web analytics

THE PRICE OF PEACE…WAR.

By David Vance On March 24th, 2011

Obama is keeping his peace prize

There is undoubtedly an irony in the fact that Obama has taken the USA to war in Libya within a few years of his receiving his Nobel Peace Prize. But The One will brook no criticism of his award which he obviously feels he deserved;

President Obama defended his Nobel Peace Prize on Tuesday, saying that Americans “don’t see any contradiction” in him ordering an attack on Libya to make sure “people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.”  “When I received that award, I specifically said there was an irony because I was already dealing with two wars,” Obama said in an interview with CNN from El Salvador. “So I am accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also someone who aspires to peace.”

I’m just waiting on the lefties to parade through the streets urging “No Blood for Oil” or is there one rule for a GOP President and another for a Dem? The truth is that Obama’s Peace Prize award was a farce at the time and the subsequent ironies simply illuminate the scale of it! Had Obama any sense of modesty, he could have made sure he did not get the offer of the award in the first place but the ego involved is monstrous and that’s why he now fiercely seeks to protect that which he should never had been given.

46 Responses to “THE PRICE OF PEACE…WAR.”

  1. >>There is undoubtedly an irony in the fact that Obama has taken the USA to war i<<

    LOL. You're wriggling.

    Air-strikes are not a "war", this action is no more than was being carried out against Iraq practically every week during the Clinton years. Wasn't called a war then, isn't a war now.

    Obama is taking military action to stop a war in progress and to prevent massacre.

    In contrast to your boys, David, who start wars and massacre where there was none, wars that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths (or, translated to ATW-speak where only western casualties count, around 5,000 deaths), all of which you cheered on.

  2. Amusing in the last few days to see none other than that fat lefty fraud Michael Moore calling for The Blessed Saint Barack to be either stripped of his bauble or return it.

  3. The Left is indeed guilty of moral fraud every day of the week, if we’re honest about it. The greater moral fraud is on the part of the hard left, which remained silent for decades after the word of the Stalin / Mao etc murder machine fully got out.

    We’re all probably frauds to some extent. Haven’t seen too many hard right critiques of Saint Reagan or of Mrs. Thatcher very recently, etc.

  4. The Establishment’s candidates are one and the same. This wasn’t evident to me until quite recently, say 3-4 years ago and Obama/Mccain confirmed it. Here is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for the 2004 Presidential election saying exactly that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UIZObL8_Q&feature=related

  5. I don’t think that they’re the same

    A President McCain would not have implemented ObamaCare.

    A President Gore may not have invaded Iraq.

    But I will agree that nearly all are morally compromised.

  6. To the contrary, I am watching the ‘right’ twisting in the wind, clueless.

    Obama playing a blinder, once more.

  7. Plenty on the right, including Senator Lindsey Graham are quite in favor of this.

    But could this wing up being the Coalition of the Unwilling?

  8. Phantom,

    If Graham and some on the right are for, and Moore is against- it looks like Bama got it just about right?

    I just read that 60% of Americans support Obama on this.

  9. As do I

    Wish it had been done two weeks earlier but I will take it

    And perhaps that two weeks helped gain more international support, which is not a bad thing in a very sensitive region

    The worst possible scenario would be for the US to go it alone in an Arab Muslim country, after the past decade, allowing Gadaffi to play the Islam / Arab Nationalism card etc.

  10. Phantom -

    Haven’t seen too many hard right critiques of Saint Reagan or of Mrs. Thatcher very recently, etc.

    Maybe not, although I have criticised her in here, so that’s the moderate centre covered.

  11. Noel Cunningham -

    Air-strikes are not a “war”

    Well, they are.

    How many’s that for the Left now? Between Clinton and today, including Blair, the Wilsonian liberalist foreign policy has shot up half the world besides tipping trillions into defence firms.

    They’ve gone through the Balkans, the Middle East, beyond the Khyber Pass into Pakistan, done West Africa and now it’s North Africa. Help me out here, I’m a free marketeer and want to know which country to short next.

    “What do you mean, Pete” I hear, “how do you know there’ll be another coutnry?”

    There’ll always be another country, another war, another enemy, another bogeyman, another threat, another reason to blow the crap out of somewhere.

