Obama's worst moment

[angellous_evangellous]

His acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was deeply saddened to hear a man that I respect embarrass himself and his country with such a horrible, vile thing.

He mentioned himself along with other nobel prize winners - most notably Martin Luther King and Ghandi - and then talked about the notion of "just war," obviously talking about Afganistan.

I support Obama and I believe that war is necessary... but morally right?! Give me a break. That's the same argument that the Bush administration and their Christian goonies used for Iraq and Afganistan, and whatever else the Bush administration wanted to do.

How unfortunate to set aside the wisdom of King and Ghandi for a justification of war. And when accepting a peace prize. Obama didn't need to justify anything. Just say that the Bush administration got us into this mess and we're doing the best we can do clean it up.

Not your best, Obama.

 

[Sunstone]

I understand a necessary war. But a morally right war? Jeebers! That's a tough one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I understand a necessary war. But a morally right war? Jeebers! That's a tough one.

But to say that when accepting a peace prize - THE peace prize?!

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

 

[Humanistheart]

But to say that when accepting a peace prize - THE peace prize?!

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

Yes, quite unexpected.

 

[Sunstone]

But to say that when accepting a peace prize - THE peace prize?!

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

Perhaps he was being defensive?

 

[YmirGF]

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

It was exactly what I expected.

Personally, I think Obama first blew it when he did not use the awarding of the Peace Prize as an opportunity to show humility and decline the award citing others that were far more worthy. I know, my opinion of Obama would have gone up significantly had he chosen to not accept the award at all. I think most people would have been awestruck at such a turn of events had he taken that course. Now we see he is as craven as any other garden variety politician. No real surprises.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't think it was unexpected at all. I think the expectation would be for him to explain why he's increasing the number of troops in a questionable war mere days before receiving the peace prize. It would have been bigger news had he not addressed it.

As for the speech itself, I saw a political cartoon that emphasized the reality that there's a difference between the "idea" of Obama and what Obama actually says and does.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps he was being defensive?

Ya think?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It was exactly what I expected.

Personally, I think Obama first blew it when he did not use the awarding of the Peace Prize as an opportunity to show humility and decline the award citing others that were far more worthy. I know, my opinion of Obama would have gone up significantly had he chosen to not accept the award at all. I think most people would have been awestruck at such a turn of events had he taken that course. Now we see he is as craven as any other garden variety politician. No real surprises.

I agree completely. He should have refused it.

BUT, he could have and should have IMHO downplayed America's role as the world police instead of morally justifying it. That's insulting to everyone, particularly given Obama's commitment to work with other world leaders, which he does.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

there's a difference between the "idea" of Obama and what Obama actually says and does.

I'm not saying that... I think that Obama is as honest as a politician can be.

Just -- what the hell was he thinking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I should probably say that I haven't had a chance to hear the speech yet.

I understand a necessary war. But a morally right war? Jeebers! That's a tough one.

But doesn't "necessary" imply "morally right"?

The only meaningful moral options are the ones that are actually available to us. If something truly is necessary, then it's the only option available and therefore morally right... right?

 

[Sunstone]

As for the speech itself, I saw a political cartoon that emphasized the reality that there's a difference between the "idea" of Obama and what Obama actually says and does.

That reminds me of Obama's statement that he is a "mirror" upon which people project their hopes and expectations.

 

[Sunstone]

But doesn't "necessary" imply "morally right"?

Perhaps. I'm not sure about that one, yet.

The only meaningful moral options are the ones that are actually available to us. If something truly is necessary, then it's the only option available and therefore morally right... right?

But doesn't it then come down to what one thinks makes a war necessary? And can't two people have two different opinions about the necessity of a particular war?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If something truly is necessary, then it's the only option available and therefore morally right... right?

No, I disagree.

Necessity does not equal morality.

Wars are only fought, and I mean only fought for the preservation of the life of the state. Morality is the whitewash for the justification of war.

