Things to say when you're a Nobel Peace Prize winner

[Wildcard Ky]

Speaking to a group of CHILDREN, Nobel peace laureate Betty Williams said:

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."

So much for promoting peace, eh? That's a helluva thing for any peace prize winner to say. To say it to a group of children is abhorent.

a hypocrite

 

[Couture]

Hell, Henry Kissinger is a winner and some call him the "Butcher of Cambodia". Hey-hey and what about Arafat! Now that's a good winner!

Why don't you come over here and read some porn? Leave those dittoheads be.

 

[AchtungNight]

Here's something like what I would say if I ever got such an award:

"Thank you for this honor. I appreciate this acknowledgement that I have devoted myself to a worthy cause and done well. I must say, however, that I did not earn this award with earning the award in mind. Yeah, sure, the possibility was in the back of my head, but I honestly don't think I would have cared if I hadn't gotten this. To me, life is not about a destination. It's about the journey. Every destination we reach on that journey, even the final one of death, is a step on the same great path. This award is just another signpost on the path, another signal that I'm going the right way. And not only that, other people are being inspired by the road I am taking and seeing in me something to appreciate. The feeling I get from this knowledge is not easily described. You can only know it by feeling it yourself. So, if you will, come with me. Work for peace, hope, or whatever it is this award represents. Honor your beliefs and enjoy life. Take the journey, no matter how dangerous it gets. Fire walk with me. And feel good."

 

[Guest]

She has a point.

She made it in an outrageous manner, but she does have a point.

Peace prize winner 'could kill' Bush
Annabelle McDonald
July 25, 2006
NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday, lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.

Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

"I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Ms Williams was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 30 years ago, when she circulated a petition to end violence in Northern Ireland after witnessing British soldiers shoot dead an IRA member who was driving a car. He veered on to the footpath, killing two children from one family instantly and fatally injuring a third.

Ms Williams's petition had tens of thousands of Protestant and Catholic women walking the streets together in protest. Now the former office receptionist heads the World Centres of Compassion for Children International, a non-profit group working to create a political voice for children.

"My job is to tell you their stories," Ms Williams said of a recent trip to Iraq.

"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise. From the first Gulf War, the mothers' wombs were infected.

"As I was leaving the hospital, I said to the doctor, 'How many of these babies do you think are going to live?'

"He looked me straight in the eye and said, 'None, not one'. They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."

Wrapping up the three-day forum yesterday, delegates agreed to a 26-point action plan.

"There can be no sustainable peace while the majority of the world's population lives in poverty," they said.

"There can be no sustainable peace if we fail to rise to the global challenge presented by climate change.

"There can be no sustainable peace while military spending takes precedence over human development."

 

[Huckleman2000]

Speaking to a group of CHILDREN, Nobel peace laureate Betty Williams said:

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."

So much for promoting peace, eh? That's a helluva thing for any peace prize winner to say. To say it to a group of children is abhorent.

a hypocrite

So what do you think of the rest of her speech?

 

[R. Richard]

You just have to read the article.

"Ms Williams's petition had tens of thousands of Protestant and Catholic women walking the streets together in protest."

I mean, what do you expect from a bunch of street walkers?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

She has a point.

She made it in an outrageous manner, but she does have a point.

You have kids. How would you feel if someone came into your kids school and told your kids "I'd love to kill _________?"

I'd be way more than infuriated. I could care less what name you put in that blank. That's NOT the kind of thing you say to any group of kids regardless of what you think of a person.

As a nobel prize winner, she's even more obligated to not say such things to a group of kids. I'm sure the kids were well versed by their teachers before Williams arrived. They were told she was a very important woman that had worked her entire life for peace, etc.

The message of peace that they get from her is that someone needs to be killed. That is wrong on every level.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I mean, what do you expect from a bunch of street walkers?

ggrrrroooooaaaannnn...

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

You have kids. How would you feel if someone came into your kids school and told your kids "I'd love to kill _________?"

I'd be way more than infuriated. I could care less what name you put in that blank. That's NOT the kind of thing you say to any group of kids regardless of what you think of a person.

As a nobel prize winner, she's even more obligated to not say such things to a group of kids. I'm sure the kids were well versed by their teachers before Williams arrived. They were told she was a very important woman that had worked her entire life for peace, etc.

The message of peace that they get from her is that someone needs to be killed. That is wrong on every level.

But that's the message of peace we got from Bush.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You have kids. How would you feel if someone came into your kids school and told your kids "I'd love to kill _________?"

I'd be way more than infuriated. I could care less what name you put in that blank. That's NOT the kind of thing you say to any group of kids regardless of what you think of a person.

As a nobel prize winner, she's even more obligated to not say such things to a group of kids. I'm sure the kids were well versed by their teachers before Williams arrived. They were told she was a very important woman that had worked her entire life for peace, etc.

The message of peace that they get from her is that someone needs to be killed. That is wrong on every level.

and what if someone came and gave a talk about global politics and spoke in favor of the war?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

So what do you think of the rest of her speech?

So what do you think of the rest of her speech?

I think she's a hypocrite in a lot of ways.

It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Except for the ones that you'd love to kill.

