PW BLOGS: PhillyNow  |  PW Style  |  Make Major Moves  |  The Trouble with Spikol

  Cup o' Joel  
 

Barack Obama’s Nobel speech: Hawkish but not hawkish enough?

Justin Paulette at the conservative blog No Left Turns likes most of what he heard during Obama’s Nobel speech today, except for a couple of little things:

Naturally, Obama’s speech was not perfect and provided moments of liberal prejudice. By way of omission, he specifically excluded the present war in Iraq from his list of just wars.

I’m personally dubious about the whole concept of “just” war; I’ve come to think wars can sometimes be necessary, but even in such circumstances often inflict such suffering and destruction that it’s somewhat obscene to refer to them as “just.”

That said, is the exclusion of Iraq from the list really controversial? Once again: The invasion of Iraq was justified on the basis of the threat presented by weapons of mass destruction … that didn’t exist. The rest of the war has been an exercise in ass-covering, trying not to leave the country in much worse shape than we found it. Even if you buy  the concept, there’s simply no rational way to make the Iraq war a “just” war.

And Paulette also seems to have some trouble with Obama’s ongoing war for moral equivalence.

And while praising the “great religion” of Islam, he equates Christian crusaders to terrorists and claims that “no Holy War can ever be a just war.”

Well, that’s probably an insult to the terrorists. The heart of the Crusades lasted about 200 years, inflicting suffering on such a wide scale for so long that our modern “War on Terror” — whenever you judge it to have begun — isn’t even close to being in the same ballpark at this point in time.

  1. Doug Says: Dec 10 4:21 PM

    Actually, Obama’s comments about the Crusades are an insult to the Crusaders. I’m not defending the actions of all the Crusaders on all fronts, but get your facts straight. The Crusades were initially response to a request from the Byzantine Emperor for help against invading MUSLIMS! Christians didn’t simply decided to attach a defenseless group, they were responding to constant threats from invaders. I suggest you read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

  2. Joel Mathis Says: Dec 10 4:37 PM

    ” The Crusades were initially response to a request from the Byzantine Emperor for help against invading MUSLIMS!”

    For 200 years?

  3. Doug Says: Dec 10 8:15 PM

    Notice I said “initially”. And although I do agree that many atrocities were committed by the crusaders, there were just as many atrocities committed by the Muslims. Many subsequent crusades were indeed responses to further incursions by the Muslims. My overall point is that the crusades would never have been a possibility if the Muslim caliphates hadn’t kept attempting to invade. The crusades were a political response to an invasion force.

  4. MrUniteUs Says: Dec 10 10:08 PM

    The Crusades was partly about religion, and partly about controlling trade routes.

  5. Haykal Says: Dec 11 12:44 AM

    Obama has shown something over looked by all the western people and christians in general.He made mockery of religion by saying that peace is derived from the thoughts and laws made by men.because his concept of religion is confined, and he belied against mens history on the earth.were not prophets and revelation send from God to admontion and call thepeople to the right path but not to force any. ..Where as by reading the philosophies of the so called terrorist their concept is amazing and they have something to offer humanity,it is only a soverign state,weapons to deter their enemies that they lack and hence resort to vilonce.
    Any sane man can smell the dictatorship of America is a loss agaist all democratic practicing people and the plotics of america is captured by few crooked minded devils,who will alas bring this civilization to its knees.

Leave a Reply

Name *required

Mail *will not be published, required

Website

Submit