 

[Kathryn]

Nothing the man does surprises me.

 

[kai]

what's the big surprise, He is a war time president and he is doing what he thinks is right.

As for the Nobel prize i think he should have refused it, Now that would have been amazing , maybe he is just a man after all. i wonder if would have got the award if they had waited to see what his contribution to world peace actually was?

 

[Smoke]

But doesn't "necessary" imply "morally right"?

The only meaningful moral options are the ones that are actually available to us. If something truly is necessary, then it's the only option available and therefore morally right... right?

I agree with the Orthodox Christian position on it. Orthodoxy does not recognize, as almost all of Western Christianity does, the possibility of a just war. War is always evil, even though there may be times when refusing to go to war is an even greater evil. Nevertheless, granting the necessity of such evil, one is still accountable for the evil acts he commits in wartime. The traditional penance for killing an enemy soldier in time of war was two years, during which time the penitent was barred from Communion.

One of the many things that shocked Eastern Christians during the Crusades was the sight of Christian priests and monks from the West bearing arms. It was thought to absolutely incompatible with a life of prayer and devotion to God, even though Christian emperors regularly sent Christian soldiers into battle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But doesn't it then come down to what one thinks makes a war necessary? And can't two people have two different opinions about the necessity of a particular war?

Sure, but the sentiment I was reading here in the thread was that the war was necessary, but not moral. I just think that those two adjectives don't work together... though I do agree that it's valid to take a step back and question whether it was actually necessary.

No, I disagree.

Necessity does not equal morality.

Wars are only fought, and I mean only fought for the preservation of the life of the state. Morality is the whitewash for the justification of war.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you saying that no war is truly necessary?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the Orthodox Christian position on it. Orthodoxy does not recognize, as almost all of Western Christianity does, the possibility of a just war. War is always evil, even though there may be times when refusing to go to war is an even greater evil.

It may help the discussion if I point out that I don't agree with the idea that archetypal morality exists. I don't think that there's some objective standard of "good" or "moral" that we can judge things against to deem them deficient (and therefore "evil" or "not moral" to some degree) according to that standard.

IMO, the moral option is the best one available... though at the same time recognizing that which options are available now can be a result of choices that were made in the past, so the fact that the options are limited can be the result of taking a previous immoral option.

Nevertheless, granting the necessity of such evil, one is still accountable for the evil acts he commits in wartime. The traditional penance for killing an enemy soldier in time of war was two years, during which time the penitent was barred from Communion.

That almost sounds more to me like an issue of ritual purity rather than one of morality... like the Old Testament rules about menstruating women.

One of the many things that shocked Eastern Christians during the Crusades was the sight of Christian priests and monks from the West bearing arms. It was thought to absolutely incompatible with a life of prayer and devotion to God, even though Christian emperors regularly sent Christian soldiers into battle.

I agree with that, but for different reasons. I can't reconcile Christianity with engaging in war, but that's because I think that Christianity changes the equation that the decisions are based on: at least in mainstream Christian theology, no material needs (including life itself) are truly necessities, and the option to simply trust in God rather than take direct action onesself is always available. IMO, this takes away all but the most extreme justifications for war.

 

[Smoke]

It may help the discussion if I point out that I don't agree with the idea that archetypal morality exists. I don't think that there's some objective standard of "good" or "moral" that we can judge things against to deem them deficient (and therefore "evil" or "not moral" to some degree) according to that standard.

IMO, the moral option is the best one available... though at the same time recognizing that which options are available now can be a result of choices that were made in the past, so the fact that the options are limited can be the result of taking a previous immoral option.

I generally don't think much of theoretical ethics myself, but I can't conceive of war as anything but evil. War inevitably involves inflicting great suffering and death on people who have done nothing to harm you.

That almost sounds more to me like an issue of ritual purity rather than one of morality... like the Old Testament rules about menstruating women.

That is to some extent true of penance in general.