On Obama and Peace

Just a quick note to vent my indignation with Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize…

What is wrong with these people? He totally does not deserve it. If you haven’t heard his speech, please take a look at it here. In my opinion,┬áit’s pathetic.

“I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.” — I wonder if he has ever had someone close to him get killed. He just sent 30,000 soldiers into a war that has killed thousands. Can someone please explain to me how that is supposed to be the retreat from the war?

“The use of force is not only necessary but morally justified.” — While receiving the Noble Peace Prize, seriously?

And now… some stolen comments from facebook:

“Obama only changed the color of the government… I feel bad for those who believed in the change he promised.”

“Imperialists are imperialists, regardless of skin colour or party colour.”

Honestly, I’m one of those that has hope in Obama… But he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize!!!

About Valentina

I'm from a small and beautiful town next to a big and amazing lake in Guatemala.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to On Obama and Peace

  1. Tyler says:

    Agreed. I don’t think he deserves it yet either.

  2. Eastwood says:

    Meh. The last time I checked, there is no just war.

  3. Daniel says:

    “What is wrong with these people? He totally does not deserve it.”

    It is a mistake to think of Obama’s acceptance in terms of deserved/undeserved. In the majority of cases – Peace, Lit., Chem. – the Prize is meant to serve as a symbol of political support rather than a reward for accomplishment. The Comm. isn’t saying, ‘You have done a great job’, they are saying, ‘We – a small, but influential set of Europeans – are lending our name to you in an effort to draw attention and support to your/similar efforts’. The Prize is always given with a view to the future. It is a political token meant to bring about a change, or help one along. In this case, they want Europe and America to get back on the same page after alienating one another for years.

    “Can someone please explain to me how that is supposed to be the retreat from the war?”

    There is no solution in Afghanistan. He was faced with the options of leaving immediately and praying the tribes didn’t tear each other apart, or sending more soldiers in to kill and be killed. He chose the latter, and he knows it is massively flawed, but he felt the alternative was setting the stage for ethnic cleansing and future terrorism. No one knows what the right call is. Afghanistan – the war there, and the country itself – is infinitely more complicated than you or I can imagine. A person could sit down and study every word of history, political theory, and religious/cultural text on the area and still have no clue how to ‘fix’ things.

    “?The use of force is not only necessary but morally justified.? ? While receiving the Noble Peace Prize, seriously?”

    As a steadfast rule, speakers/writers should never cite Nazi Germany for rhetorical purposes. Too blunt, too large. But this sort of speech is the exception. It is pretty hard to argue in that case force was somehow less than necessary and morally justified. Obama mentions that example a few paragraphs before, and we’re meant to think back to that mention when he drops the above quote.

    Calling on King immediately afterward is Obama’s way of acknowledging a bitter pill he doesn’t want to swallow, but feels he has to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.