Text of Barack Obama Nobel Prize acceptance speech

Text of Barack Obama Nobel Prize acceptance speech
December 10, 2009 | 4:44 am

Barack Obama Nobel Prize Speech Text, as prepared for delivery and provided by the White House

"A Just and Lasting Peace"

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.

And then 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.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I....


...am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.


Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. 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.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. 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.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.

In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize – 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.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that 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 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’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is 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. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: 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 – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.

That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.

That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. 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. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. 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.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.

Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.

For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth. ###

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/barack-obama-nobel-peace-prize-speech-text.html

I'm sorry, but hucking the "just war" tag on this pile of crap (Afghanistan) is embarrassing.
How about "Just Leave"?
Does China get a supporting Nobel for financing this?

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified. Now let's bring them home....

That is a magnificent address -- to those gathered, to all of us reading it from afar, and to our grandchildren's grandchildren.

Excellence is its own authority.

Thank you, President Obama.

I hope it took less time to give it than it did to read it. Obama is very good with words though. Words.

itself, not to mention in contrast with his predecessor.

"The ability to think for oneself depends on the mastery of language," Joan Didion wrote, and she's right.

We are at our best in moments when our most gifted public servants address the entire globe. Obama is speaking of, and to, History this morning in Oslo.

The address at Gettysburg was also a fine thing from yet another man deeply gifted with language. Up to very recently school students in the United States were expected to memorize Lincoln's address and stand before their class to deliver it. The form and content were valued as intrical to what should constitute a public education and were consequential to citizenship as a condition of that citizenship.

And properly so.

but it is meaningless if Bush, Cheney et al walk free.

A great speech. Sorry for those who are dissappointed. He's talking to the world, not just about your pony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"<5> may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.<6> Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.<6> Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.<7> The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.<6> Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.<6>

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.<6>


Can someone remind me why Bybee, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Wolfiwitz, Pace, Fieth, Cheney & Bush are still walking around free?

:hi:

:evilgrin:

I'm sure it will be just as good when I watch it again at 1am.

Bailing out Wall St while throwing a few crumbs to Main St.
Allowing the Corporatists to dominate health insurance reform.
Doing very little while record foreclosures are filed.
Killing civilians in other countries with our military.


----

It probably won't be remembered as a great Nobel lecture. It does offer us some insight into the mind of the President and the difficult political and policy problems he faces

It has a good opening and good ending. And he makes a number of important points: it's good to see "freedom from want" back in the mix, for example

As US CIC, he probably made the right decision (from the POV of American politics) to stick the rah-rah! in the middle of the speech -- but however realistic it may be, it somewhat mars the flow, and his opponents certainly won't give him any credit for it

I enjoyed every minute of it and felt so extremely proud for my country. The MSM can say what they want, but the world saw a very just and moral man, with deep respect for mankind.

He believed in self-defense for people and as a nation unlike many I guess on the left.

Even the Afghani people disagree with you.

or even specifically, Al Queda? 9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was a criminal act, one of the worst mass murders in history, and yet we treat it as an excuse to perpetuate a war of aggression in Afghanistan, and I would love to see your made up stats on why the rest of the world, including Afghanis disagree with me.

the Taliban and AQ to take hold and organize. Those organizations do pose real threats to the U.S. and the rest of the World.

do you propose we invade all nations that harbor or have terrorists within their borders?

Oh, and the question of going to war at all against terrorist groups seems to me to be ineffective in combating them, indeed, it seems to be a boon for them when we attack them militarily. Did Al Queda have a presence in Iraq before we invaded that country? No, and yet it now exists there, not to mention this will lead to a boost in recruitment, training, and funding for not just Al Queda but many other terrorist groups.

The invasion of Iraq should never have happened. It was not a threat to us, there were no ties to 9/11. He created a disaster.

The invasion of Afghanistan was different -- AQ was there and planned 9/11 from there. (then Bush lost interest and let Bin Laden go in december? WHY)

you cannot bomb a terrorist group to oblivion, and Bin Laden is, to put it simply, not needed for terrorism or Al Queda to continue operating. Bin Laden was guaranteed to escape the moment we sent troops to Afghanistan, and it didn't matter whether Bush started it or any other President, Al Queda is and was a terrorist and criminal group, and should be treated as such, not like its a standing army we can defeat on a battlefield.

Hell, this reminds me of how Mussolini tried to deal with the Mafioso in Sicily, he invaded with the Army, yeah, it didn't work for him either.

Camps for military training etc etc. The point is not to "bomb them to oblivion" but to prevent them from having a safe haven as they do now where they can do this military training. I think there is also a desire to make sure the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan is safe from them.

