Obama's Oslo Speech

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm not sure if anyone saw it this morning. But, around 8am or so the President gave his address in Oslo. I'll say that it was a wonderful speech about the use of force, the limits of force and what the U.S. and the international community must do to confront the nature of the problems of the 21st century.
  
  A couple of my favorite passages:
  

  But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military 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 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
  
  Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

  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.

  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, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

  America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. 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.

  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 towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm 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.

  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's 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.

  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 depravation, 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.

  Full text:
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I thought it was pretty pathetic to be honest.
• cbus4life

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I thought it was pretty pathetic to be honest.

  Why?
  
  I thought it was great, one of his best, and really like the ideas and thoughts presented, as Ptown laid out.
  
  Despite his domestic failures, i couldn't be happier with how he is handling foreign policy.
  
  Good job with the speech, Mr. President.
• jmog

  I think it was the one speech he has given that I can agree with most of it.
  
  He admitted he didn't deserve the NPP.
  
  He said he is sworn to defend his country and will do so if need be (Afghanistan).
  
  There was a LOT in the speach I agree with (and basically zero applause from the left loonies in Oslo btw).
  
  There were a few "Bush" jabs in there from time to time which I think are uncalled for, but overall, even as someone who dislikes most of Obama's policies, this is the first time I was like "yeah, you tell them Mr. President".
• cbus4life

  Well said, Jmog.
  
  Not sure how many can complain about this one, even his opponents.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I thought it was pathetic because he goes overseas and sounds like a totally different guy than he does when he's here. It's all BS. We've already learned that he'll say anything--he said some good things in the speech, but I don't buy any of it. It's all political BS. Let's get that approval rating up, let's shut some people up for awhile--that's all it is. He sounded like a fool back peddling on a lot of things he's already said though.
• fish82

  

  I really haven't had any deal breaking issues with BO on foreign policy thus far. Thus, I thought the speech was fine. I'd give it a B. He'd probably get at least an A- if he'd lay off the Bush whining, but it appears that's not happening anytime soon.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Well, this is the Obama I voted for. While the speech was broad and did not have specific policy objectives, it does show his realist point of view on foreign policy. He is not afraid to use force and will when it is in the nation's best interest, yet he knows the nature of the 21st century requires web of alliances and allies to tackle the diverse nature of the 21st century security problems. He is not afraid to negotiate, but knows it cannot solve all problems and that the U.S. should lead efforts worldwide on many different efforts.
  
  Yeah, the Bush bashing was there, but this a very broad, sophisticated outline of the role of the U.S. in the 21st century, which is something we have been trying to figure out. I think it is a great starting point, and from this a lot of policy that is being worked on can come from.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Actions speak louder than words.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Actions speak louder than words.

  
  
  True, but actions take time, especially when a new President comes in. Take for example all these reviews are going right now and are expeeted to come out in a few months.
  The Quadrennial Defense Review (Defense Dept.)
  The Nuclear Posture Review (nuclear forces)
  The Missile Defense Review
  State Department Review
  
  I'll also add:
  The new START Treaty
  
  These reviews basically drive policy for the rest of the administration, and it takes time to really get the reviews organized, done and then before Congress. So, the actions are still a coming, but in a new administration take time.
  
  Also, keep in mind the Bush administration did not an official "National Security Strategy" until well into 2002.
• jmog

  Now lets hope he actually makes good on this speach (minus the Bush bashing).
  
  If he does that, I'll at least agree with him on the use of force...just still SEVERELY disagree on government spending, health care, carbon cap/tax, basically his whole domestic policy.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  The stimulus (otherwise known as payment for getting elected) sure didn't take any time.
• rocketalum

  This just further complicates my struggle with Obama and with my own personal political ideology. Does failing domestically and succeeding in foreign relations or vice versa make you a good president or a bad? I still haven't worked an answer out for myself. Being terrible at either one can greatly harm the country, does one harm it more than the other?
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Hell yes. Take care of business here before you worry about making the rest of the world happy.
• rocketalum

  It's not 'making the rest of the world happy' it's putting forth an agenda to secure American safety for years to come. How can that not be equally important to stabilizing the homefront? Would it matter if everything here in the states was puppies and rainbows if the world was in chaos? With the complex nature of the terrorist network and advances in technology we no longer have the privilege of isolationism that we did at the time of the World Wars. 9/11 showed us that our two vast oceans can no longer be seen as a buffer to the world.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I understand that. I'm all for the war in the Middle East. But where we're at is much more important to me than anything outside the borders...and currently, we're totally fucked and it's only getting worse. Do you want to live in a communist state? Let them take health care and see what happens.
• cbus4life

  Rofl, when all else fails, throw out the communist card.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  ROFL! ROFL! When all else fails, deny, deny, deny!!! You'll be first in line for the bread lines probably--how'd it feel the suck the government's tit?
• Footwedge

  Ridiculous stance for Obama to take. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has bowed to the Defense Department. the Pentagon, and the Generals.
  
  Nobody from the war party membership can show one shred of evidence that having 200,000 troops over there makes America any safer. It's all a ruse, a cherade. All this expansion of American bloodshed...and all it does is embolden radical Islamics to recruit for their cause.
  
  Bush and Obama....Dumb and dumber.
  
  I wonder what Obama's take would be if his daughters were old enough to serve. Do you think they'd be in boot camp, or headed for the Ivy League schools?
  
  Obama...just another neolib chickenhawk...one who never served...yet has no problem in sending other peoples' kids to die in a war...against an enemy that has no weapons, no navy, no air force, and no standing army. What a shame.
  
  And nevermind the 40 billion per annum cost for this debacle. Oh that's right. We don't pay for that...the kids do. And the grandkids do. Silly me.
  
  When it comes to expansionism/nation building/occupation/war profiteering/fear mongering...O=B Put another one in the category of no change.
• Mr. 300

  

  He had pressing things to attend to in Washington. Wonder if he purchased any carbon credits to offset the footprint he made??
• I Wear Pants

  This was a good speech.
• Con_Alma

  It appears to be the most pro war speech a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ever given.
  
  It's the first thing this man has done that truly makes me proud of him being the leader fo the free world.