Read this news on BBC that both George Bush and Tony Blair are nominated for Nobel Peace Prize winner. So is Pervez Musharraf, apparently. But let's complain about him later. I'm not interested in talking about Pakistan at the moment.
This nomination coincides with the official report that there's no WMD in Iraq. There WAS a POSSIBILITY that Saddam might want to make WMD, but the rest is history. He was captured and the country was left in turmoil way before he managed to do that. That comes to my first point. If Saddam never had WMD, then the reason to go to Iraq is invalid. These people in Iraq and the soldiers died for no reason. The situation in Iraq has become worse than how it was before the war. Is that what they call peace? Does this justify those nominations for Nobel PEACE Prize? How can someone be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize when what he/she did was "war" - the opposite of "peace" - and that the reason to go to that war itself had been proven to be wrong?
Then came the counter-argument from White House that Saddam's intention to make WMD justifies the reason to go to war. Well this sounds like one of those case in the movie "Minority Report" isn't it? Where a person can be arrested before he managed to commit the crime. My second point: Who is to prove that Saddam would or wouldn't have done it? He probably would, probably would not. We'll never know. The fact is he can't now. The case is closed.
In reply to this report, Bush said "I believe... America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison", and "In the world after 11 September he was a threat we had to confront, and America and the world are safer for our actions."
I thought the reason to go to this Iraq war wasn't for America (or the world) to be safer but for the sake of those Iraqi people. Saddam was not a threat to America nor to the world. Proven by the report that there's no WMD. I also thought the main villain America had to confront after 11 September was Al Qaeda. They're not in Iraq, mister.
John Howard chose to be adamant and said that he was "not in any way apologetic" for being involved in the war.
People make mistakes. When they do, they realise their wrongdoings and say sorry. That's the least they can do.
Tony Blair accepted the report but added that the UN sanctions on Iraq had not been working. Ah, those UN sanctions. The ones they got by invading Kuwait. Didn't the coalition set out to wage war despite the UN? They would not be able to do so if they were not so powerful, or if the UN would apply sanctions for the offence. Unfortunately that was not the case. UN would never give them sanctions. What kind of sanctions would you give even if UK and US don't have veto rights? Sanctions simply would not work on them. It's difficult now to see United Nations as an institution for the whole world. Why not rename it to "United Kingdom", "United States", or better yet, "United Nations of America (and Great Britain)"?
It's a pity that the terror of big bullies in school usually supported (whether willingly or forecefully) by others, because no one wants to mess with the bullies, and the victim being bullied is always alone and helpless. Who will bring justice to the victim - here the Iraqi people whose houses had been destroyed, lives had been ruined, country had been left in turmoil? The people who are destroying their house and ruining their lives are getting nominated for a Nobel _peace_ prize for doing so.
