« Iranian army takes over 'peaceful' nuke program | Main | Jessica Biel: Sexiest Woman Alive (???) »

October 07, 2005


Dan Trabue

Doc said:
"I think we can all safely assume that the Nobel Committee doesn't include military force in its definition"

And it won't surprise you to hear me say this but, No. The Peace Prize does not usually go to military solutions. Something in the notion of "peace" seems contrary to violent solutions, for many of us anyway.

On the other hand, war solutions might make a great recipient for the Orwellian Peace Prize, though.

And yes, Bush's nomination for a Peace prize would be met with unimaginable horror worldwide.

Just dropping in to buzz in your ear like an annoying gnat again, brother Doc.

Peace: n. The absence of war or other hostilities; harmonious relations,




We are in agreement: I wouldn't support granting the Peace Prize to Bush or Blair, either. My point was that the Nobel Committee gave it to the IAEA because of its "work" on nuclear proliferation when the IAEA seems to have been completely ineffective in this task. Bush and Blair, at least, have done something.

I recall that the Pentagon used to define peace as the period between wars. How's that for Newspeak!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

October 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2005