    For countries which are supposedly rooted in liberty and genuine liberalism, we do seem to be at war an awful lot. At least we take a breather now and then. The US is constantly at war today – constantly. For a country founded on the principle of keeping yourself to yourself that’s a hell of a changaround.

    Someone benefits.

  12. We are constantly at war, and that needs to be thought about in a spirit of tranquility.

    We spend far too much on the military, but among the reasons for that is that some countries spend far too little on their own military in a world that has no shortage of dangers and perils and bad guys and truly horrendous regimes.

    The free ride has existed for fifty years and more in some cases, and the fake moral superiority, too.

  13. Phantom -

    If other states spend far too little for their defence, that is not the slightest business of the American federal state or taxpayers.

    If these countries have had a free ride (from what I don;t know), goodness knows the free riders par excellence are the military corporates which have had untold trillions of looted dollars given to them by the federal government.

    For what good purpose?

    You’re (not the government) in a debt so deep you can never hope to be out of it yet the federal government is at constant war in places which are none of your business.

    You talk of “a world that has no shortage of dangers and perils and bad guys and truly horrendous regimes”. This is the Phantom who derides Limbaugh fans?!

    Who on earth can possibly pose a danger to the American people? You spend as much on your military as every other country on the planet, you have a benign neighbour to the north, a weak neighbour to the south and great oceans either side of you. For what possible reason are you ever at war?

  14. So you reckon that Obama is the player and not the pawn?

  15. Hogwash

    Some of the ” good purpose ” was

    the peaceful defeat of the USSR

    the peaceful liberation of the ” near abroad ” countries ( the Baltic states, Georgia, Kazakstan, Ukraine and other countries that were in the USSR by force of arms )

    the peaceful liberation of the central European counties trapped behind the Iron Curtain ( Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, etc )

    the protection of a peaceful and prosperous South Korea

    the general collapse of Communist imperialism throughout the world

    the heavy lifting in stopping the genocide in Kosovo when the Dutch and other Europeans had f***** that situation up to a fair thee well ( as commented on extensively by Noel in recent days ).

    ( more examples on request )

    There’s a lot the US and its military have to answer for, but the above isn’t bad work for a half century.

    Are you really so completely unaware of the truly horrendous regimes that exist and have existed since 1950? And how, very largely they have been kept at bay? Let me tell you it hasn’t been through the efforts of the Isle of Man libertarian militia or the Ron Paul Gold Coin Club.

    For someone who claims to have some pride in British history – a history won for better or worse by a ( taxpayer paid for ) Navy and other military – you have an astonishing lack of knowledge of the larger situation.

    Yours is the Neville Chamberlain approach in a world that still has need of Churchills and rough men with weapons who know how to use them.

    Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valor, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar.”
    Winston Churchill

  16. There is usually a high degree of support for any military action initially since the support mingles those who approval of a particular action and those who support the troops (and not necessarily the mission).

  17. The Nobel Prize was not sought by Obama, nor as I recall was it something that one can take one’s nomination out of consideration. I don’t beleive it was warranted, and as I recall he noted the same at the time.

    However, I fully disagree with the present action in Libya as constituted and (1) there are lefties who should be opposing it with equal vigor and (2) righties who should be embracing it with equal vigor to their past positions.

    Funniest back peddling has been from Newt Gingrich who’s flip flop on this makes John Kerry seem like the Rock of Gibralter.

  18. Good point.

    I am really neither here nor there with it, tbh, but I do see how some Obama voters would be upset.

  19. Gingrich is the best

    Smart as hell at times, but inconsistent and at times cruel

    Troll, what do you think of your boy now?

  20. Phantom -

    Thank you, I’m aware of the potted history but didn’t realise you went to war to liberate Ukraine and Georgia.

    You could have stayed at home and waited for the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union. Granted it would have been a surprise since the type of columnist who populates the pages of the NYT is the type which predicted long life for the Soviet Union right up until it collapsed.

    You could have accepted Stalin’s offer to demilitarise and withdraw from a unified Germany in 1952. That would have been cheaper too.

    But this is all moot.

    That the federal government is at constant war today in places it has no business spending your money is undeniable. We saw off the Germans and Jap Empire in six years. Eight years after invasion your forces are still in Afghanistan. The longer this goes on the more my nose twitches and so should your’s.

