Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:11 am

OSLO – President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners Thursday with humble words, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious award to "reach for the world that ought to be."

A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize — some say prematurely. In this damp, chilly Nordic capital to pick it up, he and his wife, Michelle, whirled through a day filled with Nobel pomp and ceremony.

And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours and skipping the traditional second day of festivities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

Story Link: Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize - Yahoo! News

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:41 am

We will, presumably, want to read the President's acceptance speech before making much comment. It's available at Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:47 am

spot;1271629 wrote: We will, presumably, want to read the President's acceptance speech before making much comment. It's available at Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House

I saw and heard the whole thing on FOX NEWS this morning. :wah:

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:54 am

I suspect many of us watched it. The reason for posting a link to the text is so we could accurately quote from it.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:02 am

spot;1271634 wrote: I suspect many of us watched it. The reason for posting a link to the text is so we could accurately quote from it.

If you went to the OP story link, you would have found a video of his acceptance speech. Thank you for your link as well.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:04 am

May I pick out this, to begin with?I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.I note that around an eighth of the world's prison population is held incarcerated in the USA. I'd describe that as a form of slavery which deprives citizens of the right to choose their own leaders, among many other restrictions. All who are released from prison at the end of their sentences continue to have that right withheld from them.

The proportion of Americans criminalised by US laws continues to rise. As for the right to assemble without fear, has anyone watched footage of attempted protest marches in the US recently? By all means point out that peace is unstable in such circumstances, Mr President, but start acting on your belief. Close the prisons. If there are people incarcerated who pose a threat to society then hold them in rehabilitation centres instead. Once they're rehabilitated and back on the streets, give them back their full civil rights. Slavery in the US has a notorious history and it's not ended yet.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:06 am

Jazzy;1271636 wrote: If you went to the OP story link, you would have found a video of his acceptance speech. Thank you for your link as well.

The only way I know to quote from video is to transcribe the passage by hand and believe me, it's a tedious process. The words are worth a thousand pictures.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:18 am

spot;1271637 wrote: May I pick out this, to begin with?I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.I note that around an eighth of the world's prison population is held incarcerated in the USA. I'd describe that as a form of slavery which deprives citizens of the right to choose their own leaders, among many other restrictions. All who are released from prison at the end of their sentences continue to have that right withheld from them.

The proportion of Americans criminalised by US laws continues to rise. As for the right to assemble without fear, has anyone watched footage of attempted protest marches in the US recently? By all means point out that peace is unstable in such circumstances, Mr President, but start acting on your belief. Close the prisons. If there are people incarcerated who pose a threat to society then hold them in rehabilitation centres instead. Once they're rehabilitated and back on the streets, give them back their full civil rights. Slavery in the US has a notorious history and it's not ended yet.

MAYBE if England released it's prisoners and closed it's prisons and Obama saw that it worked "jolly well" he would follow suit.:yh_rotfl

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:34 am

spot;1271637 wrote: deprives citizens of the right to choose their own leaders,... All who are released from prison...continue to have that right withheld...

Spot, your heart is in the right place, but realistically, do you really want convicted felons, pedophiles, and murderers voting for your leadership? Haven't they already shown their judgement is seriously in doubt by committing their crimes?

The proportion of Americans criminalised by US laws continues to rise. As for the right to assemble without fear, has anyone watched footage of attempted protest marches in the US recently?

Again, I agree with you whole-heartedly that peaceable assembly should never be interfered with. But, on the other hand, most of the protests in recent years have ended up as full-blown riots. People seem to have forgotten how to make their point without breaking glass, looting, and burning cars on the street.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:40 am

Saint_;1271641 wrote: Spot, your heart is in the right place, but realistically, do you really want convicted felons, pedophiles, and murderers voting for your leadership? Haven't they already shown their judgement is seriously in doubt by committing their crimes?Why not concentrate on the large proportion of the jail population who are in prison solely because of the criminalising legislation regarding recreational drug use and distribution? Why pick on the small minority who, as I said, need rehabilitation treatment before, if ever, being released back into the community?

Most people are in jail for offences which are illegal solely because there's a law against what they did, not because they have any moral fault. There are two totally dissociated concepts involved, law-breaking and ethical failure.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:46 am

Saint_;1271641 wrote: Again, I agree with you whole-heartedly that peaceable assembly should never be interfered with.(

Do you know what happens if you try to protest within view or earshot of the event you're protesting against? You're arrested for not protesting at the designated protest site, miles away from any chance of influencing those you disagree with. What's been interfered with is the right to protest other than ineffectually. Of course protesters are going to want to be heard by those they're out protesting against. Preventing that is the source of the violence.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:51 am

spot;1271643 wrote: Why not concentrate on the large proportion of the jail population who are in prison solely because of the criminalising legislation regarding recreational drug use and distribution? Why pick on the small minority who, as I said, need rehabilitation treatment before, if ever, being released back into the community?

Well if that's what you meant, then I agree with you. It's getting so that jaywalking is a jailable offense. I think California is well on the way to decriminalizing some lesser drug offenses.

Most people are in jail for offences which are illegal solely because there's a law against what they did, not because they have any moral fault. There are two totally dissociated concepts involved, law-breaking and ethical failure.

I'm following you, barely. Can you give an example of a crime that you think should not be jailable? (other than the aforementioned one of course.)

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:53 am

Another clip from the speech:America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.That depends on how weasel-worded "fought a war" is, doesn't it. Chile is still picking up the pieces and arresting the criminals from America's intervention in 1973, for example. Daniel Ortega had a perfectly good popular democracy in Nicaragua until the Reagan White House administration killed 30,000 of his electorate - that's not a war? Of course that was a war and of course it was a democracy. It just happened to be a Socialist democracy. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:55 am

spot;1271643 wrote: Why not concentrate on the large proportion of the jail population who are in prison solely because of the criminalising legislation regarding recreational drug use and distribution? Why pick on the small minority who, as I said, need rehabilitation treatment before, if ever, being released back into the community?

Most people are in jail for offences which are illegal solely because there's a law against what they did, not because they have any moral fault. There are two totally dissociated concepts involved, law-breaking and ethical failure.There are many cases in the U.S. like Another Drug Raid Nightmare - Reason Magazine

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:07 am

Saint_;1271646 wrote: I'm following you, barely. Can you give an example of a crime that you think should not be jailable? (other than the aforementioned one of course.)Bernard Madoff's, just to be controversial. What on earth happened to Caveat Emptor?

Jailing for prostitution springs to mind. Jailing for vagrancy and soliciting handouts does as well.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:17 pm

I haven't had the time I wanted to go through the whole speech for assessment but it did disturb me. I'm trying to figure out how to express why.

From Obama's speech:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.

There is acknowledgment that there are choices to deal with violence with violence or to try nonviolent approaches. I initially found it strange that the Peace prize would go to someone who chooses to react with violence as the choice. That led me to consider that Mandela has won it in the past. He obviously chose that path, which landed him on the US list of known terrorists U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list - USATODAY.com . I looked up Mandela's acceptance speech and he focuses mainly on the new conditions of peace that he is seeking to maintain. Regarding the methods used to attain victory he says "We do not believe that this Nobel Peace Prize is intended as a commendation for matters that have happened and passed." Nelson Mandela's Nobel Peace Prize Address He does not, from my reading, attempt to justify the violent approach that was taken.

That's a start. I'm also gathering thoughts on the inconsistency of Obama's logic in specific foreign alliances and policies. More later.