• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nobel Peace Prize is a Joke

Is the Nobel Peace Prize a Joke?


  • Total voters
    51
Yes, and it's not just the peace prize either. Paul Krugman winning the award for some obscure work while being completely ignorant on basic economics is also a farce.

If there was any justice in the world Bradley Manning would be up for the award.

Yeah, Bradley Manning. What a patriot.:roll:
 
Sources...

While Ghandi was in South Africa, that was, before he went back to India in 1915, he offered himself to be a part of the english military along with several other indians. they were reticently accepted into the military as those guys that carry the wounded so that the doctor can treat them. I forget their correct definition so I'll go along with stretcher-bearer.

Why did he do this? Well, he wanted to know his enemy. He despised the British very, very much and wanted to see them gone from South Africa, where he spent a great deal of his life, and India. But what he saw during that time he was in the military, during the zulu-british war was nothing short of eye-opening. Seeing the superiority of the british army in comparison to the zulu made him realize that having an armed revolt against the british was stupid. Very, very stupid.

The 2nd WW was a blessing for Ghandhi because as I said, he actively supported an anti-british campaign in India and wanted indians to NOT be part of the war effort.

If you want the full scoop, you're going to have to read some books. Not all info is on the internet, as some may have you believe. Some costs money.
 
I would always support Ron Paul over Obama, but he deserves the prize.
 
While Ghandi was in South Africa, that was, before he went back to India in 1915, he offered himself to be a part of the english military along with several other indians. they were reticently accepted into the military as those guys that carry the wounded so that the doctor can treat them. I forget their correct definition so I'll go along with stretcher-bearer.

Why did he do this? Well, he wanted to know his enemy. He despised the British very, very much and wanted to see them gone from South Africa, where he spent a great deal of his life, and India. But what he saw during that time he was in the military, during the zulu-british war was nothing short of eye-opening. Seeing the superiority of the british army in comparison to the zulu made him realize that having an armed revolt against the british was stupid. Very, very stupid.

The 2nd WW was a blessing for Ghandhi because as I said, he actively supported an anti-british campaign in India and wanted indians to NOT be part of the war effort.

If you want the full scoop, you're going to have to read some books. Not all info is on the internet, as some may have you believe. Some costs money.

Right... Got it about S.A.

...Now, about India... Sources?
 
Yeah, Bradley Manning. What a patriot.:roll:

Absolutely. What's his crime? Revealing the truth about US aggression and how poorly the war really was going?
 
Absolutely. What's his crime? Revealing the truth about US aggression and how poorly the war really was going?

No, his crime is publishing classified data. Period. I don't care what he, you, or anyone else thinks about the data he revealed. The fact of the matter is he betrayed many people that trusted him by publishing data he had received a security clearance to view. He also made it much harder for those of us left in his wake to conduct business because the already strict classified material rules and regulations got a lot more strict after his little stunt.
Some of the stuff he revealed was bad. I will agree with that. Some of it was not, IMO. We can debate that another time. But the fact that he released it to begin with is a crime, he should be punished, and I have no sympathy for him.
 
No, his crime is publishing classified data. Period. I don't care what he, you, or anyone else thinks about the data he revealed. The fact of the matter is he betrayed many people that trusted him by publishing data he had received a security clearance to view. He also made it much harder for those of us left in his wake to conduct business because the already strict classified material rules and regulations got a lot more strict after his little stunt.
Some of the stuff he revealed was bad. I will agree with that. Some of it was not, IMO. We can debate that another time. But the fact that he released it to begin with is a crime, he should be punished, and I have no sympathy for him.


sounds like you have described a garden variety whistleblower
the folks who are protected by federal law for their actions - IF they are civilian
 
sounds like you have described a garden variety whistleblower
the folks who are protected by federal law for their actions - IF they are civilian

Exactly. IF they are civilian.
 
So military misdeeds should never be known?

Sure they should. Your asking of that question shows you haven't read what I have posted. But a servicemember who violates the UCMJ should not be glorified. What if some of the things he revealed were used to attack other servicemembers on the battlefield? What if he gave info to the Chinese or N Korean gov't? Just because you, him, or anyone else thinks what he revealed is relevant to showing senior leaders misdeeds, doesn't mean it is okay to do. By that precedent a servicemember in the future could say he thinks one of the aforementioned governments should win a conflict between our countries and give them info to ensure that happens.
If a member of the press discovers stuff like this, I have no issue with it. When someone who is trusted with classified info violates the terms of his security clearance to do so, I have a big issue with it. It sets a precedent that no information is privileged. I think we can all agree that some info should be privileged.
 