    As for all this “the heavy lifting in stopping the genocide in Kosovo”, this is plainly bollocks. Where were the piles of Kosovan bodies? Where were the massacres? The only thing approaching genocide happened toward Serbs who were driven from their homeland which is now a gangster state.

    What a great use of our plundered money that was.

    What is the point of spending yet more of it over Libya? What is the strategic point? What is the planned outcome? What happens if Gadaffi sits in the sand and refuses to go away?

    Has anyone bothered explaining this to you, or is this another rash, ill-thought out venture, funded with our money and launched by children who cannot see an army without getting a hard on before ordering it to blow the crap out of someone?

  21. Res ipsa loquitor

  22. -the genocide in Bosnia-

    Srebenica massacre

    But you knew that

  23. Pete – with all your opinions regarding “the State” are you seriously implying that Stalin’s word was something to be relied upon?

  24. ( shakes head )

    Yes, you could always count on Uncle Joe

    But Truman and Churchill were presumably the ” real villains ”

    Britain was saved due to a taxpayer funded military, and was manned with the help of conscription.

    If Britain had followed the useless nostrums of ” libertarianism “, your ancestors would have been crushed.

    Unbelievable.

  25. Phantom -

    You cited “the genocide in Kosovo”.

    Neither Bosnia nor Srebrenica are in Kosovo and there was no genocide in Kosovo. You believed a pack of lies. The cleansing was of a Serb population and our governments assisted in that with our money.

    Mahons -

    Believe it or not, I don’t think we ought to have taken Stalin’s word for anything without verification.

    It doesn’t change the fact that in 1952 he made an offer to Western governments for each side to withdraw from an independent, unified and demilitarised Germany.

    Google up “The Stalin Note” for the details of what many historians think was a sincere offer.

    Of course, it was declined by the West and here you are today, still being looted for tens of billions each year to keep tens of thousands of troops in Germany for goodness knows what reason except to fill the coffers of military suppliers.

    But maybe you know. Who would invade invade Germany if they weren’t there?

  26. nobody’s perfect

  27. Pete – I’ll leave you to your interpretation of Stalin’s motives and sincerety in 1952. I’m sure he merely wanted to liberate Hungary in 1956.

    As for our troops in Germany today, I think their role is not merely to prevent an invasion of Germany (a fairly unlikely event at the moment)but rather as a launching point to get to other problem areas (Frankfurt is a tad closer to the Middle East than Fort Benning in Georgia).

  28. Course Stalin was dead by 1956 so I suppose I am attributing motives to him instead of the Soviet regime. In any event I ain’t a fan of his or the Soviet regime.

  29. I’m telling Monica.

  30. Air strikes are not war?? right….

    This is gibberish. Pure gibberish. and hypocritical, to boot…something I am sure that you will never cop to.

  31. cause there is nothing to critisize

  32. You know what I meant – Srebrenica was a massacre committed by your lovely Serbs and it was the US and others who stopped that kind of thing by force of arms. If the Serbs don’t like it, tough titty.

    The libertarian argument upon deeper reflection is one of the more amoral, vapid and divorced from the real world strains of thought that one can ever contemplate. The whole thing stands on an intellectual house of cards, with very few real world arguments to back up even parts of it.

  33. How about the fact that Reagan raised taxes for most US taxpayers repeatedly when he needed to?

    Which may have been good policy but it goes against the Fox/Rush/Know Nothing rewriting of very recent history?

    The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture–a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.

  34. Noel: in Real Clear Politics, David Warren sums up your thoughts that this is not a war:

    “This is a very old story: the ability of the liberal mind to delude itself by confusing appearances with realities; by embracing the comfortably plausible in preference to the uncomfortably true. And finally, expressing genuine surprise when the whole effort blows up in our faces.”

  35. Did Saint Reagan call his military interventions in the island of Grenada or in Libya ” wars “?

    I do believe he did not

    What a no good liberal Reagan was.

    A war is a war. Military action is not always war. It’s a matter of scale.

  36. Phantom -

    You know what I meant – Srebrenica was a massacre committed by your lovely Serbs and it was the US and others who stopped that kind of thing by force of arms.

    The US obviously stopped no such thing. It did not stop the Srebenica massacre and it did not stop make-believe massacres in Kosovo. All your government achieved there was the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from their homeland and the handing of Kosovo to gangsters whose main export is rape, criminals and people-trafficking.

