Bradley Manning Nobel Peace Prize Nomination 2013

Even though I agree with Obama's policies against al-Qaeda, I wouldn't have given him the peace prize either. Bradley Manning's award is questionable as well as I'm not sure how he contributed to peace. He contributed to some transparency, sure, but at the same time some people probably got killed because of his disclosures as well. Years from now we might be able to point to his actions and say they did contribute to peace, but I don't think anyone can say that now.

Perhaps the real answer is that there just aren't very many good candidates for a peace prize.
 
Glaucus said:
Even though I agree with Obama's policies against al-Qaeda, I wouldn't have given him the peace prize either. Bradley Manning's award is questionable as well as I'm not sure how he contributed to peace.
Click to expand...

I don't know that you have to succeed per se, but I think you have to be seen to make the effort and take a huge personal risk in doing so. Bradley Manning took direct action when he saw things that were illegal in international war and exposed the evidence. For doing the right thing (even though he knew there was likely to be retribution) he has become a political prisoner opposing unjust killing and he has been in pretrial detention for three years now, much of it in solitary. This is third world treatment and if Bradley Manning was a foreign national who had blown the whistle on a foreign nations illegal acts and had been treated as he has been treated by that foreign nation then the US State Department would be at the top of the list of those calling for a Nobel Peace Prize for Bradley Manning.
 
A lot of people consider Manning's "leaks" a catalyst for the "Arab Spring". And even though I have a more positive view of the Arab Spring than what I think you do, I'm still not sure that counts for a peace prize. But then, I really have no idea what the criteria are for a peace prize. I always envision a peace prize going to someone who took action to stop or prevent war (exposing war crimes is nice, but that alone doesn't lead to peace). I guess there's not to many of those around.
 
Glaucus said:
Perhaps the real answer is that there just aren't very many good candidates for a peace prize.
Click to expand...

my uncle joe told me once, that if you fish in a river that only has carp, you mostly just catch carp....
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
if Bradley Manning was a foreign national who had blown the whistle on a foreign nations illegal acts and had been treated as he has been treated by that foreign nation then the US State Department would be at the top of the list of those calling for a Nobel Peace Prize for Bradley Manning.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell.
 
Glaucus said:
I really have no idea what the criteria are for a peace prize.
Click to expand...

Nor do I. As I implied in my first post, the Nobel Peace Prize has been something of an Orwellian construct almost (ever?) since it's inception.

The other point I was trying to make is that I think most people would agree that it was the horror of human slaughter that motivated Manning. That's why he's far more deserving of recognition than some of the previous winners of this silly bauble who were murdering bastards (one still is).
 
It is kinda funny though. First they give the prize to the president of the US. Then they give it to an American who's up on treason charges. It's as if they wanted to redeem themselves. Like the referee who makes a bad call mostly to just make up for a previous bad call on the other team.
 
Glaucus said:
Even though I agree with Obama's policies against al-Qaeda, I wouldn't have given him the peace prize either. Bradley Manning's award is questionable as well as I'm not sure how he contributed to peace. He contributed to some transparency, sure, but at the same time some people probably got killed because of his disclosures as well. Years from now we might be able to point to his actions and say they did contribute to peace, but I don't think anyone can say that now.

Perhaps the real answer is that there just aren't very many good candidates for a peace prize.
Click to expand...
Glaucus said:
A lot of people consider Manning's "leaks" a catalyst for the "Arab Spring". And even though I have a more positive view of the Arab Spring than what I think you do, I'm still not sure that counts for a peace prize. But then, I really have no idea what the criteria are for a peace prize. I always envision a peace prize going to someone who took action to stop or prevent war (exposing war crimes is nice, but that alone doesn't lead to peace). I guess there's not to many of those around.
Click to expand...

you know... i get it... and agree for the most part with your assertions but i would ask you to consider this: the turn around in Vietnam came after the revelations of the my lai massacre... so your devaluation of exposure(of war crimes) leading to lives saved, or peace made... seems... well... hasty... at least... unfounded by historical precedent at best... imho he saved people (manning) just as surely as if he had thrown himself on a grenade...i am proud to call him my brother... wed be better off with an army full of men just like him...

Glaucus said:
It is kinda funny though. First they give the prize to the president of the US. Then they give it to an American who's up on treason charges. It's as if they wanted to redeem themselves. Like the referee who makes a bad call mostly to just make up for a previous bad call on the other team.
Click to expand...

ask an air cav about the road to redemption... :rolleyes:

425px-1st_Cavalry_Division_-_Distinctive_Unit_Insignia.svg.png

a horse that was never rode, a river that was never crossed... and the yellow... well... :rolleyes: speaks for itself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top