What's your opinon on Obama's acceptance speech of Nobel Peace Prize

[Polk]

Would you tell him the election is over. Time to be President. Rhetoric only goes so far.

A statement of his political philosophy in a philosophical speech isn't campaigning. Also, do you really think presidents ever exit campaign mode?

I believe there was a basic ideological shift here, since he has been President he has concentrated on the soft power soft ball, throwing out apologies for America's past while praising other cultures, a rejection of American exceptionalism and reaffirmation of cultural relativism, this speech reverses course and does talk of America's exceptional role in the world, often by having to use military power.

I think he is switching gears here; he has tried the soft ball approach and got nothing from anyone, Russia, Iran, China, nothing.

He knows in his next year is going to have to play some hard ball, and he is setting the stage.

I disagree. My reading, of both the campaign and his presidency so far, as has been an emphasis on both shared power and shared responsibility. That we're willing to work with others, as long as they are also responsible. For all the talk of the liberalism in Obama's foreign policy, it's struck a much more conservative tenor than that of his predecessor. Gone is the Bush era focus on neo-Wilsonian arguments on great moral credos, and in it's a place a more Nixonian view of American power: gritty realism and focus on global balancing act.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama extended the idea of bipartisanship at first too. When it didn't result in bringing Republicans to his point of view, it became a scorched earth policy. I suspect he will continue his present international policies a bit longer until it doesn't bear fruit. You got a taste of that in Copenhagen where he began to challenge Europe. Street thug Chicagoan is just below the surface.

 

[garyd]

Okay everyone with the sense god gave a dormouse already knows that Obama got the Nobel for not being George W. Bush. The first half of the speech was good but it began to degenrate towards the middle and the end into the usual pablum Obama spews forth when he starts getting bored.

 

[JW Frogen]

A statement of his political philosophy in a philosophical speech isn't campaigning. Also, do you really think presidents ever exit campaign mode?

I believe there was a basic ideological shift here, since he has been President he has concentrated on the soft power soft ball, throwing out apologies for America's past while praising other cultures, a rejection of American exceptionalism and reaffirmation of cultural relativism, this speech reverses course and does talk of America's exceptional role in the world, often by having to use military power.

I think he is switching gears here; he has tried the soft ball approach and got nothing from anyone, Russia, Iran, China, nothing.

He knows in his next year is going to have to play some hard ball, and he is setting the stage.

I disagree. My reading, of both the campaign and his presidency so far, as has been an emphasis on both shared power and shared responsibility. That we're willing to work with others, as long as they are also responsible. For all the talk of the liberalism in Obama's foreign policy, it's struck a much more conservative tenor than that of his predecessor. Gone is the Bush era focus on neo-Wilsonian arguments on great moral credos, and in it's a place a more Nixonian view of American power: gritty realism and focus on global balancing act.

Shared power is the negation is American exceptionalism.

Do you really believe the Iranian leadership sees the world the way we do? Or China? (And by "we" I mean both the US and Australia, the UK, much of Europe.)

There is no such thing as shared power, there is only balanced power.

And free men and women need to think carefully what side of the scale they want to balance on.

Which political counter weight they will weigh with.

 

[Douger]

Even Ronald, "Old Mega-Deficits" Reagan knew better than to go into war with no plan or preparation. He would even quote the Bible.



The United States has only rarely done war. Following WWII, there was a Marshall Plan. Following the Civil War, there was no plan, and the Civil War itself dragged on into a slaughther of the 750,000 White People. There wasn't much of a plan going in. Draft riots happened. and subsequent the outcome The South was not at all amused.

And then there was Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

And Ecuador, Panama, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador.......OH. Rush and the boys forgot to mention any of that to you.
Let me have a little fun with you flag waving, brainwashed nitwits.

You support the most murderous nation in the history of mankind murdering either by military action, famine, slavery or poisoning, either directly/militarily or by the beloved corporations that own your movie script, have their own army, alCIAduh, and nobody has a fucking clue.
I see Howdy Doodie is concerned over the little boys games on the field. ANYTHING to distract reality.

Have a read
History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America

I'll post the rest of the world when I find a simple document like this one.

 

[Douger]

Now we all of a sudden use part of 7 bases in Colombia.
Why ye bleateth ?
Here's the simple answer.
Santa Marta, Colombia | KINDER MORGAN WATCH

 

[antagon]

Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo Thursday. What's your opinion on his speech about how just the war could be? Don't you think it is inappropriate?

the award was a bit of a bribe to sway his forthcoming decisions toward withdrawal. couldnt be for actual achievements, how early it came out. he decided, finally, to escalate the war in the interest of the US, and the rest of the world, and then went on to explain himself. He's the most peaceful cat on the globe is what the award implies. the commitee only have recourse to take lecture notes.

good speech.

 

[Polk]

I believe there was a basic ideological shift here, since he has been President he has concentrated on the soft power soft ball, throwing out apologies for America's past while praising other cultures, a rejection of American exceptionalism and reaffirmation of cultural relativism, this speech reverses course and does talk of America's exceptional role in the world, often by having to use military power.

I think he is switching gears here; he has tried the soft ball approach and got nothing from anyone, Russia, Iran, China, nothing.

He knows in his next year is going to have to play some hard ball, and he is setting the stage.

I disagree. My reading, of both the campaign and his presidency so far, as has been an emphasis on both shared power and shared responsibility. That we're willing to work with others, as long as they are also responsible. For all the talk of the liberalism in Obama's foreign policy, it's struck a much more conservative tenor than that of his predecessor. Gone is the Bush era focus on neo-Wilsonian arguments on great moral credos, and in it's a place a more Nixonian view of American power: gritty realism and focus on global balancing act.

Shared power is the negation is American exceptionalism.

Do you really believe the Iranian leadership sees the world the way we do? Or China? (And by "we" I mean both the US and Australia, the UK, much of Europe.)

There is no such thing as shared power, there is only balanced power.

And free men and women need to think carefully what side of the scale they want to balance on.

Which political counter weight they will weigh with.

Some mythical ethos that our country was given commandment from on high and embodied with special powers is a pretty reckless governing philosophy in the first place. You can fully love your country without thinking there is some supernatural force guiding it's path.

And no one is suggesting that the Iranian or Chinese leadership views the world the same way we do. What is being said is that they must make the choice between modernity and isolation. Responsible nations have established rules of interaction and are willing to go to great lengths to enforce those rules on others. China is a nation which seems to have taken one path, while Iran seems to have taken the other. The reason I mention shared power is that while we are far and away the most powerful nation in the world, no man is an island. To combat the challenges of the 21st century will require robust international cooperation, and that can only come when we place ourselves at the forefront of international diplomacy. And that can't really happen when you have leadership such as the previous administration who's raison d'être seems to be making the most dickish moves possible without any real interest in the consciences.