EPTThe hegemony is slowly ending, for the good of us all
Does Snowden deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
The hegemony is slowly ending, for the good of us all | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
| ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On July 16 2013 21:44 NoobSkills wrote: Snowden is fearful because he committed treason I don't think that after he told the world what is up that our government is seriously going to have him killed. Why bother? The information is already out. Confirming things is necessary if something is going to be done about those things, but nothing will be done. Otherwise knowing factually what is going on only serves to piss people off because nothing will be done to stop this and even if something was done, would you believe them if they told you so? Honestly you can motivate those who live mostly good lives to go all out for something like this. Maybe it should piss more people off, but at this moment while we're all doing what we're doing nobody cares if the government is listening into the phone call because they have most everything they need, so why go against the system when everything is good, not perfect, but good. your argument about the government doing it anyway is completely nonconstructive and isn't in line with how the government or a lawbreaking party thinks and acts, by the way. dems and repubs wanted this kind of surveillance to be legal and pushed for it. they could have just kept up the surveillance illegally, but they saw the value in making their formerly illegal activity legal. why don't you see the value in something that they are very intent on protecting? what do you mean would i believe them if they told me? if they repealed the patriot act, would i believe that they'd (the govt) stop breaking the law? no, but i'd know that the govt would lose the control it has over private parties like google. would google stop spying for the govt? i don't know, but it wouldn't be forced to like it is now. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 16 2013 22:12 Mataza wrote: I think in a decade or two history will smile upon him. It's already smiling on him. The only one who isn't smiling is the US government. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On July 16 2013 22:54 Iyerbeth wrote: I think he's pretty awesome for his actions, but no, giving him the peace prize would be silly. Though not as silly as giving it to Obama...so...errr..... Well, indeed, none of them made a distinct contribution to world peace, hell I don't even recall what Obama accomplished that he deserved that "lol prize", as for Snowden, the jury is still out. It's way too premature for such thing as the outcome of his whistle-blowing just tingled what might be known into the history as the next US"SR" (admittedly less belligerent, but sorry, that's where US is heading) | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not. In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions. You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US  | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3265 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny. First while the definition states so, the prize never was about peace anyways. Most prize winners have nothing to do with peace, but did something special that was honorable, like giving up one's life to prove that the governments are systematically committing crimes. I am not sure that the spying has prevented any conflict, as every open conflict is benefitting the superpower USA in their role as the great raider. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
| ||
|
ItanoCircus
United States67 Posts
On July 16 2013 19:39 javy_ wrote: You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country. As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated? Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy. Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments. Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid. For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever. | ||
|
DarkEnergy
Netherlands542 Posts
But he is still a traitor to the state then again not of the people or their way of life. | ||
|
idscy
United States256 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny. I'll take your bet. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
That said, the question is does Snowden *deserve* the peace Nobel. The answer is now. But since the prize is already kind of a joke, give it to him anyway because why the fuck not. On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny. You can prevent conflicts by threatening people that you'll butcher their entire family if they do anything bad. People sometimes stay very calm under authoritarian governments. That's what you're fighting for... Nice populations of submissive people who walk around with their heads down. So peaceful and quiet. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:11 HomeWorld wrote: You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US. I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true). | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:00 Adila wrote: Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US. I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true). one of the most stupid statements in this thread. inform yourself, then post and maybe you don't look like an idiot. every news article clearly states he seeks asylum in south america (which fits your "no extradition treaty" definition). he is in russia because he can't get anywhere else without getting caught by the US. if he could get to south america, he would do it obviously as he clearly stated when he asked russia for asylum. | ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
| ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:08 fleeze wrote: one of the most stupid statements in this thread. inform yourself, then post and maybe you don't look like an idiot. every news article clearly states he seeks asylum in south america (which fits your "no extradition treaty" definition). he is in russia because he can't get anywhere else without getting caught by the US. if he could get to south america, he would do it obviously as he clearly stated when he asked russia for asylum. Then why did he go to China first? Why did he go to Russia next? He could've flown straight to South America first from Hawaii before all of this was released. | ||
|
Invictus212
United Kingdom78 Posts
It is expected for nations to spy on one another, and on citizens. I do not condone such behaviour, and I have read interesting publications on the subject. There is a lot of information that suggestions in the ineffectiveness of spying in the first place. We can possibly open up a discussion on the merits and effectiveness of the act. Regardless, I believe this behaviour has to be changed - and not only for the United States of America. However, Snowden did not accomplish anything significant. Again, it can be safely assumed that all countries conduct espionage. And yes, some action is needed... Snowden did something. I get it. But, his actions were pointless. It's like massing supply depots in SC2. You won't win that way. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:24 Adila wrote: Then why did he go to China first? Why did he go to Russia next? He could've flown straight to South America first from Hawaii before all of this was released. We can only suppose. Maybe he wanted guarantees he wouldn't be extradited before he went to one of these countries (a country doesn't have a treaty to extradite someone; it can do it willingly if the right incentives are given). Maybe he wanted to gauge the US public opinion and, depending on the case, return to the US. Maybe he thought Hong Kong was a better platform to communicate to the international media than Caracas or whatever. I find it very plausible that he would consider Hong Kong safer given he simply wasn't sure how things would go down. Heck, it would probably have been safer to go to Beijing instead of Hong Kong, but he chose not to. If he actually went there to sell state secrets (which seems to be what you're infering, or at least something along those lines), why would he reveal anything to the world press afterwards, calling attention to himself? The only thing I can think of is that he attempted to blackmail the NSA and they called his bluff, but that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. | ||
| ||
