it clean, brother. Chill.
Please...resort, hurl, or at least insinuate. After a number of years on this board, we've all developed a very thick hide.

Once you see the diff b/w "racist" and "racialist", I'm sure you'll understand that the latter is not an offensive term...well, at least it doesn't carry the connotation(s) that the former does.

I've only called one person on this board an outright racist, and that was after many, many months of going back and forth, so please, Jimblast, don't insult my intelligence by assuming that I would resort to name calling so quickly, esp. with a novice poster; and especially in lieu of making a cogent argument.

I ain't like that...anymore. :p

Cheers.:D

[drew70]

Originally posted by Knox The Hatter
You get nominated for a peace prize by sending your nation to war, trying to avoid peace by any means possible. Wait a minute, now. Did Bush not first give Saddam Hussein every opportunity to cooperate? Did we not extend his deadline a few times? Didn't Hussein fail to meet obligations he agreed to? How can you in any way translate this as Bush "trying to avoid peace by any means possible?" It's Hussein who avoided peaceful resolution, not Bush.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Jimblast
Your President is fighting to preserve your way of life.[/B]

Jim... I disagree; the President is getting other people to fight to preserve the way of life of the extremely wealthy. Being that I'm not an oil baron, I had no interest in seeing our servicemen risk their lives unnecessarily for a cause that might have been eventually needed, but during a time when we can't afford it. If anyone should have attacked Iraq, it should've been Clinton, because we had a flourishing economy during his second term. Of course, Clinton didn't opt for this, because he knew that pre-emptive strikes are a stupid idea.... unless you like the thought of bringing us closer to WWIII by giving psycho countries like North Korea the idea that pre-emptive strikes are ok.

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Sure, but even being tried for war crimes wouldn't preclude them being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

This year's nominees also include Slobodan Milosevic and Adolf Hitler.

ANYONE can be nominated - it really means very little.

Button :p
According to the Nobel rules, "To be considered eligible for an award, it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person COMPETENT to make such a nomination..."

I really wonder which "competent" person nominated these war criminals?

Button :(

[MrMacphisto]

[i]Originally posted by Krokus
(I no longer consider myself a republican[/B]

Hey, Krokus... I don't mean to bring this to a personal level, but I couldn't help notice the rainbow in your signature. Um, I'm assuming that means you're either homosexual/bisexual and/or a supporter of gay rights. I'm glad you're an independent, because I would think you'd notice that Republicans aren't exactly known for their friendly attitude toward the gay community.... It's just an observation, and there's nothing offensive meant by it; I was just curious about what seems to be a paradox....

[Krokus]

Yea, thats one of the many reasons I no longer consider myself a republican. The republicans (my own father included, lol) are not very fond of my kind...:sowrong: ...the "dirty faggot" speeches from my childhood come to mind...

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Krokus
Yea, thats one of the many reasons I no longer consider myself a republican. The republicans (my own father included, lol) are not very fond of my kind...:sowrong: ...the "dirty faggot" speeches from my childhood come to mind...

A rainbow indicates the gay rights thing, does it? You learn something new every day.

That's a very sad situation K-Man, and although I can't empathise, I greatly sympathise wit ya. :grouphug: Homphobia is like many predjudices; fear or distaste of the different. Racism, homophobia, sexism . . . the list goes on. And on. And on again. It's the thing we have to unlearn from ourselves; pointless predjudice. Best of luck with your family K-Man, I know it can't be easy.


Jim - Who just made a play for the NPP without even realising it. ;)

[Knox The Hatter]

Drew, did it ever occur to you that it was more important to Saddam to keep his standing in the Arab world than to appear as some kind of complying toady to some American President?
Saddam, aside from being a homicidal maniac and a brutal tyrant, was above all, a politician, playing to the Al-Jazeera constituency as does Osama and Quaddafi in our lifetimes, as did Gamal Abdul-Nasser in his. Even though he had no WMDs, just letting the inspectors come in and verify that would have been a bad card to play on the stage of middle eastern politics.
Saddam got in the way of this administration's neo-colonial aims in that part of the world. Pure and simple. Irrefutable.

[ceaser]

OT and GR violations edited

[Krokus]

Originally posted by BigJim
A rainbow indicates the gay rights thing, does it? You learn something new every day.

That's a very sad situation K-Man, and although I can't empathise, I greatly sympathise wit ya. :grouphug: Homphobia is like many predjudices; fear or distaste of the different. Racism, homophobia, sexism . . . the list goes on. And on. And on again. It's the thing we have to unlearn from ourselves; pointless predjudice. Best of luck with your family K-Man, I know it can't be easy.


