world

Obama, receiving Nobel Peace Prize, says war sometimes justified

145 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

145 Comments
Login to comment

He's also sayin' at this moment that he has the right to use force and act unilaterally to protect his country.

There's so much in his statement that the supporters he still has left will choke when they hear them.

He just made a case for other countrys' interventions over moral issues.

Wow.

A bunch of what he's sayin' is like Bush II if ya didn't actually see him sayin' it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In front of the world he just praised the hell outta Ronald Reagan for how he dealt with the Soviets and how that benefitted others around the world.

Friend 'z' is gonna flip out when he gets this fed back to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tell that to the Iranian protesters Mr. Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, tough words. ::::A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies::: Very true and as a Jew I understand. Go for it Obama-kun. Clean up this mess!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely too early for the choice, but too late for the committee to take it back, and Obama's got to think of SOMETHING to say to justify the inherited wars.

Ronin: "He's also sayin' at this moment that he has the right to use force and act unilaterally to protect his country."

I think what he's saying is in regards to the wars he inherited after your former president unilaterally invaded. Not surprised you're confused with all the big words used in the speech, though... why just earlier today you kept insisting that a thread about Hatoyama was in fact about Obama bowing and kissing rings!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama, receiving Nobel Peace Prize... while delivering a robust defense of war"

Ho ho ho!

"the third president ever to win the prize - some say prematurely"

How about unjustifiably?

"the wars he inherited"

Oh, but he WANTED to inherit them. No one forced him to run for president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "How about unjustifiably?"

It is unjustified, in my opinion, but also in my opinion that's not at all the reason you're bringing it up. In fact, I think at some point in the past you said people like dick cheney deserve such a prize. You are simply trying to gloat against a man you abhor.

"Oh, but he WANTED to inherit them."

I think it would be more apt to say he wants to END them and bring about peace, unlike... ahem... a certain man who actually REQUESTED to be called 'the war president'. Big difference, sargie.

"No one forced him to run for president."

The American public did, since they were sick of the filth the GOP were putting forward, and the past WH. And you know what, the American public won.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there a real war in afganistan ? Really ? How come they don't show any pictures ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smtihinjapan - excellent post. We all truly appreciate you insight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm so looking forward to hearing Obama supporters' reaction to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is interesting that President Obama's words put him at odds with both Robert F. Kennedy and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- one of the foremost advocates of non-violence.

"I face the world as it is" -- contrasts with the words spoken in RFK's tribute: "Some men see things as they are... I dream things that never were and say why not."

Rather than acknowledge the acceptance of the "torch" passed by Robert's older brother when JFK said: "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind," President Obama provided ample evidence that his "greatness" largely stands in stark contrast to the puny individual he directly succeeded in office.

I can congratulate President Obama while being embarrassed for him and for the views he is representing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is correct: We must do whatever it takes to keep the rich bankers in power. Wars, recessions, depressions, inflation, fear. Any good Com/Marxist knows that.

Onwards to Afghanistan, Iran and Venezuela and new taxes like health care and carbon credits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No one forced him to run for president."

The American public did, since they were sick of the filth the GOP were putting forward, and the past WH. And you know what, the American public won.

Every day Obama-san is in office, the better Bush-kun looks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every day Obama-san is in office, the better Bush-kun looks.

I guess if you mean that the farther away Bush gets from the White House the better he looks, most Americans would agree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, no president in US history has had his popularity rating sink so fast as President Obama's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama: Nobel Peace Prize recipient and a one-term president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, no president in US history has had his popularity rating sink so fast as President Obama's.

Easy statement to prove wrong;

Both are one year after the highest point of popularity

Bush 9/20/2001 Approval Rating 89%~ 9/20/2002 Approval Rating 63%~ = 26%

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Obama 12/20/08 Approval Rating 69%~ 12/01/2009 Approval Rating 49% = 20%

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

They're called facts, perhaps you can incorporate them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No one forced him to run for president." The American public did

No, he choose to run for president just like every other candidate. I know what you mean when you say the american public did but sarge did make a point and that is no one did force him to run. Unless you can show American public pointed a gun at his head and say run for president or I will kill you then sarge point still stands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits...

"President Obama has indeed created history, managing to fare lower than any President whose approval has been tracked by Gallup since 1938."

http://www.examiner.com/x-26212-Long-Island-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Obamas-approval-rating-Lowest-ever-for-any-President-since-1938-in-71-years

yabits, if you lived in America you'd know many Americans are regrettin' their vote to put him in office.

Even his own political Left feels betrayed. This speech wasn't the first time he's said stuff that sounds more like Dubya than the Dalai Lama.

Do you believe most eligible Americans voters voted for him? Not many things could be further from the truth. 'Global warming'? Anyway, President Obama was never given any popular mandate by the American people to do a single thing. That's misdirection which as conned a lot of folks who support him... or once supported him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A nobel? Why? He just started working like a year ago, pure dumb

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hellhound, it gets even more bizarre. Although the announcement didn't officially come out for months, President Obama was selected and approved havin' been in office a bare two weeks.

