Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Reagan -- a defensible choice given a little historical distance, but he's dead.
|
Well, they gave Carter one.
Quote:
|
Which one? Either way -- I don't think Bush I has quite the resume, and any mention of Bush II is risible.
|
The risible one. For undertaking a huge step towards world peace.
Quote:
|
Sharon -- As of now, he has way too much innocent blood on his hands and not enough serious efforts at peace over the course of a long career. Oddly enough, I think he's the one on your list with the best shot. If the Gaza pull-out goes through, and Israel under Sharon is able to reach some sort of accord on a Palestinian state -- he's a legitimate candidate.
|
Unfortunately, he's from Israel, and so the one least likely to be nominated.
Quote:
|
Blair and Howard -- no way. Nice guys, and all that, but you don't get a Nobel Peace Prize for being sidekicks in one war.
|
Throwaways. I couldn't think of five.
Quote:
Now, I guess I have to take my shot (sorry if this is derivative of others):
John Paul II (although he helped drive me from Catholicism)
|
Not sure what he's actually done. Seems to have been fairly ineffectual, but, then, he's definitely out of my area of expertise.
Quote:
|
Gates (might win one after about 10-20 more years of massive humanitarian efforts around the globe).
|
I'm thinking they make a big distinction between humanitarian, and pro-peace. Besides, if one counts all of the pro-and-anti-Windows conflagrations over the years, he's disqualified.
