On the concept of "peace"...

being a Quaker means I've spent a lot of time discussing and thinking about just what "peace" is. There are no distinct Quaker definitions or beliefs about peace (Quakers aren't like that) but there are some very definite trains of thought on the matter.

For one thing, peace is not simply the absence of war. The early Quakers even "recruited" in the barracks of Cromwell's and Charles II's armies, and never called for them to be dismantled or for soldiers to lay down their arms. Likewise, the Peace Testimony was not that war should not exist, but that Friends would neither partake in it nor interfere with it.

That stance has hardened with modern Quakers, and we now call for the end to war and all violence, but we realize that the world as it is is not as we wish it to be.

"Peace" through all these years has meant primarily a state of being-- a state of what other sects would call "grace" that we aspire to. Peace is internal. Without attaining out internal peace, we can have no hope of limiting the external violence.

OK, most of you are not Quakers, and don't care for me to go further into the theology of all this, but the concept of internal peace and harmony should not be strange to many, if not most, of you. And the idea that some form of peace in a time of war is a possibility should not be too bizarre. One aspect of peace is that it is also a path to the end of a war.

Obama did not start any of this, he inherited it. And peace will not come if he just pulls out unilaterally, even if that is possible. There is no good solution-- only bad and worse choices. But, choices must be made.

Obama as a peacemaker is real, and and his recognition is obvious when we realize that he has chosen a path that will lead to peace and not more war.

Besides, the Norwegians just gave Bush and his crew a kick in the balls with this award, and we should be at least a little thankful for that.

The Norwegians kicked Bush and his crew in the balls :applause:

not giving in to the violence that surrounds them.

As far as the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, they're a perpetuation of America exceptionalism and need for more of the worlds' resourses than we provide.

Peace

who collectively have more blood on their hands than the American Red Cross's blood bank, whatever one's view of who was less wrong: Kissenger, Le Duc Tho, Arafat, Begin and the rest of the Mid-East cast of characters. Gorbachev and de Klerk didn't rise to where they did in their own countries by being choir boys. Most of them won the Prize for coming to their senses at a moment of time (if only for a moment, in some cases) or reading the writing of history on the wall. It was, in a way, the Nobel Committee's own audacity of hope, to give the prize to men who may have finally realized what the right thing was, perhaps believing it could be a lesson to the future.

That's a tad different than the folks who always knew what the right thing was: Dr. King, Mother T., Bishop T., Dr. Schweitzer among others.

People actually think there's an argument about which of these group our President belongs to?