Ya can't make this stuff up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems Castro is right by calling it "Cynical" !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would argue that the war in Afghanistan is a justifiable war, in contrast to Iraq. And the presence of ISAF does far more good than ill for the Afghans. But then again, I'm not an ideologue so it's irrelevant to me whether it's Bush's war or Obama's war. It's a war fought by many countries other than the US, with the ultimate goal of stabilizing a country that has had little stability for 30+ years, and having spoken to many returning soldiers and aid workers, it is worth fighting for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He lauded previous Nobel winners Mohandas Gandhi

Though highly deserving of it, Gandhi was never awarded the Peace Prize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two previous sitting Presidents had won Nobel's Peace Prize: Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations and Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War.

Given the 12 days from inauguration to nomination deadline, the only thing Obama may have accomplished was peaceful inaugural balls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Obama is more Bush-like than Dubya!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How on earth did this guy get a peace prize?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama-san would have gained great face in my household, if he had not accepted this award. No embarrassment for the US at all. Even, I believe some of his most ardent supporters are confused as to why the committee gave him this award.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Nobel committee, much the Olympic committee, will do anything to make itself feel important. So they jumped on the Obama bandwagon while it was hot. Make no mistake, they are an organization just like others whose prime directive is to increase it's power and relevance. Only several years of history will tell who the real peacemakers are.

There are several that believe the creation of Atomic weapons brought more peace to the world than any politician could hope to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Nobel organization seems to thrive on publicity, so not awarding any prize at all -- which should have been the proper action -- was not an option. Likewise for the Olympics. In ancient Greece the games were suspended during wars. That is unthinkable today -- too many corporate sponsors would complain. Back in 1948, George Orwell truly understood that when governments succeeded in developing rhetoric to fog out truth and reality, then mobilizing the masses to tolerate a state of permanent war would be easy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back in 1948, George Orwell truly understood that when governments succeeded in developing rhetoric to fog out truth and reality, then mobilizing the masses to tolerate a state of permanent war would be easy." Back in 48' he said that? Also, so who is doing the mobilizing now? What masses are being mobilized?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama told his audience in Oslo’s soaring City Hall. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.” I hope he succeeds to make the world a better place for us all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back in 48' he said that?

Ahem, all right, let's begin with the masses saddled with rudimentary reading comprehension. Like people who read the word "understood" and misquote it as "said." Go read some books, skipthesong. I suggest you start with "1984".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

May be this is a cynical attempt to mold Obama into a politician who does deserve the prize.

Sure, the award doesn't bind Obama to refrain from taking aggressive policies but a Nobel Peace Prize is something he would personally want to achieve in his political career. Nor would he desire history to remember his Peace Prize as a historical anomanly, an underserving commendation in contrast to the instances where achievers have done something positive on the whole ex-ante.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He has been rewarded just because he is not Bush-kun, yet he sounded like George W. Bush in the speech.

NeoJamal, Nobel lost credibility when Al Gore received one. They may as well name it the cowbell prize now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, no president in US history has had his popularity rating sink so fast as President Obama's.

Easy statement to prove wrong;

Both are one year after the highest point of popularity

Bush 9/20/2001 Approval Rating 89%~ 9/20/2002 Approval Rating 63%~ = 26%

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Obama 12/20/08 Approval Rating 69%~ 12/01/2009 Approval Rating 49% = 20%

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

They're called facts, perhaps you can incorporate them.

9/20/2001 was right after Sep 11th....Of course Bush's popularity would soar to that height.

It's called context, perhaps you can incorporate them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even though what Obama said might be essentially true, the trouble with a such a statement is that most people are too dumb to understand that his qualifiers count for something. Most idiots will think all he said was "War is grand!" Duh.

Next problem is the people who will intentionally pervert what he said so they can wiggle out a war.

Those two types outnumber the rest of us, so better to just shut about when warring is ok. Obama either forgot of did not realize that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War is grand!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

9/20/2001 was right after Sep 11th....Of course Bush's popularity would soar to that height. It's called context, perhaps you can incorporate them. [sic]

When I take a look at the "context" of the first 11 months of President Obama's first term, I see hoards of angry teabaggers and other such types wielding posters of Obama as Adolf Hitler -- before, during and after the election a year ago. In other words, a constant stream of hatred for the man, which can be measured by the number of death threats he was receiving.

The context includes inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression, two wars, a health care system in crisis -- and the unrealistic expectations that he would solve all these issues in a matter of months. After all, his critics derisively sneer, he is the "messiah."

As I recall, Bill Clinton's ratings fell quite sharply during the first two years of his first term, and he ended up leaving office with higher approval ratings than Ronald Reagan's end of second term.

So, yes, context is important. So are maturity, honesty and intelligence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next problem is the people who will intentionally pervert what he said so they can wiggle out a war.

That is a very good point. We recall many conservatives who like to remind folks after Bush's falsified "intelligence" on Iraq's WMD of the quotes from folks like Hillary Clinton. (Hillary, who was fed the same bogus intelligence.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, every time you blame Bush you're admitting President Obama is a failure.

He galvanized you by his 'hope' and 'change' rhetoric. Unfortunately, neither is a mature, honest or intelligent strategy.

That's what happens when you let emotion over-ride reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I recall, Bill Clinton's ratings fell quite sharply during the first two years of his first term, and he ended up leaving office with higher approval ratings than Ronald Reagan's end of second term.

He had a Republican congress after he blew his first two years and they kept him in check after that.....Context

So, yes, context is important. So are maturity, honesty and intelligence.

