Obama defends war as he picks up Nobel Peace Prize

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8405033.stm

Obama defends war as he picks up Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.

There was a mixed reaction when he was named as the winner of this year's prize, becoming the fourth US president to be given the honour.
Mr Obama's elevation to the rank of fellow laureates such as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, before he has even spent a year in office, has sparked fierce debate.
Critics also said it was inappropriate for the honour to go to the commander-in-chief of a country involved in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Acknowledging the controversy, Mr Obama said he accepted the award with humility, adding: "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize... my accomplishments are slight."
He could not argue with those who said many previous laureates were "far more deserving" of the honour than him, he said.
Defending his Afghan troop deployment, Mr Obama said there were times when "the use of force [was] not only necessary but morally justified," as long as force was proportionate and civilian casualties minimised.
"Instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace", he said.
"A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," he added. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."

He said the US "must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war" to differentiate it from "a vicious adversary that abides by no rules".
Mr Obama also emphasised alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of diplomacy and sanctions to confront nations like Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programmes.
While Russia and America were working to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, he said the international community must ensure Tehran and Pyongyang did not "game the system".
"Let us reach for the world that ought to be," Mr Obama said. "We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace."
He paid tribute to anti-government demonstrators in Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe, and said the US would always stand on the side of those who sought freedom.

Protests
Some anti-war demonstrators gathered outside city hall, where the ceremony was held.
"We are protesting against him because... we don't think he is a man of peace," one of them told AFP news agency.
Amid high security, the US president earlier signed the Nobel Prize book of previous laureates after arriving in Oslo with his wife, Michelle.

There has been some disappointment in Norway at Mr Obama's decision to stay only one day, even though Nobel ceremonies are usually held over three, and decline a traditional lunch with the king.
At a news conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, Mr Obama said he and his wife wished they could stay longer.
In the evening, Mr Obama appeared alongside Michelle on their hotel balcony and waved to a torchlight procession below. The couple were then due to go to the traditional winners' banquet.
The Nobel Prizes for chemistry, literature, medicine, physics and economics are also being presented, in the Swedish capital Stockholm.
Each laureate, including Mr Obama, receives a diploma, a medal and 10m kroner ($1.4m; £865,000).
Coinciding with the Nobel ceremony, a statue of Mr Obama as a young boy was unveiled in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, at a park, near where the president lived between 1967 and 1971.

I bet thats not what they expected.

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:I bet thats not what they expected.

Probably not, as conservatives are already praising him for the speech.

**Albatross**

He blatantly got the award for being the first black President of The United States - that's a big deal. Seriously, how can people complain? Segregation is within living memory for many americans. To go from black people drinking from seperate 'coloured' water-fountains, to a black man becoming Head of State within 60 years is a remarkable achievement - you have to give him credit for playing his part. He will have inspired a whole generation of young black people and given them a positive black role-model - he deserves it in my opinion.

**Ahtman**

Tell me more about this "Civil Rights" in American history. I imagine many of us over here in the would like to know. In fact, until just now I didn't there were different ethnic groups in the US, and you say there were some problems?

**Albatross**

Take the piss all you want, mate - I have a point do I not?

**JEB_Stuart**

So we are giving it to him for the color of his skin?

**dogma**

In the context of the situation. After all, Arafat and Rabin won it because of their respective religious beliefs/ethnic heritages.

But yeah, not we, they. Unless you're on the Nobel committee.

**Cane**

Good move by Obama to address the hypocrisy and to be humble about it all. He seemed just as surprised as any of us that he was even in the running for it.

Albatross wrote:He blatantly got the award for being the first black President of The United States - that's a big deal. Seriously, how can people complain? Segregation is within living memory for many americans. To go from black people drinking from seperate 'coloured' water-fountains, to a black man becoming Head of State within 60 years is a remarkable achievement - you have to give him credit for playing his part. He will have inspired a whole generation of young black people and given them a positive black role-model - he deserves it in my opinion.

Yea hopefully it inspires the UK to catch up and get a black prime minister or better yet a black Queen. Bloody brits

While being the first black president is one hell of an achievement it seems he got the peace prize for his foreign policy goals in his campaign and for not being Bush 3.0

**Albatross**

So we are giving it to him for the color of his skin?

Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?

Yea hopefully it inspires the UK to catch up and get a black prime minister or better yet a black Queen.

Well, we have (and have had)MPs and Peers of all genders, ethnicities and differing sexual orientations. We also had a female Prime Minister. But we haven't had the same difficulties as far as racial politics is concerned, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal here to have a non-white PM really.

I would LOVE a black Queen.

Erm, that could be taken out of context, couldn't it?

**LunaHound**

Albatross wrote:Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?

I think its worth celebrating , just nothing to do with Nobel Peace Prize -_-

**dogma**

Cane wrote:black Queen.

Like this one?

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:In the context of the situation. After all, Arafat and Rabin won it because of their respective religious beliefs/ethnic heritages.

I don't think Arafat deserved it, and I am iffy about Rabin.

dogma wrote:Unless you're on the Nobel committee.

Who do think dissented?

Albatross wrote:Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?

Not in this regard. Are they going to give America's first female president one? Or Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc. I think that awarding something for racial reasons like this is idiotic, and only serves to highlight the issue further. Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century. Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?

**Albatross**

@Dogma

Hells yeah.

**Ahtman**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement.

You would think so, but it was Barney Frank, so even "the gays" were kinda 'meh' about the whole situation.

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think Arafat deserved it, and I am iffy about Rabin.

Who does deserve the Peace Prize?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century. Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?

She didn't get one because the Nobel Committee felt there were better candidates, or because they simply didn't like her. Both of which are legitimate reasons.

