The Nobel Peace SurPrize?

All this week, the Nobel committee will be handing out the Nobel Prizes in various areas. Probably the most prestigious is the Nobel Peace Prize. In a world where war has seemingly taken over in every nook and cranny, I'm very curious to see who will come out the winner.

Though most and probably all recipients were well deserving of the award (Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi come to mind), we certainly know that treacherous people have been nominated for the Prize in the past, the most notable of whom was Adolf Hitler in 1938.

This year, both President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were nominated for the award. Now, I am in no way saying that the two are sinister people like Hitler was, then again I'm not saying they aren't. Only time shall tell. I will say that I think there is something strange about nominating people for a Peace Award when they decided to pre-empt and attack a country. They started a war that seems to have little, if any, positive virtue. Indeed, there are some parallels between what has taken place in the last three years, and with what took place between 1934 and 1938 when Hitler's nomination campaign began.

An enemy was identified (Jews then, Terrorists now), that seemed to cause a significant conflict in a specific region of the world (Germany then, the USA now). The leaders of those countries then expanded the scope of their "problem," and used that reasoning to further a personal goal.

Now I know that people will take issue with the last statement that I made, with respect to President Bush. But let's keep it real. The Iraq war was a complete and total farce. You don't go and attack a man who might be a threat (Saddam Hussein) when you already know who did harm you and continues to be a threat (Osama Bin Laden).

Furthermore, the notion that Hussein was funding terrorists and was intending to sell WMD's to terrorists (as Bush has insinuated and said) is SO silly. A dictator has power, often wants more power, and surely intends to maintain the power he/she already has. By giving WMD's to terrorists, there would be a shift in power from the dictator to the terrorists. That is completely counter-intuitive. Now it has become clear that none of the reasons for going to war were founded, and I think some people (not nearly as many as there should be) realize that we weren't told the truth about the reasons for the Iraq War.

Conclusion: Bush was up to something when HE decided to invade Iraq, and it had nothing to do with "fightin' terra!"

After the events that have played out this year (e.g. insurgency in Iraq, Abu Ghraib atrocities), I don't think that Bush or Blair (who were nominated in January) are serious contenders for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I can't help but wonder.

-Maelstrom