Maturity would be calling those that are protesting agaisnt Obama's policies as 'Tea Partiers' and not the derogatory juvenile 'teabagger' snicker gay sex reference insult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like this new Mr Obama. He wants to join the alpha male club, be like Mr Bush, be somebody!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ronin -

yabits, every time you blame Bush you're admitting President Obama is a failure.

Wow, the jealousy towards President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is certainly rife on this thread! Makes me wonder how the Repubs are gonna react when Obama wins a second term as President of the United States of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

war is sometimes justified...when you are strong that sometimes is defined by you, when you are weak that right belongs to your enemy, heh heh. But I am glad that he clarifies his way of thinking in Norway, peace doesn't mean you should become a punching bag for others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He had a Republican congress after he blew his first two years and they kept him in check after that.....Context

The kind of honesty needed for effective criticism of Obama's policies is not evident in that warped analysis of his Democratic predecessor's popularity.

For instance, why did Clinton's popularity rise even more after the Republican-controlled Congress impeached him? (It was already taking off after his showdown with the Republican Congress that shut down the government and caused the Republicans to cave in, and after all the investigations leading to the impeachment.)

Maturity would be calling those that are protesting agaisnt Obama's policies as 'Tea Partiers' and not the derogatory juvenile 'teabagger' snicker gay sex reference insult.

You obviously know more about those than I do. It's clear that the word is not getting out to all the "teabaggers" out there.

http://teabagparty.org/

When you adopt the "teabag" as a symbol of protest against President Obama, and paste dozens of them to placards and posters, and create websites called "teabagparty," it seems more natural and likely that people will call you teabaggers. "Tea Partiers" just doesn't cut it as a name that sticks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regimes that break the rules must be held accountable... To say that force is sometimes necessary...is a recognition of history... I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation

I wish President Obama would speak more like President Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When I take a look at the "context" of the first 11 months of President Obama's first term, I see hoards of angry teabaggers and other such types wielding posters of Obama as Adolf Hitler

Where do you see this? It was Speaker Pelosi who refer to 'Tea Partiers' as Nazi.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newly enshrined among the world’s great peacemakers...

along with such great peacemakers as Henry Kissinger!!

a fresh Obama doctrine.

Not much different from the Bush doctrine.

Evil must be vigorously opposed, he declared as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday.

Unfortunately, he's part of it.

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,”

Obama is a major part of the threat to the American people, and the rest of the world. Please, IDLE!

Unfortunately, none of the wars the US is in now, or in recent history, is justified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish President Obama would speak more like President Bush.

The difference, of course, is that in his speech Obama did not recognize the Iraq war as one of those occasions where the US was acting to defend itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, you have a point.

Bein' not-homersexual, I'm a little put off when I hear huge numbers of Americans are tea-baggin' President Obama.

Unless, Michelle is a beard and those two kids are a result of a Wal-Mart turkey baster, I'm a little uncomfortable with this analogy of what folks are linin' up to do to President Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where do you see this?

Are you claiming that there weren't plenty of images and statements out there portraying Obama as Adolph Hitler?

http://jaxpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/duval-gop-in-controversy-over-obamahitler-comparisons-at-tea-party/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

combini, in all the times President Obama referred to 'the Iraq war' in his speech, I didn't hear him say anything close to that.

He did refer to the moral use of 'force' several times so I wouldn't let this hiccup in what you think the man stands for get you totally bent outta shape.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits

That pesky context thing again

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612

The tea party pictures are tame compared to this venon from the 'enlightnened left'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish President Obama would speak more like President Bush.

You mean like a petulant child after decades of alcohol abuse?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, yabits, I mean like a man instead of an apologizin' appeaser.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in all the times President Obama referred to 'the Iraq war' in his speech, I didn't hear him say anything close to that.

Ronin, that's because he didn't refer to it at all. Not sure which speech you watched, but Obama didn't mention the word "Iraq" even once. (Here's the text, for your control-F pleasure. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5961370.shtml) He did mention Hussein, in the context of the first Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. So yeah, I don't think there are a lot of similarities between Obama & Bush in terms of rhetoric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The tea party pictures are tame compared to this venon from the 'enlightnened left'.

I don't endorse the imagery used by left or right. For the right-wing to deplore its use by the left as you have, and then use the fact to justify or rationalize its use in teabagger rallies is hypocricy.

You are justifying its use when you claim that foisting the image of Obama as Hitler is "context."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ronin, that's because he didn't refer to it at all

Yes, combini, President Obama didn't mention 'Iraq' even once.

You implied that he had.

Thanks for clearin' that up for yabit's 'hordes'.

Heh, heh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, thanks for the link. That's a great source not only for context but the sort of folks who suffered from BDS.

About seven pics down they even have that guy George Costanza from Seinfeld... the one in the coolie hat. I didn't know he was political.

If someone Google's anti-Obama bumper stickers there's plenty of entrepeneurs out there. I remember only one Hitler one after visitin' about four or six sites and didn't think the Hitler thing worked well. The best ones incorporated his pre-election logo into stuff like... "Soooooo, how's that Obama thing workin' out for ya?" and "NOPE" with no exclamation point. Good stuff.

Again, thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you claiming that there weren't plenty of images and statements out there portraying Obama as Adolph Hitler?

I claim there is rhetoric from both side, America has the pesky First Amendment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too early to have received this award.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trouble. Yabits tries to clear - "You mean like a petulant child after decades of alcohol abuse?"