"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise.

Is this in addition to the cancer of hate that she planted in the kids that she spoke to?

How are the cancers in the children the fault of Bush? They're from the first Gulf war. The last I checked, he wasn't president back then.

They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."

Once again, how is this Bush's fault? Sanctions had been in place for 8 years before he took office.

Where is the hatred for Saddam? Whose fault is it that there was a Gulf War in 91? Whose fault is it that there was a decade of sanctions that denied these children the needed medicine?

Where is the hate for a Muslim extremist that blows up a school yard, a bus stop, or a market? She doesn't seem concerned enough about the kids that die in those situations to even mention them.

You ask me what I think of her speech? All I see is a misguided hypocrite.


"There can be no sustainable peace while the majority of the world's population lives in poverty," they said.

"There can be no sustainable peace if we fail to rise to the global challenge presented by climate change.

"There can be no sustainable peace while military spending takes precedence over human development."

They seem to have forgotten the one that says

There can be no sustainable peace until terrorists that would blow up a bus stop are eradicated.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

and what if someone came and gave a talk about global politics and spoke in favor of the war?

Are they built up as being peace activists, then come in and tell the KIDS who they'd love to kill?

 

[wazhazhe]

As a nobel prize winner, she's even more obligated to not say such things to a group of kids.

Who made you the speech police for the Nobel Foundation?

 

[R. Richard]

Let me explain about peace activists. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a military draft in the USA. If you were drafted and passed the physical [the pre-induction physical basically consisted of a couple of doctors who sat behind a table and muttered, "One head, two arms, two legs, PASS!"], you either had to fight or carry a stretcher. If you were a conscientious objector, no one asked you to fight. They gave you a stretcher, red cross armbands and sent you out after the wounded. The other side didn't give a damn about the red cross armbands.

A very large percentage of the conscientious objectors who managed to come back after their very first day at the front then said, "Give me a damn rifle!"

I talked to a guy who went through WW II as a stretcher bearer. You can impugn his sanity, but don't impugn his courage in front of me.

 

[wazhazhe]

and what if someone came and gave a talk about global politics and spoke in favor of the war?

If she had said, "Right now, I would love to kill the MOOSE-Limbs," the thread starter would be cheering FOR her.

 

[3113]

Lack of Proportion

"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise.

Is this in addition to the cancer of hate that she planted in the kids that she spoke to?

Tsk, tsk, Ky. This is a logical fallacy. No fair changing the meaning of the word. That's like me arguing that sugar is good for you because we all have and need blood sugar. Literal Cancer to figurative cancer...very poetic but not a good argument.

All I see is a misguided hypocrite.

Okay. Fine. You're outraged and she's misguided. These damn pacifists say stupid things. Hypocritical things. And Nobel prizes are given out to people who probably don't deserve them.

Whoop-de-fuckin' do.

I'm sorry, but this is much ado about nothing. The president of the U.S. read "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of kids--then he took away their heath care, sent a lot of their dads and moms to war (and took away THEIR health care), etc. etc. etc. And recently, hypocritically, stopped stem cell research that could help some of of those kids live better lives in order to protect "innocent lives." THIS after having bombed civilians and killed a lot of innocent people--which he accepts as collateral damage.

Now you tell me. Which one of these hypocrites has had more impact on kids? The long-term decisions of the president of the United States...or the winner of a peace prize who said something stupid in an Irish classroom?

Here's another logical fallacy for you: Lack of Proportion. It means making a big deal over something wrong but small so that people pay a lot of attention to it...while ignoring something really big and really wrong that people ought to be paying attention to.

You wouldn't be trying to distract us from something important would you? Or point out to us (HORRORS!) that liberal pacifists can be wrong and hypocritical...so they shouldn't condemn those who are conservative hawks who are also hypocritical...? That wouldn't be the lack of proportion message you're trying to get across, would it? Because it kinda sounds that way.

Go ahead and be outraged at this woman. I certainly don't give a shit if she's a hypocrite. A lot of us are at one time or another in our life. Nor do I give a shit that whe won the Nobel Peace Prize. After Arifat, I certainly don't have any respect or faith in those who award that particular Prize. So, be as outraged as you like. I support you in your fury. Just try to have some sense of proportion. Otherwise those of us reading about your very disproportionate outrage may begin to suspect your motives.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Let me explain about peace activists. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a military draft in the USA. If you were drafted and passed the physical [the pre-induction physical basically consisted of a couple of doctors who sat behind a table and muttered, "One head, two arms, two legs, PASS!"], you either had to fight or carry a stretcher. If you were a conscientious objector, no one asked you to fight. They gave you a stretcher, red cross armbands and sent you out after the wounded. The other side didn't give a damn about the red cross armbands.

A very large percentage of the conscientious objectors who managed to come back after their very first day at the front then said, "Give me a damn rifle!"

I talked to a guy who went through WW II as a stretcher bearer. You can impugn his sanity, but don't impugn his courage in front of me.

Although I have no experience to go by, I would imagine that it's courageous to hold to any sort of principles once the bullets start flying.

