[sim7c00]

you are right. people fight for peace, fight for freedom, whatever. People do not understand what is peace. There is only very few places in the world (1 where I know of, by chance) that actually study, what is peace. culture of peace. Peace is known not to be simply the absence of war, and so, trying to remove war isn't neccesarily moving towards peace or a culture of peace, while many things which do not remove violence, can still be considered contributions (very great ones) to peace.

imho the nobel peace prize should take into account what is peace, not just focus on the absence of war. this is an outdated idea. Polemology vs. Irenology.

There are so many people contributing greatly to peace who are invisible. only the ones 'fighting against war' are made visible. and with those, like other commentors suggest, its often simply an opinion. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and one mans soldier is anothers terrorist... they are all fighting, killing or destroying (destruction can be non-physical here). it should atleast be a nobel anti-war prize or something. not a peace prize. it doesn't do justice to the many people contributing actively to a culture of peace in one way or another.

[csmpltn]

> "There is only very few places in the world (1 where I know of, by chance) that actually study, what is peace"

Where would that be?