    Your federal government did, however, achieve the vapourisation of the 28 year old make up lady Janica Munitlak when it bombed a Belgrade TV studio.

    Your tax dollars at work.

  37. History shows that we stopped the massacres of the Balkans. By force of arms. The Serbs were shown that we, unlike the feckless pot smoking Dutch, were not to be tarried with, and we stopped it.

    I take no pleasure in the ethnic cleansing that actually has taken place in Kosovo, but I note that you don’t say ” boo ” about the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia etc that happened after the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

    The Albanians have long been a majority in Kosovo. Serbia lost all moral rights to control it a long time ago.

    There have been no Srebenica large scale massacres in Kosovo either.

    And all the ethnic cleansing in those tortured lands are to be condemned.

  38. >>Air strikes are not war?? right….
    This is gibberish. Pure gibberish.<<

    You don't know what you're talking about, Patty. The US is not in a war in Libya, and you don't know what war is if you claim it is. The situation may, of course, change in the near future. But these limited air strikes do not a war make.

    BTW, when did the war in Iraq start?

    "The US obviously stopped no such thing. It did not stop the Srebenica massacre"

    Of course it did not stop Srebrenica because only the UN was involved at that stage (and the presence of the French and British and Dutch was worse than nothing). But that massacre was the turning point for US policy, and after it the US did go on to prevent almost inevitable further massacres. The Serbs were at the time not only planning but also announcing impending attacks on Zepa and Sarajevo itself, and if Sarajevo had fallen – and there was little to prevent it falling – it would have resulted in massacre and ethnic cleansing on a scale not seen before even in that terrible war.

    It was the decisive action of the US that got the Serbs clamouring for peace. I’m no natural fan of US military adventure, but Bosnia was the 3rd time that century when the US came to Europe’s aid and saved it from unimaginable slaughter, and you only have to travel a bit through the Balkans today to hear how grateful the people there are.

  39. ( segue )

    I don’t know people who have traveled to that part of the world and would have some interest in going to Sarajevo and Bosnia.

    ( end segue )

    ( back on topic )

    Some on the right, like Michael Savage on radio, speak of the poor afflicted Serbs and how the US was so unfair to them.

    It is astonishing how so many forget very recent history. There was a guy on the local radio years ago who despaired at understanding history, proclaiming ” How can I understand what happened a thousand years ago, when they are completely rewriting what happened last year before my very eyes “

  40. >>would have some interest in going to Sarajevo and Bosnia. <<

    Then go. You'll like it, and the people all over the Balkans will spoil you to the core. (even if they don't treat you, you can get a delicious and never-ending meal, washed down with litres of the best red, all for around 15 USD).
    I have in-laws in Slovenia and Serbia.

    Travel, as you'll have probably noticed, is often not only a journey in space but also in time, and in Serbia you'll encounter a kind of society that in many ways is like all of Europe was before WW2. A very rural place with undeveloped agriculture, and old villages full of farming tools and buildings that are long obsolete even in Ireland. The people are generous to a fault, and their generosity is usually expressed in lavish offerings of food and drink.

    The 1930's flair unfortunately doesn't stop there. The people have a peasant roughness that is matched by a complete lack of political sophistication. There was a time, possibly still is, when most folk seriously believed the US had tried "to destroy the Serb nation" (a constant refrain), by dropping radioactive ammunition in rivers to sterilise them, etc. I even heard that from educated people.
    It was a highly renowned ophthalmologist (female) who told me it was all a conspiracy between the Latin Church (i.e. the Pope), the US, the Jews (inevitably) and world Islam to destroy the Serbs, because the Serbs are the only proud and independent people left in Europe, etc. It is hard to believe people seriously think things like that, but there they do.

    Still, ever nation tends to go insane once, and the Serbs will awaken to reality just like the Germans did. They suffered very much in their history, almost lost as many people proportionally as the Poles in WWII and lost infinitely more in WWI. Like the Poles, they never surrendered to oppression and always resisted. They feel they have been left out of the post-war party of mutual congratulation, and in many ways they are right. Whatever about their crimes in Kosovo, they were also treated very badly there (and ultimately driven out of what is the holiest part of their ancestral homeland, by people who were for the most part transplanted there only in Tito’s time).

