Obama FAILS to deliver peace to the world, REWARDED by Norwegian Nobel Committee - by Koki
AR Master on 14/10/2009 at 07:04
ar.gif
belboz on 15/10/2009 at 05:12
the easy way to get world peace is to kill all the humans off, or ban all religions including all the weird ones and get rid of all the farmers. As its apparently farmers that started all the wars in the first place, as in needing more land, therefore invading lands to grow more food. But you still wouldn't get world peace as all the animals in the world are constantly fighting each other for food and breeding rights. So you cant get world peace, unless the world is like the moon.
WAREAGLE on 15/10/2009 at 07:21
A surprise Nobel Peace Prize. Wish I could wake up to that. $
june gloom on 15/10/2009 at 17:43
shhhh... don't make a sound, girly, and you'll get out of this alive...
unf unf unf got your nobel peace prize right here unf unf unf
go back to sleep, girly
Aerothorn on 11/12/2009 at 18:01
So - thoughts on the speech?
This line particularly grabbed my attention - "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."
Which seems to be justify the Korean War, which is not something I expect Obama to see do.
demagogue on 11/12/2009 at 18:28
Are you confusing Korea and Vietnam? The Korean war was under the auspice of the UN from the start so was entirely justified under UN Law and the Law of War, so there's no reason to feel embarrassed about it. Vietnam and Iraq II were different stories. The Balkans is a much bigger can of worms in what he said, because of course there was no Sec Council vote, no int'l threat to peace, we're bombing a sovereign state, and it was precisely Balkan "democracy" that raised tensions in the first place.
My major opinion about this is that the committee must feel like they just got pissed on the face because the one action Obama has taken vis-a-vis use of force is to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan on the eve of his getting this prize; and then Obama misses some of their prized traditions. The whole situation has "flaunt" written all over it. But I don't have much sympathy for them if they do feel that. That's the risk you take when you nominate a sitting wartime US President in the first few months of office.
Aerothorn on 11/12/2009 at 18:50
The fact that the UN approved the Korean war does not make it inherently just, particularly from the American standpoint. Everything from the active supporting of Syngman Rhee's violent quelling of dissidents to MacArthur's refusal to respect the 38th parallel and foolishly draw China into the war are some good examples. I'd recommend reading David Halberstam's The Coldest Winter for a good account of the series of moronic decisions both politically and militarily before and during the conflict.
Pyrian on 11/12/2009 at 19:50
The fact that we have to reach back to Korea and Germany(!) to justify warmongering(!) right in the nobel peace prize acceptance speech(!!) is pretty amusing, really. :D
demagogue on 11/12/2009 at 21:54
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
The fact that the UN approved the Korean war does not make it inherently just, particularly from the American standpoint.
A few basic points on the Law of War. First, you have to distinguish acceptable justifications to engage in war (
jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (
jus in bello). There are only two hooks to justify a war under
jus ad bellum (only 2 so easy to remember): UNSC sanction and direct self-defense. UNSC sanction is
by definition an acceptable justification to engage in war; so yes, the Korean War was
inherently just under
jus ad bellum, not just from an American standpoint but every from every country's standpoint, since it's common int'l law.
Everything you just mentioned are crappy failings that happened under
jus in bello, which are serious concerns about how the war was conducted, and I agree the things you mentioned are serious concerns.
All wars have these shortcomings that you want to document and deal with. What's strange about your point is that Korea was relatively tame compared to some other wars... I mean, I could think of a lot of much worse things the allies did in WWII than Korea, so you should have flagged the war against Germany as the bigger joke to world peace than Korea. But both of them pale in comparison with the Balkans (at least as far as formal, legal justification goes), where there wasn't even a justification under
jus ad bellum; the allies there didn't secure a UNSC sanction nor was there a breach of int'l peace (the only two acceptable sanctions for use of force); that's the one you'd want to be careful of mentioning in an audience like this.
