Nobel Peace Prize

[oVo]

More than 100,000 signatures have already been gathered
in support of whistleblower/traitor Manning's nomination.

[Agent 86]

Well they gave Obama a Nobel prize for peace. Nobel prizes are now worthless

[Frigidus]

More than 100,000 signatures have already been gathered
in support of whistleblower/traitor Manning's nomination.

Both him and Snowden would be worthy nominations. And yeah, Obama should have his peace prize stripped. He is just another oppressor with a different skin tone.

[Qwert]

More than 100,000 signatures have already been gathered
in support of whistleblower/hero Manning's nomination.

fixed.

[TeeGee]

where is my nomination?

[oVo]

More than 100,000 signatures have already been gathered
in support of whistleblower/hero Manning's nomination.

fixed.

Works for me... maybe Manning-Snowden can share it.

[mordigan]

what does leaking government secrets have to do with promoting peace?

[chang50]

what does leaking government secrets have to do with promoting peace?

The answer to that depends very much on whether you see the US as a force for good in global politics or not.Unsurprisingly many commentators believe the latter.

[thegreekdog]

what does leaking government secrets have to do with promoting peace?

The answer to that depends very much on whether you see the US as a force for good in global politics or not.Unsurprisingly many commentators believe the latter.

Actually I think I agree with mordigan here. While I'm very supportive of Snowden/Manning and all government whistleblowers, I can't agree that what they've done is promote peace. Peace can be achieved through many different means, including, but certainly not limited to, spying on one's own citizens. Releasing information that the United States spies on its own citizens without any evidentiary basis tends to promote conflict between the government and its people (not peaceful).

Releasing information related to military "secrets" also tends to promote tension between the United States government and its ostensible allies, friends, neutrals, and enemies (also not peaceful).

[BigBallinStalin]

What promotes peace? Total annihilation of another group because afterward there would be no conflict!

So... had Hitler attained his goals, would he have been the most peaceful person ever?

[thegreekdog]

What promotes peace? Total annihilation of another group because afterward there would be no conflict!

So... had Hitler attained his goals, would he have been the most peaceful person ever?

I'm just saying dude... conflict has happened because of those two guys; not really peaceful. No need to invoke the dreaded "H" word or annihilation.

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

[patches70]

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

No it wouldn't, unless you consider stuff like this "not violent"-








and it can go on and on, examples of the "peaceful world" under totalitarian rule which would be quite similar to the above. Instead of nations warring with each other it would be the world state police at war with the citizens. Anyone disagreeing or becoming even a mere annoyance to the state would be met with brutal violence and suppression. It would be anything but peaceful.

[mordigan]

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

No it wouldn't, unless you consider stuff like this "not violent"-








and it can go on and on, examples of the "peaceful world" under totalitarian rule which would be quite similar to the above. Instead of nations warring with each other it would be the world state police at war with the citizens. Anyone disagreeing or becoming even a mere annoyance to the state would be met with brutal violence and suppression. It would be anything but peaceful.

since when were south africa and the USA 'under totalitarian rule'?

[patches70]

since when were south africa and the USA 'under totalitarian rule'?

<sigh> I'm pretty sure TGD will understand what I said even if you didn't.

examples of the "peaceful world" under totalitarian rule which would be quite similar to the above.

I didn't say S Africa or the US were totalitarian states.

What I am saying is that under a world totalitarian world, it still wouldn't be peaceful at all. There might not be nations warring with each other, but the citizens would be subjected to all sorts of abuse and violence from the state. There always has to be an enemy, a peoples who can be blamed to focus the anger and hatred against.
Totalitarian rulers are very good at focusing this anger away from themselves and upon groups. Anyone disagreeing or a problem to the state would be branded criminals and violently dealt with.

The world would not become peaceful, it would still be violent. But instead of being two opposing armies of two opposing nations, it would be lines of security forces battling protesters, the disenfranchised and any other subversive people who challenge the authority of the state and the dictator in charge.
A direct contradiction of-

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

which I doubt TGD truly believes. The world won't be peaceful under a world dictatorship. The violence will be committed by the security forces on the citizens instead of one nation committing violence upon some other nation. The end result is still the same, lots of people fighting and dying in violent clashes as the totalitarian leader maintains his control. It will still be war, it just won't be called war.

[patches70]

Oh, and while it may be arguable if Manning is a hero or not, what is absolutely certain is that he isn't a traitor.

He was acquitted of "giving aid to the enemy" in his trial and for those who actually know how a traitor is defined (quite specifically in the US Constitution I might add), knows that "giving aid to the enemy" is an absolute essential piece of evidence in determining if one is a traitor or not.

[mordigan]

Totalitarian rulers are very good at focusing this anger away from themselves and upon groups.

the chinese, 'terrorists', bankers

Anyone disagreeing or a problem to the state would be branded criminals and violently dealt with.

manning, assange, snowden, all the randoms in guantanamo

i don't think you did that intentionally, but seeing as you used footage from the USA to illustrate the brutality of totalitarianism then i'm guessing you were a little bit aware of the parallels you were drawing.

it sounds like our current system contains state vs state violence and state vs citizen violence, whereas a world totalitarian regime would (we're guessing) contain just state vs citizen violence. all in all it probably would be more peaceful if the world was one big dictatorship. just because the leaders aren't elected doesn't mean they ignore the needs of their people.