I don't know if this is the right strategy or not. I do know that Bush was useless and created this mess, Furthermore I do know Obama has set a deadline, which is much more that useless Bush ever did.

Sorry Bush does not get a pass from me for letting Bin Laden go at Tora Bora.

Al Queda itself is and was a mixture of both because of the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, however, it doesn't need to remain that way, indeed, the affect of the current war is that Al Queda has scattered to other places, Pakistan and Iraq being two of them. The fact is that a "safe haven" isn't really necessary when your organization isn't that centrally organized. As I said, Bin Laden isn't necessary for Al Queda to continue operating, and neither does Al Queda need a base of operations at all, at least not a permanent one.

The reason why terrorism and terrorists can be so effective is because of decentralization, this leads to them being resilient against law enforcement and the military. Only those groups that are centrally organized or fixed in one location have been successfully brought to justice or at least contained. Al Queda is no longer either of those.

Is Iraq now entitled to retaliate?

Same goes for Afghanistan. Although there seems to be no way to get that notion to the nineeleven traumatized American public.

If retaliation is concerned: the US by far inflicted more civilian death on an innocent population then the alleged reason of war claimed. If you follow the biblical rule for retaliation "an eye for an eye", the US has by far exceeded what's allowed.

But of course the US isn't there for retaliation.

No, it's women's rights and human rights in general.
Or it's to make the US safer by going after Bin Laden.
And now it's to honour the sacrifice of those brave young men and women already dead or maimed there.
Whatever the gullible public is willing to take.

But don't dare to mention empire or corporate interests.

Even Clinton used their fighters in Bosnia.

Afghanistan didn't ask for these assholes to appear there with their Saudi money and american weapons.

Right before 9/11.

about doesn't make it so.

I believe what President Obama has to say on this.

And they'll give a safe haven to Al Qaeda again if the Taliban returns to power. And they present a threat to our allies, Pakistan and India.

with more members, more funding, and more motivation than ever, and now we are safer?

But those other nations, Pakistan for example, aren't failed states and are committed to fighting al qaeda themselves.

Hell, the government there doesn't even have full control of its own borders, I wouldn't exactly call that a successful state, and the jury is still out on whether it ends up a failed state, or yet another that requires US intervention to stay viable.

Al Qaeda's killed a lot more Pakistanis then Americans, which is why Al Qaeda (and those who'd harbor them) are a threat not just to us but others. The recent invasion of Southern Waziristan (do you oppose that escalation too? Or would you rather they let that situation fester) shows their committment to the issue.

That's the fucking POINT after all, the problem with our dealing with Al Qaeda is that we are dealing with it as a military issue, when it should be a law enforcement issue. We can send 10 million troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

against an occupying nation?

And where did you get the idea the left has issues with selfdefence?

... very odd ...

Hekate

Seems they have to use all the talkingpoints available today.

I didn't get to see it so I'll be able to read it at my leisure.

America has never fought a war against a Democracy...

Officially I guess this is true, unofficially, let's see, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, etc. need I go on?

Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

On this one, I may give Obama benefit of a doubt, at the time, Saddam was our biggest ally in the Middle East, and asked permission from Bush the First to invade Kuwait, itself a country that is not, to this day, a Democracy, nor does it have the best record on human rights.

My biggest problem with his speech is the idea that the United States or its allies ever fight a war on humanitarian grounds, frankly we haven't yet, and the Balkans was a war fought more for containment purposes(prevent it from spilling into our ally's nations as well) than just to stop a genocide.

He lauds what Reagan did in the 1980s, but forgets Iran-Contra, and what the Contras did on our dime and with our weapons. He lauds what Nixon did, when, to this day, China is reforming only slowly, and generally on the back of a populace who has yet to share in its national prosperity.

He talks a lot about the US making "mistakes" while glossing over what those mistakes were and how much in the human toll it cost. He jumped in our successes from Germany post WWII to Korea, why is it that we have no successes since then? What happened to Vietnam?

thru the 2nd part of his speech. Obviously that guy was a conservative douche.

:wtf:

since Pres Obama can't please everyone..I'm glad he didn't please you.

?!?!?!?!

Obama did not disappoint today. Terrific speech! So refreshing to watch and listen to him speak as opposed to Jr's incoherent rambling the last 8 years.

Could it be that the United States will turn the Afghani's to our side? I only pray that will happen. As he mentioned in his speech today it cannot be done by one nation, it takes many different people to bring Peace to a nation. It is really up to the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to find their true Peace. I thought the speech was wonderful in that respect.

i know some people can get be distracted by gazing at him,wishing he was in his swimsuit.

these people should try just listening.

And your point is?

H

"...I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King...

I face the world as it is..."

contradicted himself.

You and I really did not listen to the same speech.

Hekate