Re: Nobel peace prize : Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:54 pm  

Boris's writing is as confused as his hairdresser.

Re: Nobel peace prize : Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:12 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Probably too late for this year, but how about Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani standing up for girls' education – and shot by the Taliban?

What's that to do with peace though? She wanted to be educated.

Re: Nobel peace prize : Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:06 pm  

The eu has not been responsible for peace in Europe. The crushing of Nazi Germany, the rebuilding of Germany, its occupation and demilitarisaation have been responsible. For that uncle Sam and little old Britain are primarily to thank.

Re: Nobel peace prize : Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:00 pm  

Dally wrote:

The eu has not been responsible for peace in Europe. The crushing of Nazi Germany, the rebuilding of Germany, its occupation and demilitarisaation have been responsible. For that uncle Sam and little old Britain are primarily to thank.

I think the EU can claim some credit for providing a framework through which disputes can be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation. Though I would actually say that Nazi Germany is more responsible than any other nation for bringing peace to Europe. The major European powers were exhausted and bankrupted by destroying Nazi Germany and meant they had to retreat as colonial powers. Thereby taking away the traditionally largest point of friction between the major European nations.
I'd also say that Russia should at least be mentioned when discussing the "crushing of Nazi Germany"

Hmmmm a choice between Hitler and Thatcher for a Nobel Peace Prize...

[DaveO]

Re: Nobel peace prize : Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:57 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

NATO has had plenty to do with that particular achievement.

That doesn't alter the fact, as I said, a big reason the common market was set up was a political desire to avoid another European war. It never was just an economic trading block.

[DaveO]

Re: Nobel peace prize : Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:24 am  

Dally wrote:

The eu has not been responsible for peace in Europe. The crushing of Nazi Germany, the rebuilding of Germany, its occupation and demilitarisaation have been responsible. For that uncle Sam and little old Britain are primarily to thank.

Don't be so ridiculous. Western occupation of Germany ended in the mid 1950's. Since then Britain and the USA have not been in the business of keeping the French and Germans from going to war again.

If Britain and the USA have been European peace keepers since then you had better tell the French who's idea it was to strengthen Franco-German cooperation with the specific aim banishing the threat of another war. It was Jean Monnet a French civil servant who came up with the idea in 1950 a mere five years after the WWII ended with that specific aim in mind and it is from there that the EEC evolved.

It is simply a fact that keeping the peace was the driving force behind the creation of the EEC and given there has not been a European war since then it certainly hasn't failed.

Re: Nobel peace prize : Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:37 am  

It's a great idea. "Winner, Nobel Peace Prize 2012" looks bloody great on my CV

Re: Nobel peace prize : Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:50 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Don't be so ridiculous. Western occupation of Germany ended in the mid 1950's. Since then Britain and the USA have not been in the business of keeping the French and Germans from going to war again.

Well the French were one of the 4 occupying powers. Funny that when I first visited Berlin, in 1979, I distinctly recall seeing many occupying troops some armed a ready to shoot.

Re: Nobel peace prize : Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:25 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That doesn't alter the fact, as I said, a big reason the common market was set up was a political desire to avoid another European war. It never was just an economic trading block.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what you said earlier ? You claimed that "no one can deny" that it is the EEC/EC/EU that has ensured peace inferring that this body was solely responsible for this feat. Which is, of course, not the case at all.