I don't really understand why this is such a big deal. The Prize(s) is(are) about a judgment call(s), pure and simple. You can say that you don't agree with the judgment, but that doesn't mean the person being given the award isn't deserving. Since, you know, the only measure of dessert is the judgment of the committee.

**Albatross**

Are they going to give America's first female president one? Or Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc. I think that awarding something for racial reasons like this is idiotic, and only serves to highlight the issue further.

It's not because he is non-white - it's because he is African-American. And they were slaves. Now one is the President - that's what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. Opportunity. Obama getting himself elected could be seen as the advent of TRUE equal opportunity for Black Americans.

Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century.

The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.

Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?

If he had been Head of State, I would say yes, he would have deserved one. But that will never happen. Not in America, not in our lifetime.

**JEB_Stuart**

@Dogma: Its not so much a critique of the committee as a critique of Albatross' declaration of why it should happen. But if the committee gives it out for less then worthy reasons, this I don't think being a worthy reason obviously, it diminishes the level of respect for the award. I don't care who they give it to, its their award.

**Manchu**

It seems to me that over the last twenty years or so, public life in America has descended into a rhetoric of violence. For example, the "culture war" has been forced on us by those especially eager to fight it. Is it any wonder that abortion doctors are murdered (as they attend church services!) when the "pro-life" demagogues talk in terms of a cosmic struggle of good versus evil? Anyone hearing this will eventually ask the question "and what should be done to an evil person" or, as certain Catholic wackos have called President Obama, "an agent of death?" Rational people, for the time being at least, put the obvious answer out of their minds but there are a few deranged people who take these notions literally and end up murdering people. Again, consider the murder of George Tiller. In contrast to this wild language of hate and war, Obama offered a positive but grounded way of talking that responds to the most basic mechanism of American culture: compromise. In our era of "culture war," compromise has somehow become a dirty word that means "having no backbone" or "surrendering your principles." I think the Founding Fathers would disagree. Also, as Albatross has pointed out, the Founding Fathers themselves did not have the moral courage to deal with the problems of race in this country. That has been the special work--or burden--of the postwar generation and continues to be the work of Americans today. I don't think that any black man could have triumphed over the long standing traditions of prejudice and systems of inequity that have embedded themselves, with our tacit approval, into our way of life. I shudder to think, for example, at the thought of Jesse Jackson becoming our first back president. Rather, a black man who offered more than the color of his skin is the indispensible man of this moment. And Barak Obama has been that man since he rose to national prominence with a message of realistic optimism. He is making peace in a culture that has done its best to tear itself apart and that peace means more to the rest of the world than it is commonly comfortable admitting. I have to disagree with the President when I say that I think he deserved this award.

**Albatross**

@JEB - I was merely stating that I thought that it was the real reasoning behind their awarding him it - but yes, I do feel he deserves it.

**JEB_Stuart**

Albatross wrote:It's not because he is non-white - it's because he is African-American. And they were slaves. Now one is the President - that's what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. Opportunity. Obama getting himself elected could be seen as the advent of TRUE equal opportunity for Black Americans.

You do realize there were black slave owners right?

Albatross wrote:The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.

You ignored my point completely....

**Ahtman**

I'm still just shocked to learn there was slavery in America's history.

**dogma**

Manchu wrote:I have to disagree with the President when I say that I think he deserved this award.

Yeah, I'd agree.

I think we often forget what the Peace Prize is actually awarded for,

shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Fraternity is obviously a subjective consideration, but in terms of the promotion of peace congresses Obama has certainly been active.

**Albatross**

You do realize there were black slave owners right?

Were there many white slaves?

The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.

You ignored my point completely....

You asked why she didn't get an award - I think these things could have been factors. If it wasn't for these reasons, it's not inconceivable that she would have been considered.

**Quintinus**

Americans should be HAPPY that our President has received a Nobel Peace Prize. But no, some go immediately to pessimism.

President Obama overcame so much hate and discrimination and other factors to get to his position, and what does he get in return? Insults from the American public.

As an American, it's truly saddening to see that someone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

What happened to being open-minded? What happened to hearing out what the other person is saying? I know that many times I have changed what I have believed due to people explaining their beliefs in a well-thought out way.

But now we've resorted to propaganda and flat-out lying.

Are you proud of that, Jeb?

**sexiest_hero**

He deserves it for the simple fact that people don't ask me what I think about what Jessie or Sharpton said that day (Self-Edited angry rant). I do feel it's sad that the only thing agreed on is war :\

**ShumaGorath**

I didn't know I started another thread for bitching about Obama getting the prize. Here I was thinking I posted his controversial but powerful speech.

I'm glad you guys were there to show me that petty bickering about something thats already happened and that Obama himself noted in the speech was seemingly less deserved than others is more important than a review of the notion that just war can bring peace in the face of an institution that largely lauds the effort to "do nothing" at times.

**Manchu**

Vladsimpaler wrote:As an American, it's truly saddening to see that someone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

Exactly. This is what our public life is becoming. As a Catholic, I am especially mortified to see bishops falling into this kind of thinking. I am speaking especially about the scandal about Patrick Kennedy. Americans need to remember that all our progress has been built on negotiation. There will always be mudslinging. But there was a time when the mudslinging was just tactical and not part of an ideological program. And at the end of the day, there was a sense that we were all Americans after all. Now it seems that some people want to disenfranchise you--or damn your immortal soul--should you disagree about a hot-button issue.

**Fateweaver**

Dare I say it's why he was voted into President in the first place?

Yes I went there.

**Albatross**

For some people, definitely.

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:Dare I say it's why he was voted into President in the first place?

Yes I went there.

We know, thats where you always go. In every thread. Without supporting your opinion, or really even attempting to provide reasons for it. It's what makes you fateweaver.