Obama came to Oslo yesterday to receive his peace prize and hold an impressive speech.
I found it interesting that he could mention the words "war", "force" and "defense" as much as he did in a PEACE prize speech. In the end, his speech did nothing more than to try to defend and justify continuing to do war.
I'd like to point out a few thing I picked up on:
1. He stated that sometimes war is justified as means of self defense. Well, clearly, if he had allowed a non-biased and complete investigation into 9/11, he would know that the US has not been under attack from those they are currently in war against. Had he allowed a new investigation, then perhaps, he would have been deserving of a peace prize.
2. He talks about creating "lasting peace". Clearly, going to war against "terrorism" is a perfect way to create perpetual war. This is quite the opposite to lasting peace I would say, because we can never win against "terrorism".
3. He is working on limiting the world's nuclear weapons. But I believe that the only way we can avoid that nations arm themselves is to abolish nuclear power in all forms. We can't continue building nuclear plants while not allowing other nations to build their own. Is it justified not allowing Iran to have nuclear power plants from fear that they might have more sinister plans in mind? Why is it that we trust that the US won't blow us all up but not Iran? After all, the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war.
4. The quote "The continued expansion of our moral imagination" is a good one, but how well is it reflected in Obama's work so far? Has he thought over the the moral aspect of denying widows and widowers the right to a fair investigations as to what really happened on 9/11, to waste billions on bail-outs while people loose their homes and to continue a costly war to find Bin Laden? If he has any moral imagination, it sure doesn't stretch very far.
An interesting note: Did you know that David Ray Griffin was nominated for the Nobel peace prize this year for his work to find out and spread the truth about 9/11? Obviously, he would have been more deserving of a peace prize because just imagine how many lives that could have been saved had we never been tricked into war because of false flag terrorism. Also, it would have sent a strong message to our leaders: We won't allow lies and the killing of innocent people, and we value the truth and freedom beyond all else.
Here is the speech in 4 parts:
I found it interesting that he could mention the words "war", "force" and "defense" as much as he did in a PEACE prize speech. In the end, his speech did nothing more than to try to defend and justify continuing to do war.
I'd like to point out a few thing I picked up on:
1. He stated that sometimes war is justified as means of self defense. Well, clearly, if he had allowed a non-biased and complete investigation into 9/11, he would know that the US has not been under attack from those they are currently in war against. Had he allowed a new investigation, then perhaps, he would have been deserving of a peace prize.
2. He talks about creating "lasting peace". Clearly, going to war against "terrorism" is a perfect way to create perpetual war. This is quite the opposite to lasting peace I would say, because we can never win against "terrorism".
3. He is working on limiting the world's nuclear weapons. But I believe that the only way we can avoid that nations arm themselves is to abolish nuclear power in all forms. We can't continue building nuclear plants while not allowing other nations to build their own. Is it justified not allowing Iran to have nuclear power plants from fear that they might have more sinister plans in mind? Why is it that we trust that the US won't blow us all up but not Iran? After all, the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war.
4. The quote "The continued expansion of our moral imagination" is a good one, but how well is it reflected in Obama's work so far? Has he thought over the the moral aspect of denying widows and widowers the right to a fair investigations as to what really happened on 9/11, to waste billions on bail-outs while people loose their homes and to continue a costly war to find Bin Laden? If he has any moral imagination, it sure doesn't stretch very far.
An interesting note: Did you know that David Ray Griffin was nominated for the Nobel peace prize this year for his work to find out and spread the truth about 9/11? Obviously, he would have been more deserving of a peace prize because just imagine how many lives that could have been saved had we never been tricked into war because of false flag terrorism. Also, it would have sent a strong message to our leaders: We won't allow lies and the killing of innocent people, and we value the truth and freedom beyond all else.
Here is the speech in 4 parts:
Posts
Bonjour Lina!
ReplyDeleteHere's an extract of an article concerning Barack Obama Prix Nobel de la paix
Article publié le 09 Octobre 2009
Source : LE MONDE.FR avec AFP
Taille de l'article : 438 mots
Extrait :
Le président américain Barack Obama s'est vu attribuer le prix Nobel de la paix 2009, vendredi 9 octobre, "pour ses efforts extraordinaires en faveur du renforcement de la diplomatie et de la coopération internationales entre les peuples", a annoncé le jury du prix à Oslo. Le premier Afro-Américain élu à la Maison Blanche a lancé des appels en faveur d'un monde sans armes nucléaires et s'emploie à relancer le processus de paix israélo-palestinien, depuis son investiture en janvier. En poste depuis moins d'un an, il a déjà fortement infléchi la politique étrangère américaine en optant pour une approche plus consensuelle et multilatérale.
RENFORCEMENT DE LA DIPLOMATIE??? HI HI HI xx dg
It is ironic how he's been in office for less than a year and yet he gets the Nobel peace prize for his "extraordinary efforts". In all other fields, the committee takes their sweet time to give out the prize for achievements that took place 20 or more years ago. But the peace prize is given out based on ...nothing really.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Webster Tarpley said about it - it's the Orwell prize for doublethink!
ReplyDeleteFor sure!
ReplyDelete