  41. Noel Cunningham -

    It was the decisive action of the US that got the Serbs clamouring for peace.

    Nonsense. It was a Bosnian/Croat offensive which pushed the Bosnian Serbs into signing the Dayton Agreement. US military power had nothing to do with it.

    Now if you don’t mind, we were talking about Kosovo, where the likes of Phantom were duped into believing fairy tales about Serb massacres when it was the Serb population which was predominently the victim.

    The Clinton/Blair response to this was to launch an air war which over Kosovo and Serbia which resulted in tousands of dead civilians.

    Where was the Left when Clinton and Blair were ordering this? Nowhere, and still nowhere. I don’t recall Wolf Blitzer and Christian Amanpour reporting nightly from a Belgrade under the bombs back then.

    How the parallels stack up today (and many dates in the last century) with yet another charismatic Democrat president launching yet another pre-emptive war on yet another ountry with which it has no business, and yet again the Left swallows its principles.

  42. Let’s look more closely at ‘communism’ and where the money to fund it came from.

    The Russian Revolution was funded by Wall Street as a means of taking control of Russia’s huge natural resources:

    http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev

    Monopoly control of a country is a corporatist dream -

    “Dear Mr. President:

    I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people…”

    Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=Bolshevik01

    “Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14 Wall Street, had something very close to Williams’ argument in mind. Wall Street went to bat in Washington for the Bolsheviks. It succeeded. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the 1930s foreign firms, mostly of the Morgan-Rockefeller group, built the five-year plans. They have continued to build Russia, economically and militarily. [18] On the other hand, Wall Street presumably did not foresee the Korean War and the Vietnam War — in which 100,000 Americans and countless allies lost their lives to Soviet armaments built with this same imported U.S. technology. What seemed a far-sighted, and undoubtedly profitable, policy for a Wall Street syndicate, became a nightmare for millions outside the elitist power circle and the ruling class.”

    http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=Bolshevik11

  43. Noel: do you know what an air strike is?

    here’s one definition: “An air strike is a military strike by air forces or other military aviation assets against either a suspected or a confirmed enemy ground position …”

    Obama agrees with you that this military bombing is not “war” but “kinetic military action” I believe he said.

    Which is gibberish. Your type of gibberish. Liberal BS gibberish.

    Granted, Obama has not clearly stated his objective – but it is war.

  44. Pete,

    It is a historical record that it was US intervention that persuaded the Serbs to stop. Check it out. If you want, I can provide further details.
    (BTW, that Bosnian/Croat coalition that you give so much credit to also would never have come about without US intervention)

    Patty, you are distorting facts and meaning in your obsession with making Obama look bad. You will fail here as gloriously as you’ve failed every other time.
    Military action does not in itself make a war, we all know that.
    I think your big fear is certainly not that this intervention will cost much (and certainly not that it will cost American lives. We all also know that you supported and continued to support a real war that cost your country 10 Billion a month and more dead Americans than Libya ever will. Didn’t concern you then), but that it will succeed in stopping the massacre and cost few lives and thus enhance Obama’s standing with the American public.

    I asked you before: When did the Iraq war start?

  45. “fairy tales about Serb massacres when it was the Serb population which was predominently the victim.

    Pete the massacre of Albanian civilians in Racak, Cuzka, Drenica, Velika Krusa etc are not fairy tales. The Yugoslav government was committing mass murder and furthermore had a track record of doing the same in Bosnia.

    There were war crimes by the KLA but not on the same scale as was committed by the Yugoslav army and police.

  46. Pete

    It was a Bosnian/Croat offensive which pushed the Bosnian Serbs into signing the Dayton Agreement. US military power had nothing to do with it.

    Your posts have increasingly become filled with false information.

    The civilian deaths resulting from NATO airstrikes were accidental

    The many more civilian deaths resulting from Yugolav/various Serb military activity were highly intentional.

    I’m proud that the US and NATO put an end to this – shame on you for an apparent sympathy with the aggressor

    And no one here says that bad things were not done to the Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia. They were. I don’t defend them, and think that any aggression of any kind against Serb civilians should be punished severely.

    But the Serbs were the principal aggressors in the Bosnia and greater area conflict and no unbiased reporter has said otherwise.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.