Sure they should. Your asking of that question shows you haven't read what I have posted. But a servicemember who violates the UCMJ should not be glorified. What if some of the things he revealed were used to attack other servicemembers on the battlefield? What if he gave info to the Chinese or N Korean gov't? Just because you, him, or anyone else thinks what he revealed is relevant to showing senior leaders misdeeds, doesn't mean it is okay to do. By that precedent a servicemember in the future could say he thinks one of the aforementioned governments should win a conflict between our countries and give them info to ensure that happens.
If a member of the press discovers stuff like this, I have no issue with it. When someone who is trusted with classified info violates the terms of his security clearance to do so, I have a big issue with it. It sets a precedent that no information is privileged. I think we can all agree that some info should be privileged.

Information about the state of the war, corruption, and the like, should NEVER be privileged, no matter who has access to the information.
 
Information about the state of the war, corruption, and the like, should NEVER be privileged, no matter who has access to the information.

So if we are close to being defeated in lets say The Battle of the Bulge but the enemy doesn't know it, you are okay with a twerp PFC publishing that? Look, information isn't delineated as corrupt, not corrupt, etc. I'm all for the military being held accountable for its actions. I'm not saying we shouldn't be. But what I am against is it's members publishing classified info that may or may not endanger guys like me who are fighting during that time. That's my beef. If an outside agency, even if its government affiliated, finds this stuff I'm good with that. It will controlled properly to protect us on the front lines. This idiot just dumped stuff to the public for whomever wanted to see it.
 
So if we are close to being defeated in lets say The Battle of the Bulge but the enemy doesn't know it, you are okay with a twerp PFC publishing that? Look, information isn't delineated as corrupt, not corrupt, etc. I'm all for the military being held accountable for its actions. I'm not saying we shouldn't be. But what I am against is it's members publishing classified info that may or may not endanger guys like me who are fighting during that time. That's my beef. If an outside agency, even if its government affiliated, finds this stuff I'm good with that. It will controlled properly to protect us on the front lines. This idiot just dumped stuff to the public for whomever wanted to see it.

Who was at risk? The hundred thousand dead Iraqis? The nearly 15,000 dead Afghanis? It was an unjust war, and someone needed to tell the truth.

And yes, if we were close to being defeated, why shouldn't the public know?
 
Who was at risk? The hundred thousand dead Iraqis? The nearly 15,000 dead Afghanis? It was an unjust war, and someone needed to tell the truth.
I agree that Iraq was unjust and Afghanistan has taken that turn as well. However, I am at risk and so are my Marines when idiots such as this reveal classified material.
And yes, if we were close to being defeated, why shouldn't the public know?
Before I go further, are you aware of why I used The Battle of the Bulge as the example? Please wikipedia it before we go further so that I know we are on the same page. I'm not being sarcastic. I am enjoying this debate and would like to carry it on further.
 
I agree that Iraq was unjust and Afghanistan has taken that turn as well. However, I am at risk and so are my Marines when idiots such as this reveal classified material.

Was Manning justified in revealing how the soldiers took glee in bombing people and actively were hoping for someone to grab a gun so they could attack him? July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike.

If you're putting someone in danger for that end alone, that's wrong. If, however, you are exposing corruption and immorality, then you have more justification. Should we cover up horrific evil to save a few lives of those involved in an aggressive war?

Before I go further, are you aware of why I used The Battle of the Bulge as the example? Please wikipedia it before we go further so that I know we are on the same page. I'm not being sarcastic. I am enjoying this debate and would like to carry it on further.

Fair enough, but the difference is that exposing secrets in this case doesn't expose corruption or any evil. In the case of Wikileaks, Americans finally got access to the truth of how these wars were being conducted.
 