USRonin intercepts, scores! - "No, yabits, I mean like a man instead of an apologizin' appeaser."

Back of the net!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

memyselfI good point on the pictures! yes they hide pics of the war a.m.s.p you gotta really search for them. If you look you'll fine them dead civilians & ruined towns its all out there!

Way too early for this prize. Peace prize!!? All he was talking about was how was is necessary to have war...what has this world come to! Mother Teresa would be ashamed is she was still around....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I claim there is rhetoric from both side.

To go beyond rhetoric and towards policies, one would need to examine how closely the actions truly fit (or not) with the imagery.

Preemptively launching a war on another nation and torturing people are characteristics of one president more than the other. And it isn't the one who just received his Peace Prize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To go beyond rhetoric... Preemptively launching a war on another nation and torturing people are characteristics of one president

Oh, puleeease, yabits. Violatin' UN resolutions?

Torture? Your team can't tell the difference between nasty college hazin's the same way it can't tell the difference between a parent beatin' a child and a parent spankin' a child.

You want to talk 'water boardin''? Fine. I'll take that over gettin' my head slowly sawed off for the fundamentalist Islamic ummah or bored Western audiences seekin' graphic entertainment when there's nothin' on the tube.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe this whole idea of Nobel Peace Prize is wrong in the first place. It implies we must have wars to have peace. Without war, no prize...how ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd say wars are inevitable.

Maybe 4 to 6 percent of those who populate the planet are 'not quite human'. They are born without what some people may call a 'soul'. They are completely incapable of empathizin' with people but over time become excellent mimics of 'appropriate' human emotions to hide their true selves... when to cry, when to laugh with a group, etc. Most aren't killers, of course 'cause they don't want those particular consequences if caught. Usually they just maniupulate people and situations to gratify whatever they want at the time.

Ladies... -Sound like anyone you've dated? Married?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mark_McKraken

I'm so looking forward to hearing Obama supporters' reaction to this.

Well, I'm an Obama supporter and I couldn't be happier.

I decided to go with Obama the moment he said he wouldn't hesitate to go into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government couldn't do the job.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone criticized him for that. Hillary, McCain, everyone. "Oh, he's going to bomb our ALLY!" they sad. But he stood his ground.

I was impressed. I backed Obama and I'm very happy he has been as good as his word. Sure, there are many who backed him who thought he was just talking, but I didn't think so. That's why I backed him.

I realize that you might be happier thinking that everyone who backs Obama is a bleeding-heart pacifist. But I have news for you. He has a number of supporters who support him precisely BECAUSE we thought he could handle the job that Bush bungled for more than seven years.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what do you think Obama should do in Afghanistan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I decided to go with Obama the moment he said he wouldn't hesitate to go into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government couldn't do the job." I respect, but what if that intelligence later came out to be faulty?

I'd say wars are inevitable." As long as we allow religion to effect our lives much less control our lives.

"The Nobel comes with a $1.4 million prize. The White House says Obama will give that to charities but has not yet decided which ones." I would hope, as he stupidly decided to have a sweet trial in NYC for KSM and his crew, that he would at least throw a bit to the orphans of the people killed on 9-11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip, I'd say wars are inevitable religion or no religion.

Mankind has never needed 'religion' as an excuse to kill his fellow man. The 4 to 6 percenters will ensure that.

Secular governments have killed more people than religious fundamentalists.

If some Islamic theocracies get their nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them. Those numbers may change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Secular governments have killed more people than religious fundamentalists." well, I don't think that a fair comparative. man has killed in the name of religion for a lot longer than secular governments, its we just have the means to do more damage now.

War is sometimes justified, but I still believe in do unto others as they have done to you. Obama doesn't think that way, but I feel I personally have seen the worse in people. No offence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just finished watching "2001 A Space Odyssey" and I expect to be receiving an award in the field of Rocket Science soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yokohama - You'd be more qualified for the Rocket Science award than the current Peace Prize recipient, nyuk nyuk!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As an Obama supporter I am concerned that Palin and the Newt are all over this speech praising it, no gushing over it. Those wingnuts never get anything right but now, once, they seem to be on point. And that is scary.

Oh well, a stopped clock is right too on occasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurchromium, maybe that's because he sounded more like President Bush at certain points throughout the script rather than someone on his knees beggin' for forgiveness which has been his usual public demeanor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a mistake. Award the Nobel Prize for Peace to someone who then makes a speech about the justification for a superpower using it's military might. If Obama wants to justify the US military being used to protect American interests, then fine. But don't award him with the Nobel Peace Prize for idealism like that. That's just a complete joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NorthLondon, he said 'forty-two' nations are in together on the latest use of your 'military might'.

Is yours one of them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"war sometimes justified"

But not in the case of the Iraq war, of course. Nothing justified finally removing that awful Saddam Hussein from power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin, mine is one of them. A decision made by British politicians without a public vote and not a decision made by me. Like I already said, if you want to use military power for your own interests, then that's your right. But don't give us that speech whilst being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin, whilst countless young good American and British servicemen have returned home with a flag draped over their coffin all for the name of revenge and politics, the President of the US strolls into Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize. Do you not see the hypocrisy ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

North London, a 'public vote'? How'd ya get anything done?

As far as the 'Peace' prize goes, their selections of a number of buffoons over the years indicates it's just a whole bunch of silliness.

