On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:36:10 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:01:52 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Joe Chisolm wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:03:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm

...Jim Thompson

Completely de-legitimizes the peace prize. The cynic in
me wonders how many millions of "stimulus" dollars are going
to show up in off shore bank accounts. Chicago politics.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ment-russia-us

http://www.slate.com/id/2215493/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/1...ama-the-prize/

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...09-710103.html

http://blog.taragana.com/n/nobel-pri...-chief-191662/



http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-disarmament

"In 1982 the United States and Soviet Union began a new set of
negotiations, called START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks). In 1987,
President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF
treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces, and a START
treaty, signed by President George H. W. Bush and Gorbachev in 1991,
called for additional reductions in U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals
and on-site inspections. In response to increasing Soviet political
instability, Bush announced (1991) the elimination of most U.S.
tactical nuclear arms, took strategic bombers off alert status, and
called for further reductions in ballistic missiles.

With the USSR's disintegration, its nuclear arms passed to Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. The republics pledged to abide by
existing treaties and remove outlying weapons to Russia for
destruction. In 1993, Bush and Russian president Yeltsin signed a
START II treaty that called for cutting nuclear warheads by two thirds
by 2003 and eliminating those weapons most likely to be used in a
first strike. Ukraine, fearing Russian domination, did not ratify
START and the 1970 nonproliferation treaty until 1994, but by 1996 the
nuclear arsenals of Belarus, Kazakstan, and Ukraine had been
dismantled."

So, why didn't Reagan or Bush I get a Nobel Peace Prize?



http://www.cdi.org/Russia/johnson/5544-2.cfm

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin
both pledged Tuesday to slash Cold War-era nuclear arsenals by
two-thirds, to levels unseen in decades, but remained at odds over
American plans to develop a missile defense shield.

``Together, we're making history as we make progress,'' Bush said
after three hours of summitry at the White House. ``We're transforming
our relationship from one of hostility and suspicion to one based on
cooperation and trust.''

``We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements,''
Putin said a few hours later. ``Security is created not by piles of
metal or weapons. It is created by political will of people, nation
states and their leaders.''

Bush said the United States could be left with as few as 1,700 nuclear
warheads. Putin did not mention any figures, but has previously
suggested going as low as 1,500."

And why not a Nobel for Bush II?

John

It sounds like you need to do a little research on how the prize is
awarded. Just as a hint, attacking Iraq for nothing but votes to the tune
of a million innocent dead is not a real qualification for a peace prize.

How about bombing busses full of Israeli schoolgirls? That wouldn't
disqualify anyone, I hope.

John