Was Manning justified in revealing how the soldiers took glee in bombing people and actively were hoping for someone to grab a gun so they could attack him? July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike.
Look man, its hard to explain. For some of us, like Apache pilots, our sole purpose is to kill people. It's not a matter of taking glee in killing people as much as it is glee in a job well done and protecting the people you are supposed to be protecting (fellow servicemembers). We train and train and train for the purpose of effectively killing someone. When we do so, we know all of the hard work paid off and we express excitement in the fact that we have accomplished our goal. Yes, it's a human life/lives. Its also the enemy. Its also not the time to reflect on the value of human life and go into some long monologue about our regret in killing them. It isn't a movie. Its real life. Its the equivalent of a football player hitting someone hard enough to put them out of the game. Its not the fact that he put them out of the game that pleases him, its the fact that he did his job so well.
If you're putting someone in danger for that end alone, that's wrong. If, however, you are exposing corruption and immorality, then you have more justification. Should we cover up horrific evil to save a few lives of those involved in an aggressive war?
Yeah, we should bro. Why should more people be killed? Don't associate all of us with the few like the guy in Afghanistan that mowed down all of those women and kids and definitely don't associate all of us with the people that sent us there. Some of us go over with a genuine heart for helping the people we are encountering.
Fair enough, but the difference is that exposing secrets in this case doesn't expose corruption or any evil. In the case of Wikileaks, Americans finally got access to the truth of how these wars were being conducted.
Again, I don't have an issue with the public knowing it. I have an issue with WHO made it known and how he did it. I'm totally against both wars and yet I have fought in both. I am all for our gov't being exposed for the globe trotting, hate mongering we engaged in. But I don't appreciate one of my own putting me in possibly more danger for his own moral dilemma.
 
i don't understand why gandhi should have won a nobel peace prize...

It is a joke now anyway for more than just who won and who didn't.

You really can't think of any reason someone who helped settle the battle between muslims and hindus in India via non-violent measures could possibly deserve a prize for peace? Seriously?

While Ghandi was in South Africa, that was, before he went back to India in 1915, he offered himself to be a part of the english military along with several other indians. they were reticently accepted into the military as those guys that carry the wounded so that the doctor can treat them. I forget their correct definition so I'll go along with stretcher-bearer.

Why did he do this? Well, he wanted to know his enemy. He despised the British very, very much and wanted to see them gone from South Africa, where he spent a great deal of his life, and India. But what he saw during that time he was in the military, during the zulu-british war was nothing short of eye-opening. Seeing the superiority of the british army in comparison to the zulu made him realize that having an armed revolt against the british was stupid. Very, very stupid.

The 2nd WW was a blessing for Ghandhi because as I said, he actively supported an anti-british campaign in India and wanted indians to NOT be part of the war effort.

If you want the full scoop, you're going to have to read some books. Not all info is on the internet, as some may have you believe. Some costs money.
So he wanted India to not be part of WWII, and that's a reason why he shouldn't have a peace prize? I don't see any facts supporting his support of violence anywhere. Assuming he really didn't like the british. So what? A LOT of people don't.

Let's be honest here, the british used to treat their colonies like ****. You guys haven't always been the nice tea drinking gents you are today.
 
Last edited:
If you are so against these wars then why haven't you deserted the military yet? Nothing the government is doing is helping them, just get out. They don't want Americans there.
 
You really can't think of any reason someone who helped settle the battle between muslims and hindus in India via non-violent measures could possibly deserve a prize for peace? Seriously?

That part, the religious bringing together of people, yes, that is quite true. Though his youth he had spent it predominantly among muslim, especially ,very rich muslims in South Africa.

So he wanted India to not be part of WWII, and that's a reason why he shouldn't have a peace prize? I don't see any facts supporting his support of violence anywhere. Assuming he really didn't like the british. So what? A LOT of people don't.

Let's be honest here, the british used to treat their colonies like ****. You guys haven't always been the nice tea drinking gents you are today.

No, he did not want India to be part of WW2 on the side of the British.
Besides, India is a special case because there was a lot of power given the indian officials and figureheads. In a way, the british ruled there by proxy, not directly, as they did in other colonies. And even there, in certain places, they would again, rule by proxy.

However, you said something interesting that I had not thought of, that is, that the fact that he did not want India involved in any war should demand a peace prize. I had only seen this notion of his through ghandhi's very anti-british eyes. I don't think he deserves a nobel peace prize because of that. Maybe because of the efforts he made to make muslims and hindu's coexist. But in regards to his fight for indian independence and anti-colonialism and anti-british hatred, no.

Then again, a lot of the people who are Nobel Peace prize laureats don't deserve those awards either.
 
Back
Top Bottom