 

[Couture]

You have very high standards for Nobel Laureates. I wonder if you hold Presidents to that same high standard.

I think she's a hypocrite in a lot of ways.

It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Except for the ones that you'd love to kill.

"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise.

Is this in addition to the cancer of hate that she planted in the kids that she spoke to?

How are the cancers in the children the fault of Bush? They're from the first Gulf war. The last I checked, he wasn't president back then.

They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."

Once again, how is this Bush's fault? Sanctions had been in place for 8 years before he took office.

Where is the hatred for Saddam? Whose fault is it that there was a Gulf War in 91? Whose fault is it that there was a decade of sanctions that denied these children the needed medicine?

Where is the hate for a Muslim extremist that blows up a school yard, a bus stop, or a market? She doesn't seem concerned enough about the kids that die in those situations to even mention them.

You ask me what I think of her speech? All I see is a misguided hypocrite.


"There can be no sustainable peace while the majority of the world's population lives in poverty," they said.

"There can be no sustainable peace if we fail to rise to the global challenge presented by climate change.

"There can be no sustainable peace while military spending takes precedence over human development."

They seem to have forgotten the one that says

There can be no sustainable peace until terrorists that would blow up a bus stop are eradicated.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

If she had said, "Right now, I would love to kill the MOOSE-Limbs," the thread starter would be cheering FOR her.

You don't know me well enough to make such an accusation. I'll accept your apology if/when you're ready to give it.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

You have very high standards for Nobel Laureates. I wonder if you hold Presidents to that same high standard.

Yes, I do. My president is a POS in a lot of ways, as are most politicians in this country. I would decry ANYONE that said what Ms Williams said to a group of KIDS

 

[cantdog]

 

[mack_the_knife]

Yes, I do. My president is a POS in a lot of ways, as are most politicians in this country. I would decry ANYONE that said what Ms Williams said to a group of KIDS

You will eventually learn that liberals can pretty much say any hateful thing they care to about any topic, because 'their hearts are in the right place'. The fact that they're hypocrits is a given and since they all are, they accept it as normalcy.

You're not likely to find a lot of folk on this board who will say a negative word one against any liberal public figure, no matter what outrageous activities they get up to. It violates their 'lockstep' policy - observe their treatment of Leiberman as an example of what happens to one who gets out of line. 8 Years ago, he was their VP runningmate, today he's all but a pariah among the party because he refuses to leap aboard the suicide express of unreasoning anti-war sentiment.

So, so long as you're vicious and hateful to the RIGHT people, the libs will embrace you and just say it was a moment of excitement that made you prattle so. You know libs, always letting their emotions get the better of them - plus they can't seem to get to Bush by any other means than their vile spewings. I think he pretty much ignores them - a surefire way to piss liberals off.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I'm sorry, but this is much ado about nothing. The president of the U.S. read "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of kids--then he took away their heath care, sent a lot of their dads and moms to war (and took away THEIR health care), etc. etc. etc. And recently, hypocritically, stopped stem cell research that could help some of of those kids live better lives in order to protect "innocent lives." THIS after having bombed civilians and killed a lot of innocent people--which he accepts as collateral damage.

Now you tell me. Which one of these hypocrites has had more impact on kids? The long-term decisions of the president of the United States...or the winner of a peace prize who said something stupid in an Irish classroom?

Here's another logical fallacy for you: Lack of Proportion. It means making a big deal over something wrong but small so that people pay a lot of attention to it...while ignoring something really big and really wrong that people ought to be paying attention to.

You wouldn't be trying to distract us from something important would you? Or point out to us (HORRORS!) that liberal pacifists can be wrong and hypocritical...so they shouldn't condemn those who are conservative hawks who are also hypocritical...? That wouldn't be the lack of proportion message you're trying to get across, would it? Because it kinda sounds that way.

Go ahead and be outraged at this woman. I certainly don't give a shit if she's a hypocrite. A lot of us are at one time or another in our life. Nor do I give a shit that whe won the Nobel Peace Prize. After Arifat, I certainly don't have any respect or faith in those who award that particular Prize. So, be as outraged as you like. I support you in your fury. Just try to have some sense of proportion. Otherwise those of us reading about your very disproportionate outrage may begin to suspect your motives.

What motives might I have? Whatever you may suspect, I have no other motives in posting this stuff.

I feel my outrage is justified. To say such things to a group of children is beyond reprehensible. Bush read "My pet goat" to them. Williams told them she'd love to kill someone.

The sending of soldiers to war isn't a good argument either. Every president has sent troops out to be killed. It's a nasty reality. Carter was probably the most peaceful president ever, but troops died under his command, and by his orders. He made orphans. Carter was probably the biggest humanitarian to hold the office as well. Do you think he did things that had a bad impact on kids? I think Carter was the most noble and honest president of my lifetime, and I don't mean to badmouth him by saying these things. It's just a reality of the office.

I don't think my outrage is disproportionate. I'd feel like this towards anyone that said these things to a group of kids.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You have kids. How would you feel if someone came into your kids school and told your kids "I'd love to kill _________?"

You have kids. How would you feel if someone ordered bombs dropped on them for no good reason?

I'd want them dead too.