The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos • Hacker News Board

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#81

Post by jasonlotito » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

simonmd wrote: post #76

davidpelaez wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they had. First world countries had the worst war on history and they rebuilt their societies making big concessions. Europe and Japan know a lot about accepting had agreements exactly as our peace process suggests. This is a great way of supporting the work a great president truly committed to changing our country because he was born rich and it's extremely obvious that the peace agreement with FARC and possi…

Name ONE developed country that would accept zero jail time and political eligibility for someone convicted of multiple war crimes, with hundreds of years in cumulative prison sentences. That is precisely my point. You are just one of many colombians who can't seem to make the connection between repeatedly helping criminals dodge justice and Colombia's current situation.

> Name ONE developed country...

The USA.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#82

Post by forgotpwtomain » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

olau wrote: post #80

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #65

After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.

Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying: Only if you expect the peace prize to be awarded in the same way as physics prize. The people awarding the physics prize seem to be waiting until they are absolutely certain the discoveries are important. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mostly given to old men for things they've done decades ago, not for outstanding accomplishments in the past year. Unlike the pe…

> Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying

> It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely,

Civil war in Syria. hundreds of civilian drone killings. Failed to close Guantanamo.

'It's too bad' is a huge fucking understatement. If a selection process yields peace prize to these kinds of people that is in fact, 100% worthless.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#83

Post by Y201K » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #65

After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.

Really, choosing Obama as the inflection point for the legitimacy of the prize is misplaced: Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. While maybe Obama didn't do anything to deserve it, Kissinger arguably did do things that should have prevented him from being awarded it.

https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI?t=2475

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#84

Post by diegorbaquero » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #79

woodpanel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the monthly alimony every FARC combatant was to receive? I would probably still have voted 'yes' but I have a hard time to denunciate people for thinking otherwise: that paying someone to not terrorize you anymore amounts to "extortion money".

For how long would they receive the money? Economically it makes sense. You will have thousands of people which only work skill is to combat. With the end of the guerrilla, they won't immediately find jobs. If they don't have money, they will become thugs.

2 years. It's cheaper to do that than to continue the war.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#85

Post by simonmd » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:28 PM UTC

cloverich wrote: post #67

simonmd wrote: post #64

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

Can you contrast this with ceronman's comment below (or maybe above) that the areas most likely to vote for the compromise were the people most affected by the guerilla violence?

Gladly. That is one of the favorite simplistic spins of the supporters of the FARC-Santos deal, when in reality it has little to do with the victims and a lot to do with internal colombian political structures. Most maps you will see supporting this idea mix together 'victims of conflict' without separating them between paramilitary/FARC or drug trafficking victims, so it would be inaccurate to conclude that the most areas affected by FARC violence were in favor of the deal. Add to that the states where Santos mobilized his political machinery to buy votes, which coincides more precisely with the states supporting the deal (http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/colombia/proceso-paz/noticia...). For example, the state with most victims (Antioquia) voted overwhelmingly against (62.00%). To say that Antioquia, Santander, Norte de Santander, Risaralda, Caldas, Quindío, Tolima, Cundinamarca, Huila, Caquetá, Meta, Casanare and Arauca states saw little violence is just a lie and affront to their victims.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#86

Post by simonmd » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:32 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #81

simonmd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name ONE developed country that would accept zero jail time and political eligibility for someone convicted of multiple war crimes, with hundreds of years in cumulative prison sentences. That is precisely my point. You are just one of many colombians who can't seem to make the connection between repeatedly helping criminals dodge justice and Colombia's current situation.

> Name ONE developed country... The USA.

Really? which convicted war criminal holds office? If you say 'Bush' you didn't really read my comment. I fully support him being investigated for war crimes. But until he is convicted, that is a non-sequitur.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#87

Post by antocv » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

berntb wrote: post #38

tobltobs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digging out the wounded and dying is a subversive act?

It probably is -- from the viewpoint of those that bombs civilians with barrel bombs. (That said, for all I know the white helmets is a front for ISIS. But either way, the Assad junta and the Russians have an obvious interest in tarring them black.)

> of those that bombs civilians with barrel bombs.

Of course, who wouldnt choose to be melted to pieces by an expensive explosive device with advanced guidance and autonomous systems rather than a cheap ones?

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#88

Post by simonmd » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:38 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #74

simonmd wrote: post #64

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

You should evaluate it on its own terms unencumbered. Is it worth it, is it not worth it (to you or to your country). Encumbering it with what other people or other societies is interesting but not useful to you. If I were you, I'd take the deal. But that's me. After half a century or more of guerilla warfare, I'd think it was enough, even if some bad Marxist guys and gals get away with atrocities as well as extrajud…

And colombians did, last sunday.

Guerrillas were created because justice was not applied when crimes were committed against their founders. Paramilitaries were created because the state did not apply justice or provide security to victims of guerilla crimes. Most of the problems colombia has faced during the past 50 years are not due to guerrillas or paramilitaries, but because we as a society apparently find justice to be an 'obstacle' to other ends, large and small.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#89

Post by xyos » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

Graphon1 wrote: post #66

ceronman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm taking about territories that were attacked by the guerrilla. Like Toribio Cauca, that got more than 600 guerrilla attacks since the 80s. 81% of them voted yes to peace treaty.

I'm uninformed, but is it possible the vote was basically a choice between "war" and "not war"? Maybe people voted for anything but more of the same?

I'm Colombian and this is not about peace or war, many victims lost family members and they don't know where they are, this treaty wanted to compensate those victims by having the guerrillas give total information about crimes to those victims. the only way to get amnesty was by giving 100% of that information to the victims.

The treaty was voted down because some political movements lied to the people in the cities (not the victims), telling them that Colombia would become Venezuela, that their income will suffer by new taxes, and that the treaty had Gender equality points (which is true).

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#90

Post by simonmd » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #57

ekianjo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazi not punished ? Most of them died in the war. Oh and none of the allies war criminals were punished. You forgot to mention that.

Plenty of Nazi scientists and war criminals were given amnesty in the US after the war in exchange for their knowledge.

We would be ok with granting amnesty to lower level FARC scientists, but the Hitlers, Eichmanns, Goebbelses, Goerings, Heydrichs, Himmlers, Hoesses and Mengeles of the FARC must see some jail time.