P.S. Support your troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

P.S. Support your troops

Ronin, I did:-

countless young good American and British servicemen have returned home with a flag draped over their coffin all for the name of revenge and politics

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: But not in the case of the Iraq war, of course. Nothing justified finally removing that awful Saddam Hussein from power.

Glad so see you are coming around Sarge. Oh, don't go back to sleep! Somebody, smelling salts, quick!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: zurchromium, maybe that's because he sounded more like President Bush at certain points throughout the script rather than someone on his knees beggin' for forgiveness which has been his usual public demeanor.

Its really sad when the option of admitting wrongs simply does not exist. It seems this ronin can see only two things: breaking noses and groveling and nothing in between. These are the types you put in the vanguard and pray they don't come back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NorthLondon, hah!

-Some support. -In cyberspace, no less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see numbskull is one of those who supported keeping that awful Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq because the Iraq war wasn't justified, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems this ronin

Don't play to the audience. Talk to me, numbskull.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: Don't play to the audience. Talk to me, numbskull.

I wish to put you and your limited violent world view in the vanguard and I pray neither of you come back. Happy?

Sarge: I see numbskull is one of those who supported keeping that awful Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq because the Iraq war wasn't justified, lol.

You see nothing, because you spin everything too fast. I would have been happy to see Saddam replaced by a better man without violence. Not supporting one thing is not necessarily support for something else. I did not vote for Obama for example. It does not mean I support McCain does it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quick thoughts: One could get the sense that Obama believes the Afghan war is a just war but not the Iraq war. He can't stay days for all the festivities - he's the first sitting US President to receive the award and thus still has work in office. Limbaugh and Palin actually like the speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still can't believe that they gave this loser president the Nobel Peace award...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great speech Obama. Even Palin understood what he said.

Come on the rest of ye, surely you cant be dumber than her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ulysses: Great speech Obama. Even Palin understood what he said.

How do you know that? I think its more likely she thinks she understood, but didn't. I will bet she liked the part about self-defense. As we all know, to a Republican, self defense is when you think somebody MIGHT be armed, so you drop him by breaking his nose and rifle through his pockets. Then he turns out to not be armed, you say he did not treat his kids right.

No, I don't think Palin understood, or most of the Republican base for that matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As we all know, to a Republican, self defense is when you think somebody MIGHT be armed, so you drop him by breaking his nose and rifle through his pockets. Then he turns out to not be armed, you say he did not treat his kids right

You're mindset is funny, numbskull.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great speech Obama. Even Palin understood what he said.

No, I don't think Palin understood, or most of the Republican base for that matter.

Oh Please......She used the same exact same reasoning as Obama did as to when going to war was just and when it is not in her book. She has a son in the Army overseas as we speak. She understands it quite well and prays that her son is going to be safe every night, and is glad Obama gets that also and that the war we are engaged in is just after all.

Can you say the lady didn't have a personal interest in what he had to say? And was comforted by his speech? Or is it going to be another how dumb she is juvenile rant when ever she comes into a discussion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aw come on numbskull.Give them more credit. They might not be the brightest of bulbs, but this was pretty simple.

But I disagree with you.

A Republican will shoot dead a man, if he thinks he is armed. Then when he searches him and does not find a gun, he will plant one, and then say he saw the man walking past a gun-store 10 years back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I would have been happy to see Saddam replaced by a better man without violence"

Wouldn't we all. Only thing is, was there ever really any hope for that? He was entrenched, with his winsome sons ready to take over and continue the tyranny. The Iraq war wasn't justified because he didn't currently have WMD?

"Stil can't believe that they gave this loser president the Nobel Peace award"

Oh, my...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But what was Saddam replaced by, bunch of swindling thugs bent on wiping out each other. And what did it result in, creating Al-Qaeda in a place where it did not exist.

Iraq is going to end up as a satellite state to Iran, lets see who will be laughing then.

"Stil can't believe that they gave this loser president the Nobel Peace award"

Son that's mighty strong stuff you're smoking, lasted a year.

Wake up, the loser is gone, Obama's the president now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Oh Please......She used the same exact same reasoning as Obama did as to when going to war was just and when it is not in her book.

Last I checked Obama, as senator, voted against authorizing the President to invade Iraq. He stands his ground on that. If you cannot reconcile that vote with what he said in his speach, you did not understand his speach. If Palin agrees with his speach, then she craps on her own support of the invasion of Iraq. She does not understand, and I am afraid, neither do you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: Only thing is, was there ever really any hope for that?

You really seem to think it had to be done. Then when I ask for reasons why, you give me crazy reasons. Then when I point out the craziness, you insist it had to be done anyway. And around we go in a neat circle. Please stop chasing your tail and just admit it never should have happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@numbskull "Last I checked Obama, as senator, voted against authorizing the President to invade Iraq. He stands his ground on that. "

He stood his ground. But wingers, because they dont posess nuance or anything remotely like it, sort of forced him to admit on the campaign trail

"There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute."

