I really liked Obama's speech. I gotta give credit where credit is due.

[Nick Gromicko]

Very well done.

[Nick Gromicko]

This excerpt:

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 may sometimes be 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, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But 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.

[James H. Bushart]

Excellent speech.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by gromicko

This excerpt:

I missed that but those are good words to hear for those that thought his globalism extended to being a Dove.

Nothing to do with Elephant vs donkey.

[Nick Gromicko]

...and...

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.

[Bob Elliott]

Hmmm
Sounds like he is setting us up for Iran.

[Nick Gromicko]

...and...

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, 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, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's 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 deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, 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's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)

[Bob Elliott]

Not bad.

Reads like the best since in office.

[Nick Gromicko]

The crowd did not applaud much at all, but I was on my feet. Wow. And... he gave it as his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Wow again.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The crowd did not applaud much at all, but I was on my feet. Wow. And... he gave it as his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Wow again.

Quite a contradiction.

They must have wanted to take the award back...hahaha good for him.

[Nick Gromicko]

His opening has to be one of the best openings of all time and the rest of the world should take note:

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 may sometimes be 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, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But 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.

[Nick Gromicko]

And this is really good:

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 laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. 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 on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

[Bob Elliott]

Interesting take on how other countries might feel.
Not that we care.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020401

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by belliott

Interesting take on how other countries might feel.
Not that we care.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020401

"Critics in Pakistan and Afghanistan have questioned the wisdom of giving a Noble Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama who is blamed for the recent surge in violence there."

I think that the opening paragraph in this story is very telling.

Why does Pakistan "blame" Obama for the recent surge in violence there. Obama isn't fighting Pakistan, he is fighting Al-Qeida and the Taliban, who have fled to Pakistan. As Hillary stated a couple of weeks ago, there have to be members of the Pakistani government and military that know where the terrorists are.

But, as is typical with "international relations" (which is defined as home nation states screw each other) the worst offenders always blame the guy who is trying to fix the problem.

Thus, the EU blames Israel for the mideast problem, the Saudis blame America and Israel for the bad living conditions and oppression that exist in Saudi Arabia and the world blames America for the Genocide in Darfour.

When you are the biggest and best, the lesser one always blame you for the problems that they brought on themselves.

It's called jealousy and transferance.

Hope this helps;

[James A. Levy]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Very well done.

I guess he didn't hate America as much as usual, so I'll give him credit for that.