Jim - Who just made a play for the NPP without even realising it. ;)

I really appreciate that, Jim. I've had tough times ever since coming out, but I feel much better about myself, and am more happy with everything. I have a feeling my dad will come around. Anyhow, I checked out the list you pm'ed me, and it's some very interesting stuff....I'll definetly take the time to study some more.

[JoBelle]

How's this for a confusing twist?

Although I intially supported the military approach to Iraq, I now retract much of what I thought at the time. Personally, my main reason for backing the war was the WMDs developement that was supposed to be oh-so-evident. As time passes, and we citizens see so little of the result that we were expecting, I must say that my intial support appears to have been on false grounds.

HOWEVER, I believe the resulting regime change was worth it in the end. The problem is that as bad as it may sound, a few well placed bullets would have accomplished the same goal without the carnage.

That being said...

If Bush and/or Blair receive this award, I will literally be ill. Not because I don't think the results of their commanded actions were worthwhile, but rather because I do not think they represent the spirit of the award. I believe in the long run, Iraq will be better off, but I wish I had more valuable evidence to support our nations' choices in the beginning.

I think the recipient of this award should be steadfast and reliable from start to finish if the acts are the grounds for nomination. I do not find this to be so in my limited knowledge.

Sad how things work out.
Jo

[desdemona]

I noticed the other nominees you mentioned, Hal, but I could hardly believe my eyes (even more ludicrous than the aforementioned ones obviously). How far dead does someone have to be to NOT qualify as benefitting the human race in the past year? Can Abraham Lincoln be nominated for "freeing the slaves" over 100 years ago?? Or do only people born within Nobel's timeframe deserve consideration? Anyway, the committee must be stumped if they are pulling these names out of the hat.

[drew70]

Originally posted by Knox The Hatter
Drew, did it ever occur to you that it was more important to Saddam to keep his standing in the Arab world than to appear as some kind of complying toady to some American President?
Saddam, aside from being a homicidal maniac and a brutal tyrant, was above all, a politician, playing to the Al-Jazeera constituency as does Osama and Quaddafi in our lifetimes, as did Gamal Abdul-Nasser in his. Even though he had no WMDs, just letting the inspectors come in and verify that would have been a bad card to play on the stage of middle eastern politics.
Saddam got in the way of this administration's neo-colonial aims in that part of the world. Pure and simple. Irrefutable. A politician?? Oh that's a good one. He really swept the Kuwaiti primaries I hear. Saddam's "politics" amounted to little more than killing off any opposition. He did what he wanted when he wanted and killed anybody who got in his way or even blinked an eye. He'd still be doing it today if we hadn't kicked his lying cowardly terrorist ass out of there.

[Haltickling]

drew, politician doesn't necessarily mean democratically elected politician, and "politics" doesn't only consist of internal affairs. Saddam was a major player in the Arab League, and he would certainly have lost his face and influence there if he had cowardly submitted. Okay, it cost him more than his face now, but he had still hoped to unify the Arab world against America.

In you previous reply to Knox, you stated:
Wait a minute, now. Did Bush not first give Saddam Hussein every opportunity to cooperate? Did we not extend his deadline a few times? Didn't Hussein fail to meet obligations he agreed to? How can you in any way translate this as Bush "trying to avoid peace by any means possible?" It's Hussein who avoided peaceful resolution, not Bush.
"Opportunity to cooperate"? Cooperation at gunpoint? What an euphemism! Bush gave him only the choice to surrender, or to fight. And the deadline was extended several times because the invasion force was not yet ready. Remember that Turkey withdrew its permission to let the US troops advance through their country? That's the reason for the oh so noble extension of the deadline!

Does this kind of behavior merit a Nobel Prize? That's the topic here. You think it does, and I don't think so. Even former Bush followers have their doubts now, as you may read from several replies. That's what this thread is about.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by JoBelle
If Bush and/or Blair receive this award, I will literally be ill. Not because I don't think the results of their commanded actions were worthwhile, but rather because I do not think they represent the spirit of the award. I believe in the long run, Iraq will be better off, but I wish I had more valuable evidence to support our nations' choices in the beginning.