But his fingers were crossed. So, it doesnt mean what they think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

self defense is when you think somebody MIGHT be armed," Well, I wish my dad had thought of that. He'd be with us. Really, don't you ever feel that you have that instinct?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow. I think I just stepped into bizarro world... I'm actually agreeing with Sarge and the right wingers. I don't think Saddam should have been removed the way he was, but I thought he should have been removed. He was a despot, not unlike Kim Jong Il. His sons were poised to take over and all indicators pointed to them being worse than their father. Maybe a non-violent movement would have garnered international sympathy, but with Saddam in control of the media, no one would hear about it. The way Bush went into Iraq was preemptive, and I can't support that for the same reason I can't support police arresting someone because they may or may not commit a crime someday. War is the last resort, but it is a resort. As President, Obama swore an oath to protect the people of his country. He would be remiss in that oath should he allow enemy forces to take American lives without resistance for the sake of a non-violent approach to peace. Martin Luther King would tell his followers that if they feared for their lives too much to march, he wouldn't blame them if they left the movement. Obama can't tell Americans to leave America. He doesn't have the luxury to be completely non-violent, as he has to protect even those that did not vote for him. It is an unenviable position, but that's why the weight of the crown is so heavy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's try and not refer to anything with Obama as 'the crown', shall we?

His ego is bloated as it is....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm so angry I can hardly breathe. The AP is reporting

"But he (President Obama) skipped several other activities, including lunch with the king, a news conference at Oslo's Grand Hotel, CNN's traditional interview with the prize winner and a "Save the Children" benefit concert, where organizers replaced him with an Obama cardboard cutout. Obama also won't be around for Friday's Nobel Concert."

Why are Europeans so racist??????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, just out of curiosity, what do you think Obama should do in Afghanistan?

I don't know.

What I do know is that Obama's behaving an awful lot like a Republican. Using acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize as a forum to explain, “Some will kill. Some will be killed.” and "Evil does exist in the world." makes him sound a little like Reagan.

I also know there are plenty of Obama supporters who assumed Obama would bring an end to these wars. Those who did have got to be plenty disappointed.

What do Oprah and the women on The View have to say about it, I wonder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Think about it: You could easily replace Obama with a cardboard cut-out and a tape recorder. =He is just an image -an idol- that you must worship. Same for the American dollar or any fiat currency -throw those dollars on the floor and bow down to them (many do).

=We must try to make the bankers happy and work as slaves with 100% effort for their fiat money. -

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://outfoxingkarlrove.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/cut-out-for-the-job.jpg (not the Oslo Obama paper idol)

-I may be wrong. Kids like the cut-out better than the real politician!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First of all, Obama is not a man of surprises. He has said all along that what he was going to do, as President was to get out of Iraq so that the US could concentrate on Afghanistan. There was a brief breathless moment when it looked like he might see reason and announce a pullout. But no. He was going to do what he said he was going to do all along. Don't blame Obama for lying. But blame him for being a fool in this case. Gorbachev had the sense to pull the Soviet Union out--one of the first thing he Obama is no Gorbachev, unfortunately.

Of course, Obama' Nobel Prize speech was nonsense. It was a dreadful moment in the Nobel Prize Award's history: a US president justifying war while accepting a peace prize. And not just any war but an utterly immoral and worthless war--Bush's war--that should never have been started. That war, which was claimed thousands of innocent Afghan lives, had as its primary aim to get Bin Laden. In 2001 we all knew where he was. In 2009 we do not. The US has recently admitted that its intelligence agencies have lost track of him. It is a lost war and has been for years.

Remember how the US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? When they did it was bad, when the US did the same thing it was good.

The Nobel committee should have withdrawn the prize after Obama announced he would escalate the Afghan war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama flip flops between policies on a daily basis, the guy is a fruitcake.

Why did the liberal elite vote for him to win this prize? let me tell you. It was envy of the great strides made by Bush against those who hate our freedoms and envy our wealth

Obama does not endorse peace, and contributes to world disorder and emboldens the evil doers. His latest policies in Afghanistan show that he wants to devastate the nation through force, then run away 18 months later.

Man of peace??? poppycock!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Norwegians weren't applauding the peace-prize acceptance speech President Obama just gave in Oslo. Wanna know why? The speech in many ways could have been written for, and delivered by, a man they, and the rest of the civilized world, loathe: George W. Bush.

Where's our change? More like shortchanged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I said at the onset, Obama is a custodian president, cleaning up after the mess made by Bush and his gang. Pursuing the Afghan war is a big mistake. On the other hand, trying to establish universal health care in the US was a truly noble deed--pity it was watered down to almost nothing. With Bush there was no hope. With Obama there may be a chance he can be persuaded. I am grasping at straws. Obama is as good as it is going to get in America, the land that makes trouble all over the world and cannot take care of its own people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jeancolmer; Bush decimated the evil doers and their capabilitis and protecetd the free world. Obama is now emboldeneing them, with his cut and run policies, yet he gets a Nobel Peace prize!!!!

Obama is leading Iraq into civil war and empowering Osama and his buddies by his weakling policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is as good as it is going to get in America, the land that makes trouble all over the world and cannot take care of its own people.

jeancolmar, I enjoyed reading your post. (Even as an American.)

As your post (and Libertas's) show -- contrasted with that of the many right-wingers here -- President Obama is walking a tightrope between two polar and seemingly uncompromising opposites. The important thing for me, as revealed by Obama's speech, is that it reveals a man who can be persuaded by a well-reasoned argument. One can not hope for much more than that from an American leader.

In his speech, Obama tried to argue that violent force is sometimes necessary, and laid out some examples of when it may be considered "just." (It is somewhat ironic that the prize is named after the inventor of TNT.)

He also emphasized that violent force, when it must be used, must be accompanied with careful restraint. He stated that to fight justly with the intent to minimize the risk put on innocent civilians is in the moral and strategic interest of any country that engages in a just war. While disappointing to those who believe in the powerful force of non-violence, this is head and shoulders above a leader under which military and intelligence people could contemplate and execute the actions that took place at Abu Ghraib. Torture will no longer be part of the U.S.'s M.O. -- although I am looking forward to the day when we repudicate rendition and torture by proxy.

There aren't any easy answers here, based on where we are now. The commitment to non-violence takes far more courage than the decision to throw someone else's son or daughter into battle. And yet Obama nodded in that direction in the part of his speech which emphasized diplomatic and economic pressure against hostile regimes.

As you said, this may be the best we can hope for at this moment from an American president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jon Stewart,

hmmmmmm, Obama forcing us to live in area between absolutes, brain hurts ahhhh complicated argh!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-10-2009/obama-s-nobel-speech

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[sigh] I guess in the end Europe is jealous they cannot produce an Obama, and bitter if he starts to sound for even one minute like reagan or bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jon Stewart is a bad guy, cut out of the same mold as Obama. Both have no patriotism and both hate traditional moderates like myself.

Obama and his warpath of terror deserves no credit for anything except dereliction of duty. Obama haxs entered us into a 30`s style depression, tried to bring Communist healthcare and emboldened our enemies with his idiotic cut and run policies.

Peace prize!!! What a joke!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both have no patriotism and both hate traditional moderates like myself.

jolly good show too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both have no patriotism

Obama has no patriotism? hahahahaha ooookay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sreiously, the best answer to a ultra-conservative rant is to publish it. Every time someone reads something akin to DickMorris's posting the conservative cause is hurt. So please wack-job cons, keep up the good work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This nutcase, won the Nobel peace prize, yet he has turned a pacified Iraq into one bordering on civil war and Afghanistan is turning into a graveyard for allied troops. Not only that, but he has told the evil doers that we will cut and run after 18 months! How the heck can anyone give such a loon a Peace prize?? The Liberal elites of the prize committee have made themselves look more foolish than we good guys knew they were already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Talk about the hate post. I've scanned just a few. I'm not surprised though.

So get back here and get some work done prez. Maybe you could throw together a few lies and start a war. Then you might be loved by your detesters. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium; If you cannot see how much damage Obama has done in the war on terror and how the US is now a mocked worldwide due to his idiotic policies, then all hope is lost.

Why didnt Bush get the peace prize? Because he isnt a lilly livered Liberal of course, common sense you see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too new, too few.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War is sometimes justified and removing the Taliban and chasing AlQueda in Afghanistan certainly passes that test. Shame we wasted so much time and life in Iraq when we should have been securing Afghanistan. That said Obama shouldn't have been awarded the prize, he hasn't earned it yet. I was pleased he realized that and was humble in his tone. Back to work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris - where to start? You say: "Bush decimated the evil doers and their capabilitis and protecetd the free world."

Thus acknowledging that Bush started the wars, sending our boys and girls over there to possibly die. Then you say: "This nutcase, won the Nobel peace prize, yet he has turned a pacified Iraq into one bordering on civil war and Afghanistan is turning into a graveyard for allied troops."

Seemingly forgeting that you yourself claim Bush responsible for starting the conflicts. Surely the man who put the troops there in the first place bears some responsibility? Let's be realistic here. If Obama completely and immediately pulled out of what you describe as "a graveyard for allied troops", you'd complain about that too. Weren't you one of those jumping on Obama "dithering" on Afganistan? So he orders reenforcements there, and you don't like that either.

Then you say: "with my morals i will not lower myself to nmae calling, as it is wrong."

Forgetting you in your previous post, called Obama a "nutcase". Then in the SAME post proceed to call liberals "lilly livered". You seem to be very inconsistant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ANOT SUSAGAMI; I do not make personal insults to other posters.

Bush did not start wars. Bush went to Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist capabilities and remove the Taliban, thus they satrted the war. In Iraq, Hussein disobeyed the UN and continude his WMD work, thus he also started the war.

Obama does not deserve this prize as he is not a man of peace. He is a dithering nutjob, who has turned the Iraq success into a dangerous mess close to civil war. The evil doers in Afghanistan know we shall leave in 18 months and are emboldened. Far from creating peace, Obama is encouraging many to join Al Quieda and the Taliban. Our hard earned respect in the region earnt by Bush has been destroyed in a year by Obama and his childish polices.

The prize is routinely given to Liberals and their buddies. Why was Bush not a winner for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan from tyranny?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congraatulations, President Obama I am so thrilled about him as Nobel Peace Prize, I am so proud of his accepted award,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, my many friends, it was a great speech, of course.But the part about war made me feel a little icky.Still, I will try and get an audio copy and put it on my ipod, which I wish had a hard drive I could partition in half, so I could listen to TWO of Obama's fabulous speeches at once.Said speeches are astounding,even after repeated listenings.

Obama is doing a bang-on job, as I had predicted he would, and I WOULDN't be surprised if he is BACK in Norway again next year, to get the Nobel Prize for saving the American economy,since unemployment has dropped a HALF percent in this month alone.Said half percent MUST be a record.

I wish I could have gone to "the Norway", as my students charmingly call it (by mistake, of course).If he won't come to Hirakata, well, maybe I will just have to go to where HE is!!!!

Oh, and don't think I don't know what people here,like the sargies of the world, say , "Gombei (not my real name by the way, that would be Richard),the president is not your boyfriend, okay?"

But I don't care!!!

It's just the way in which I have been rolling, since Obbama was inaugurated January 20, a mere two weeks before he was awarded the Nobel Prize, and it STILL gives me tori-hada (it's Japanese. And it literally means "chicken skin"The English equivalent is goose bumps.) to type that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish the headline would go away. War is NEVER justified!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do you folks think Obama will do if Iran tosses a nuke at Israel? He has always indicated that talking with Mahmoud would be enough to prevent that from happening. What if it isn't?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

morikun:

" What do you folks think Obama will do if Iran tosses a nuke at Israel? "

He´d go and give a few speeches, asking us not to blame any particular religion. Now on the other hand, if Israel had the audicity to try and take out Iran´s nuke facilities before Iran gets the bomb, he´d go ballistic.

His underlings have already indicated that the US would shoot down Israeli jets flying towards Iran.

Mammoohd could not wish for a better fool as friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The American president is acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop," said Norwegian public-relations expert Rune Morck-Wergeland. "In Norwegian culture, it's very important to keep an agreement. We're religious about that, and Obama's actions have been clumsy. You just don't say no to an invitation from a European king. Maybe Obama's advisers are not very educated about European culture, but he is coming off as rude, even if he doesn’t mean to."

Im pretty sure Barack also wanted to bow to the King of Norway, but they have no idea how much the wingers would have howled about it. Europe needs to swallow its pride on this one. Obama is keeping it real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I´ll grant him, the line about wars sometimes being justified must have had the crowd of lefist European twits boiling between their ears.

Overall, the speech was a collection of platitutes, with some Obamaesque signs of embarrassing ignorance; would you believe he said that Reagan caused the Soviet Union to collapse because of his dialogue? Ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seichi:

" Im pretty sure Barack also wanted to bow to the King of Norway, "

Probably not. He only bows deeply to non-European potentates. Remember, he no problem insulting the Queen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Although not deserved, it is almost worth seeing President Obama get the award just to hear a Left-wing politician actually admit that evil exists in the world. That's progress for the Progressives (ie. Socialists).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack said:

Although not deserved, it is almost worth seeing President Obama get the award just to hear a Left-wing politician actually admit that evil exists in the world. That's progress for the Progressives (ie. Socialists).

Yeah right, that is why they Democrats are responsible for winning the great world wars. The conservatives are so jealous that Obama won the greatly praised Nobel Peace Prize that they, like Wolfpack are in their usual tizzy. They can't understand that a real Obama would make statements that war is sometimes justified because they have invented a mythical Barack. At least they are capable of recognizing Obama making logical statements when it matches their minuscule view on world affairs; that's progress for the ultra-conservatives (i.e. Fascists).

Let us know of those great war victories of the Republican Presidents. Feel free to include Reagan's defeat of Grenada or you could include George H. W. Bush defeat of Iraq, which left Saddam Husein in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let us know of those great war victories of the Republican Presidents. Feel free to include Reagan's defeat of Grenada or you could include George H. W. Bush defeat of Iraq, which left Saddam Husein in power.

Abraham Lincoln...Next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abraham Lincoln defeated Americans fighting Americans. Next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abraham Lincoln defeated Americans fighting Americans. Next?

It was called the civil WAR......next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was called a CIVIL war, not a WORLD war, as mentioned in goodDonkey's post. Learn to read. Done!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let us know of those great war victories of the Republican Presidents.

I read just fine.......Done!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If sailwind wants to call the American Civil War, an episode of lives just thrown away and a total bloodbath, a great victory, I say let him. He probably also thinks the war was to free the slaves, which is typical of Republicans who like the define the war as it goes along, and especially after it ended. They don't like to soil textbooks with the truth.

In fact, Lincoln was integral to the war even starting, and no, it was not about any grand purpose such as freeing the slaves. Slavery is just what got the argument going, and then the South demanded a divorce. The war was about not permitting that divorce, and beating the wife bloody to make her stay, if I used a fitting analogy.

Indeed, I say let sailwind claim that great victory, started and led by a Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He probably also thinks the war was to free the slaves, which is typical of Republicans who like the define the war as it goes along, and especially after it ended. They don't like to soil textbooks with the truth.

Your assuming that I don't know history and your assuming that I am a Republican. I am an independent conservative. I know full well the civil war our bloodiest war in our nations history was about states rights vs Federal control, thanks for the schooling. I am also aware that Gettysburg was the turning point and that if it wasn't for Lincoln's steadfast leadership when the Union was losing and losing badly that there wouldn't even a United States of America that we have today. The very country you grew up in.

The question was if there was ever a great Republican War president. The greatest war President we ever had was Lincoln. If he failed in keeping the union together WW1 and WW2 would have never had the U.S that we know of to help them out in the first place and more than likely would have been LOST then.

Thanks for your history lesson.....It was so partisan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Winger "humor" :

"I'm trying to...sum up President Obama's first 11 months in office. He gave billions to Wall Street, cracked down on illegal immigrants getting healthcare, sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. You know something? He may go down in history as our greatest Republican president ever. ~ Jay Leno, 12/3/2009"

Real funny. Leno probably thinks Lincoln was also a Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites