Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 6   Well Said 3   Valuable 3   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/10/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (14 comments)

Obama's Rejection Speech

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (67 fans)   -- Page 1 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

That was not a peace prize acceptance speech. That was an infomercial for war. President Obama took the peace prize home with him, but left behind in Oslo his praise for war, his claims for war, and his view of an alternative and more peaceful approach to the world consisting of murderous economic sanctions.

Some highlights:

"There are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I."


Yet, you did argue. You argued by accepting the prize " and then making a false case for war:

"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences."


This is simply not true of all tribes and civilizations, unless we include war making as a criterion for being considered civilized.


"The concept of a 'just war' emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."


How dare someone responsible for illegal occupations and air strikes and the use of unmanned drones say these words? (Responsible, that is, given the failure of Congress and of we the people to stop him.)

"America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons."


How dare a president refusing to support a treaty on land mines speak in these terms? Are we supposed to not see the actions and just hear the words?

"I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King 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.'"


Very wise. Very true. And completely violated by Barack Obama's actions and the better part of the words in this speech. Are we supposed to hear these words in a different part of our brains from the rest of the speech and its advocacy of war?

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms."


Now a group of fewer than 100 angry people in Afghanistan, and their allies elsewhere, are the rough equivalent of "Hitler's armies" and justify the brutal occupation of a nation by tens and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries, tanks and planes, and unmanned drones? And negotiations, with the Taliban or anyone else, are not possible because " because " well, because of that rhetoric about Hitler's armies.

"The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest."


A 1993 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study of the U.S. Navy's Naval Historical Center records identified "234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes" between 1798 and 1993. This list does not include covert actions or post-World War II occupation forces and base agreements. In a 2006 review of this study and two others, Gar Smith found that "in our country's 230 years of existence, there have been only 31 years in which U.S. troops were not actively engaged in significant armed adventures on foreign shores." In other words, fewer than 14% of America's days have been at peace. As of 2006, there were 192 member states in the United Nations. Over the past two centuries, the United State has attacked, invaded, policed, overthrown, or occupied 62 of them. Read more.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
14 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The fire works were good by Gallaher on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:46:47 AM
Alternatives by Bill Samuel on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:28:31 PM
alternatives by David Swanson on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:31:15 PM
I read your book by Carol Crown on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:53:35 PM
That much war? by Starla Immak on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:34:16 PM
Not deserving by shirley reese on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:07:36 PM
Obomba's "window of opportunity" has closed by Lance Ciepiela on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:16:07 PM
Right on,David, and Gene! by Bia Winter on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:34:47 PM
Do Laws only apply to Gentiles? by Anton Grambihler on Thursday, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:51:50 PM
Barack Obama is a war criminal by coyote on Friday, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:40:32 AM
Don't forget the company he joins: by Maxwell on Friday, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:52:57 AM
massacre on the eve of his acceptance by siriusss on Friday, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:48:59 AM
I nominate Erik Prince for Nobel 2010! by siriusss on Friday, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:01:03 AM
Give it BACK!! by Bia Winter on Friday, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:33:22 AM