I think the recipient of this award should be steadfast and reliable from start to finish if the acts are the grounds for nomination. I do not find this to be so in my limited knowledge.
Thank you, Joby. We agree on the spirit of the award. However, the nominations are not done by the Nobel Committee, who indeed is bound by Nobel's will. Another improbable nominated character was Adolf Hitler, for crying out loud! Some of the nominators positively need medical treatment, I think. :rolleyes:

[drew70]

Originally posted by Haltickling
drew, politician doesn't necessarily mean democratically elected politician, and "politics" doesn't only consist of internal affairs. Saddam was a major player in the Arab League, and he would certainly have lost his face and influence there if he had cowardly submitted. Okay, it cost him more than his face now, but he had still hoped to unify the Arab world against America.

In you previous reply to Knox, you stated:

"Opportunity to cooperate"? Cooperation at gunpoint? What an euphemism! Bush gave him only the choice to surrender, or to fight. And the deadline was extended several times because the invasion force was not yet ready. Remember that Turkey withdrew its permission to let the US troops advance through their country? That's the reason for the oh so noble extension of the deadline!

Does this kind of behavior merit a Nobel Prize? That's the topic here. You think it does, and I don't think so. Even former Bush followers have their doubts now, as you may read from several replies. That's what this thread is about. Actually, I don't think Bush nor Blair are deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think Bush is a particularly intelligent man nor a great president. I do think the bashing of him is excessive and in most cases unwarranted. A perfect example would be Knox' statement that Bush was "trying to avoid peace by any means possible." While I'll grant that Bush perhaps didn't explore every possible avenue of peace, that still doesn't justify Knox's statement. Since the issues we're discussing directly relate to Bush's track record in the arena of peace, I'm curious as to your subtle admonitions to stay on topic.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by JoBelle
How's this for a confusing twist?

Although I intially supported the military approach to Iraq, I now retract much of what I thought at the time. Personally, my main reason for backing the war was the WMDs developement that was supposed to be oh-so-evident. As time passes, and we citizens see so little of the result that we were expecting, I must say that my intial support appears to have been on false grounds.

Hmmm. I predicted that Weapons of Media Distraction wouldn't be found, about this time last year. My personal opinion is that more than the proposed enquiry is needed to dig out the truth. IT needs the full open-heart surgery of a public body or grand jury to go through it.

Originally posted by JoBelle
HOWEVER, I believe the resulting regime change was worth it in the end. The problem is that as bad as it may sound, a few well placed bullets would have accomplished the same goal without the carnage.

I don't think there are many people in the country that would weep for Saddam. When I saw those pics of him having his medical after being captured, I was wetting my knickers laughing and hollering insults at the telly. I really won't shed any tears for this psychpath's fate, whatever it turns out to be.

What really concerns me, is that we were publicly lied to by our politicians and leaders about why they wanted our support for the war. They're currently trying their best to hind behind the smokecreen of "faulty intelligence", which means they're going to blame the CIA and MI6. There is no doubt in my mind that they leid to us because they knew that public support would have been even more fragile than it was, had the truth been known; that Saddam was no threat to us and couldn't have moved his army further than an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping. Apart from anything else, half the senior generals in the Iraqi army were bribed by the west to sit on their hunkers and wait. Anyone wonder why Saddm didn't manage to get any planes in the air during the war?

Originally posted by JoBelle
That being said...

If Bush and/or Blair receive this award, I will literally be ill. Not because I don't think the results of their commanded actions were worthwhile, but rather because I do not think they represent the spirit of the award. I believe in the long run, Iraq will be better off, but I wish I had more valuable evidence to support our nations' choices in the beginning.

Totally right! The NPP should be for the Pasteurs, the Einsteins and the Kingdom-Brunells of this world; not the Bushes and the Blairs.

As for evidence, well the only stuff we'd ever have gotten was stuff that would serve what the politicians wanted serving. They'd never have let evidence showing Iraq's total state of weapons dilapidation into the public arena. (Indeed, they did everything but hog-tie and gag Hans Blicks.(sp?) Public servants never seem to work in the spirit of public service. They never have and they never will, without a drastic change in the way our countries are run.

Originally posted by JoBelle
I think the recipient of this award should be steadfast and reliable from start to finish if the acts are the grounds for nomination. I do not find this to be so in my limited knowledge.

Again, 100% agreed.

Originally posted by JoBelle
Sad how things work out.
Jo

Always so. :dropatear:

[jk666uk]

BUSH or BLAIR TO WIN NOBEL PRIZE

[buggs]

Yes I agee with you a hundred percent. This wont be viewed by many for years from now. Years from now histoirans will be saying this "Even though both men were vehimently attacked for starting this war, it was the catalyst that finally brought peace to a region that has only known war."

[BigJim]

Jimblast? Where? :confused: