Fighting for Peace
Bush and Blair set to join the ranks of Mother Teresa.
Nick Pittman / Assistant Editor
Posted on May 21, 2003

Imagine, if you will, a leader who decides to sic his army on another nation because the other nation doesn't bow down to his ultimatums - even though that nation has not fired one shot against his country.

This leader has decided, without any proof, that the country, a smaller and much weaker one, has means to harm his nation and won't rest 'til it is in rubble. Meanwhile, the attacking nation has serious weapons of mass destruction - capable of total world annihilation - and is the only nation in the world to ever use anything near that power on another nation, not once but twice. Its military presence also dwarfs that of its enemy and nearly any other nation on the face of the planet.

Also - while his country is in economic strife, children come home from school undereducated and go to bed hungry - this attacking leader decides that his enemy is an unfit leader. Not only that, but the attacker, in the name of democracy, has decided that his enemy, who was elected by his people, must resign and leave his country. He has also chosen the form of government and education that will be in place for this nation. And, even though the attacking country holds routine executions, this other nation is guilty of severe human rights violations. In the meantime, the attacker has managed to alienate some of his nation's oldest allies. Also, he has decided that he doesn't need or want the support of an organization that is set to regulate such aggressions. Violations of this very organization are often the basis for punishment by this leader.

Now, imagine that the attacker and his principle cohort have been nominated for the most coveted award for the preservation of peace - the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, stop imagining! A Norwegian politician has nominated President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for said prize. Seems he thinks through their preemptive strikes, the duo lived up to Alfred Noble's criteria that the recipient "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "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."

This is not some catfish-eating contest folks; this is the Nobel Peace Prize, arguably the top honor someone can receive in that area. And what's worse is that, with the way the world is lately, they might actually win.

Now, don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein is a scumbag who abused his people and was a threat to nations around him. Did he deserve everything he got? Yes. But let's be real - was he a danger to us? So far, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in his arsenal. Is he more of a danger to us now? I would say yes. Why? He won't rest until he gets vengeance, and, if history tells us anything, our involvement in the Middle East will only endear him to the people there who already hate us. Why does our nation think that we can only be harmed by evil fiends who live in huge mansions and have armies and jets? Does anyone else remember the damage done by a zealot with a cell phone who lived in a cave and his nut job followers?

However, in the rush to war, Bush and Blair have trampled everything that the prize was supposed to be. Reduced standing armies? Sure, by using their massive armies to reduce the size of a much smaller standing army. Fraternity of nations? Maybe between us and Australia. Promoted peace? Sure, by starting a war that will continue into other nations!

However, we must not overlook Saddam's human rights abuses. No, if we did that we would just be like ... well, our government. If Bush is so concerned about solving the world's problems, why aren't places like Zimbabwe an issue? Since 2000, the government in Zimbabwe has escalated its human rights violations, stifling the right to assemble and beating, torturing and killing those who oppose its practices. It has also ordered its people to give up their land to war veterans. Another target has been the independent, pro-Western media. In the past three years, in response to their coverage of government human rights violations, independent dailies have thrice been bombed. The government also went after the broadcast media, petrol-bombing one of the two independent broadcast outlets. Pro-government supporters even beat a teacher to death for simply having a copy of an independent daily.

Strangely enough, I haven't heard Bush say item one about his Zimbabwe liberation plan. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Zimbabwe's number one export is tobacco and not oil.