|
On July 16 2013 08:48 tshi wrote:
Does it REALLY matter, though? Obama won it and that didn't really matter much, did it? I think it's just something that passerbys can site but there isn't much real merit to winning one?
The only thing i can think of is that other people who see it being awarded might want to support him more or something *shrug*
I think the Nobel peace prize is more a lobbying effort from Stockholm that is legitimized in the eyes of the world by the other prizes. Obama got the nobel prize because the committee has very strong opinions regarding nuclear proliferation and, as the first American president in a long time with international credibility, giving Obama such well publicized recognition for his anti-nuclear proliferation views basically locks him into advocating that position forever.
Snowden will only get the prize if it aligns with their interests and he somehow gains the power to affect real change.
|
On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
|
On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
|
On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
|
On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
you're right, I haven't been paying attention to who wins the nobel peace prize so much, who else comes to mind? other than al gore 
|
On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
|
On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Terrorism is called collateral when you're winning.
|
On July 15 2013 23:22 jello_biafra wrote:
If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
hahaha wow I didn't even think of this. Yes please
|
When they gave Obama the prize they were giving it out to snub the United States as they perceived it. Also to signal support for Obama who they thought was going to change the US into something more acceptable to them.
So I don't see why they shouldn't give Snowden the Peace Prize as he has so many similarities to Obama. His nomination alone is a deliberate insult to the bad United States. It sends a strong signal of support for the nominee's perceived political opinions. It is advocacy. The world will be safer if we support Barack Obama. The world will be safer if we support Edward Snowden. Also, America is bad and people like Barack and Edward will make it civilized again.
That is what the Peace Prize has been for a long time, the advocacy part. Perceived anti-Americanism is a relatively new (middle of the Cold War) addition to the criteria for nomination.
Another similarity is that just like Barack, Snowden's actions make a United States more acceptable to the left wing of the left wing of the Swedish parliament more of an impossibility.
Barack overseas is Bush on steroids except he doesn't stick around to at least try to fix the mess he made.
Snowden is more likely to strengthen Russia and China vis-a-vis the US and make the US more secretive and paranoid than achieve anything else, those 3 things hardly likely to make the world more stable.
So yes he should get the Peace Prize, another winner who did far more to increase the likelihood of instability and war than stability and peace. Also, America needs to change to be more like Europe in foreign affairs (weak and ineffectual any time guns are involved, except for France and former French colonies). That seems to be what wins you the prize these days, and Snowden definitely fits as much as Barack has shown himself to.
|
On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
|
while i dont doubt the selection group takes a certain amount of pride in poking the united states of fucking freedom in the eye at any chance, snowden legitimately did something genuinely courageous to earn it. obama just was not bush, and was black. whoopie.
you can debate whehter or not what he did is deserving of it, but i do think it isn't very fair to compare snowden to obama.
|
On July 16 2013 14:45 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists. Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
Not even close
|
On July 16 2013 14:47 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:45 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists. Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys. Not even close
Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll.
|
On July 16 2013 15:05 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:47 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 14:45 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists. Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys. Not even close Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll.
Theres quite a large break between the more direct and indirect responsibility of the deaths in those conflicts.
|
On July 16 2013 15:12 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 15:05 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 14:47 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 14:45 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:51 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 13:43 Mallard86 wrote:On July 16 2013 13:36 zefreak wrote:On July 16 2013 13:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:
Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes. I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/ Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst. I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular). Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists. Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys. Not even close Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll. Theres quite a large break between the more direct and indirect responsibility of the deaths in those conflicts.
Kissinger was directly responsible for bombing Cambodia and Laos, personally sabotaged the peace talks in France during the Vietnam war. He also was responsible for assassinating elected leaders and putting people like Pinochet into power for flimsier reasons than Obama. I would say a large number of those deaths are on his head.
|
None of you (or I) would have the balls of screwing up an amazing salary and career (and life..) to speak against your employer that is violating the rights of every citizens.
He hasn't compromised the life of anyone `(he could have given the names of spies or other things). For all of this, I believe this man deserves all the respect we can give him.
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields.
Nobel peace prize however? kind of irrelevant to peace if you ask me. However this man has sacrificed so much to simply tell the truth that the Americans are supposed to have, so he deserves recognition, whatever it is.
|
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
|
On July 16 2013 14:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When they gave Obama the prize they were giving it out to snub the United States as they perceived it. Also to signal support for Obama who they thought was going to change the US into something more acceptable to them.
So I don't see why they shouldn't give Snowden the Peace Prize as he has so many similarities to Obama. His nomination alone is a deliberate insult to the bad United States. It sends a strong signal of support for the nominee's perceived political opinions. It is advocacy. The world will be safer if we support Barack Obama. The world will be safer if we support Edward Snowden. Also, America is bad and people like Barack and Edward will make it civilized again.
That is what the Peace Prize has been for a long time, the advocacy part. Perceived anti-Americanism is a relatively new (middle of the Cold War) addition to the criteria for nomination.
Another similarity is that just like Barack, Snowden's actions make a United States more acceptable to the left wing of the left wing of the Swedish parliament more of an impossibility.
Barack overseas is Bush on steroids except he doesn't stick around to at least try to fix the mess he made.
Snowden is more likely to strengthen Russia and China vis-a-vis the US and make the US more secretive and paranoid than achieve anything else, those 3 things hardly likely to make the world more stable.
So yes he should get the Peace Prize, another winner who did far more to increase the likelihood of instability and war than stability and peace. Also, America needs to change to be more like Europe in foreign affairs (weak and ineffectual any time guns are involved, except for France and former French colonies). That seems to be what wins you the prize these days, and Snowden definitely fits as much as Barack has shown himself to.
Those darn anti-american aliens! It is very cute. I wonder where you get those talking points from? They clearly know more about USA than EU, or at least I hope they do...
|
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote:
I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
No he really shoudn't have. You did see what happened in the other big case of US wehistleblowing. This Bradley Manning guy, who disclosed some war crimes from Irak did not have the sense to flee as fast as possible. Result - he gets put in prison for about three years before the trial even starts, under questionable circumstances. The court will pledge him guilty, he's awaiting something like 16-20 years of jail. His life is fucking wasted!
In such a case you can expect a fair court trial, sure. I accept that everything went according to law. But the problem is that the laws itself are not fair in this case, so it would be idiotic to let yourself be condemned by unrightful laws for doing a good thing for humanity.
|
On July 16 2013 15:21 Patate wrote:
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields.
.
Good God man, you make him sound like some sort of Deity. I support what he did, but when people talk like this it seems very overzealous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
