President Obama formally accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo this morning. President Obama robustly defended the use of military force “on humanitarian grounds” and to preserve peace. He stated the urgent need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek a world without them. The beggining of his speech started with a justification for the war in Afghanistan, an irony that didn't escape me or President Obama either in accepting a peace prize that many felt was premature.
One of his better points was when he described the nature for the peace that the world seeks. It woudl be a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
Below is the comlpete text of the speech from the AP via Yahoo! News Reader:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_nobel_text
Here is the mixed reaction from the New York Times Blog on the subject:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.html?sort=oldest&offset=3
Here is my preliminary take on the reactions on the NY Times thread:
- Some feel that he is just continuing the "war mongering" policies of the Bush Administration.
- Some don't feel he desrved the award or blongs in the company such as Ghandi, Mendela, Mother Theresa, etc.
- Some feel that it was a great speech.
- Some feel that he is the leader the world needs to strive for peace.
- Some feel we should pul oput of the war and focus on domestic agenda and the economy.
From what I have read it is truly a mixed reaction in the NY Times site. Chime in your thoughts below..... ◦