[thegreekdog]

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

No it wouldn't, unless you consider stuff like this "not violent"-








and it can go on and on, examples of the "peaceful world" under totalitarian rule which would be quite similar to the above. Instead of nations warring with each other it would be the world state police at war with the citizens. Anyone disagreeing or becoming even a mere annoyance to the state would be met with brutal violence and suppression. It would be anything but peaceful.

I think the world populace would take a little police brutality over, you know, genocide and war. So, maybe not completely peaceful, but maybe less fatalities. And what if the dictator was benevolent?

[Lootifer]

Oh, and while it may be arguable if Manning is a hero or not, what is absolutely certain is that he isn't a traitor.

He was acquitted of "giving aid to the enemy" in his trial and for those who actually know how a traitor is defined (quite specifically in the US Constitution I might add), knows that "giving aid to the enemy" is an absolute essential piece of evidence in determining if one is a traitor or not.

In constitutional law no he's not a traitor.

In every other definition of the word traitor he qualifys.

I personally think its a morally just form of treason, but it is treason nonetheless.

Think of it like this (reductio ad absurdum): those woman who were kept in that dudes basement for years; their relationship to him was a traitorous one since they escaped and disclosed his guilt.

[oVo]

I personally think its a morally just form of treason, but it is treason nonetheless.

Think of it like this (reductio ad absurdum): those woman who were kept in that dudes basement for years; their relationship to him was a traitorous one since they escaped and disclosed his guilt.

Catch 22

[Lootifer]

Im not convinced.

But then again I am not convinced two wrongs dont sometimes make a right.

[Phatscotty]

The Prize will be awarded to Bill or Hillary Clinton

[mordigan]

The Prize will be awarded to Bill or Hillary Clinton

for doing what?

[BigBallinStalin]

What promotes peace? Total annihilation of another group because afterward there would be no conflict!

So... had Hitler attained his goals, would he have been the most peaceful person ever?

I'm just saying dude... conflict has happened because of those two guys; not really peaceful. No need to invoke the dreaded "H" word or annihilation.

And yeah, if we lived under a world dictatorship, probably would be pretty peaceful.

Yeah, something like that. The goal of peace itself shouldn't be lauded if the means are devastating, so I wonder how the Nobel Peace Prize factors that in.

Arguably, they could make that argument in favor of Obama (but, it seems they simply voted for him because he's the first black American president, and because they favored his stated policies and ideology).

So perhaps the means of whisteblowing will lead initially to tension but hopefully to greater peace (and trust) between the US and its citizens, which has favorable effects for the rest of the world.

[patches70]

I think the world populace would take a little police brutality over, you know, genocide and war. So, maybe not completely peaceful, but maybe less fatalities.

Yes, genocide is never carried out by people within a country upon other people within that same country.
Yes, war is always fought between different nations and not between factions within nations upon other factions within the same nation.

And what if the dictator was benevolent?

Ok? What if? You get a few years of relative peace (albeit political opponents end up in prison or just disappear). Will that "benevolent dictator" live forever?

Rome had some decent tyrants, had some pretty evil ones as well.

It's always "if we could only find the right person" argument, and it never works. The only thing that works is freedom. Let people be free to live as they wish so long as they harm no one else. When we leave other people's possessions alone. When people are not deprive of liberty, justice and equality.

Dictators rely on a small core group of people who always become the elite and take from the rest. Criminals in the end. It has always worked out like that throughout history.

Instead of trying to find the right person to have ultimate power, it's better to not let anyone have so much power over others.

And I'm not talking about the run of the mill garden variety kind of police brutality, such as in the videos. Those police still have legal constraints at least. Ways that such things can be rectified eventually. A dictator is the law, at his whim and above the law because he makes the law.
We are fools to think anyone can be so altruistic that they wouldn't succumb to the power, and those who couldn't be seduced by such power would not be able to hold power for long.
No, the idea of "if only we had a just dictator" is stupid and naive. It's not going to end war, it's not going to end genocide, it's not going to end violence and it won't bring more peace to the world.
Deep down you have to know that TGD, but I can understand the wishful thinking. Maybe one day, when we can figure out how to get everyone working to the exact same goals (at which point we wouldn't need dictators, governments, armies or even police), but until then, well, dictators spew lies and deceit. A tyrant is rarely the right answer and in the few cases that it is, it's only right for a very short period of time. At best.

Until then, the answer is simply liberty, respect for others and tolerance of other's beliefs and spreading power out over as many individuals as possible. And that power must be limited and with specifically laid out boundaries that cannot be crossed.
IMO

Resting sole power into a single individual or small group of individuals is a recipe for disaster.

[Phatscotty]

The Prize will be awarded to Bill or Hillary Clinton

for doing what?

preparing to enter the white house. They will be anointed once agayn!