Virgil

For obvious reasons, I’m not taking comments on this.

He did nothing actually to have earned it. That’s apparent to the world, but perhaps in the end it was a good thing he got it, just so I can applaud the speech he gave. This was a good speech and one in which I support all of his thrusts. I want to highlight a few issues he brought up. I’ll quote and then respond.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Sad, but true, and an acknowledgement of reality. It may be true that man has never gone a single day in his history where at some place in the world a war was being fought. War is ingrained in the human condition, and those that think we could eliminate it are just naïve.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Good, he admits the need for a just war, though I say he slips into silliness with his comment about fighting the wars proportionally. Does that mean if you are fighting an enemy with bows and arrows you are to throw away your guns and cannons and fight proportionally? While I certainly want to spare civilians at all costs, the object of war is to win, not to fight a fair fight. This isn’t a boxing match, and there is no referee.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

Right on. While we cannot prevent wars, we can create institutions that dampen their severity and take a proactive approach to squashing potential catastrophes. I think the institutions of post WWII and the alliances created to contain communism were critical to maintain world stability and prevent catastrophic wars.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

Fabulous!! Yes, economic self interest has been critical in establishing interconnections between nations and people, and with the ideal of liberty as a guiding principle for our actions. Hooray! He’s actually stating he’s proud of the actions this country has taken to create stability and unfortunately police the world. This is a speech George W. Bush could have given!! This is right out of Bush’s rhetoric.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

Ha! He just justified George W. Bush’s actions in his term of president. When the opposition party of a subsequent administration justifies the previous administrations philosophy, he has codified it! Thank you President Obama. You sound like a real Neo-Con.

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 nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitlers armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Haha! He is speaking like a real conservative. There are limits to reason and man is imperfect and evil does exist. Now he must have had President Bush write that for him.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet 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. 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. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Well, well. Enough said. Thank you President Bush – oh, I mean President Obama.

So, the speech boils down to a statement of the reality of the human condition, the need for institutions to nit nations together, and the use of force when necessary to maintain that stability by the lone superpower who's guiding principles are rooted in liberty. This was a very pleasing speech to my ears.

So, this brings up another question. If he believes in the good intentions of the United States as the principle underwriter of security around the world, if he believes that our men and women have died around the world for no other reason but to support the liberty and security of other nations, if he believes that the use of force is sometimes necessary to preserve freedom and prosperity, then why the heck does he go around the world apologizing for America’s actions? You can’t have it both ways Mr. President. There is no reason to apologize for anything.

Alas, politicians always try to have it both ways.

You can read the entire speech here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...eptance-speech