Did I hear Obama evoke MLK in his Nobel speech?

[rollingrock]

Did I hear that right? Did Obama say in his Nobel acceptance speech that he was a product of Dr. King's nonviolent philosophy, nonviolent response to conflict? So he evokes Dr. King's memory in a crass attempt to somehow justify expanding war and violence in Afghanistan? what an incredibly cynical and disgusting thing to do. Did he really have to go there? I thought the whole speech was kind of an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak, but that part in particular was especially cringe-worthy. What a slap in the face to both King's and Ghandi's memory (who was the former's role model). Something I thought only someone like Bush (or some other Repuke) was capable of stooping to. I guess I was wrong!

"Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity. In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation."

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[emulatorloo]

1. Yes he did. He said it with humility too, He also echoed Reinhold_Niebuhr a lot.

Couple of articles analysing the speech that are kind of interesting:

Obama's War and Peace
How the president accepted the Nobel while sending more troops to fight in Afghanistan.
By Fred Kaplan

http://www.slate.com/id/2238081/

-------------------------
Do conservatives know what they're embracing?
Michael Tomasky/The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/11/conservatives-obama-nobel-speech

====

[Kolesar]

6. Niebuhr

Thanks for the links. I learned a lot. :thumbsup:

[emulatorloo]

25. I remember reading him in college, I had forgotten a lot n/t

[Itchinjim]

2. Did he?!!!!!!

The son of a bitch!!!!!! He's just a Goddamn FREEPER!!!!!!!!!:sarcasm:

[Hosnon]

3. He didn't invoke MLK to justify the wars. He specifically stated that he did not have the luxury

of being guided only by non-violent principles.

[NYC_SKP]

4. +1 n/t

[rollingrock]

5. He is the commander in chief

Obama has the power to put an end to Bush's 8 year war of aggression in Afghanistan...he chooses not to do so.

[Hosnon]

10. With these particular wars, perhaps. But Obama cannot wave his magic wand and make

war go away.

[rollingrock]

13. You're right

I guess only McChrystal has the power to do that. Because he seems to be the one actually in charge, not Obama.

[Obamanaut]

24. Wars are started on a whim or by a wand wave, why can they not

be ended in a similar fashion?

[G_j]

8. and actually, that is the most alarming part, Nonviolence was not a luxury

in MLK's eyes, the furthest thing from it.




"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual doom."

MLK Jr.

"Through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can't murder murder.
Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can't establish truth.
Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate.
Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that….

"Where do we go from here?", August 1967

[Hosnon]

11. I didn't say non-violence was a luxury, and neither did Obama. It is an important principle

that has its place among the most important principles (in my opinion). But - and this was Obama's point - it is not sufficient to create a just world and is not the only principle he must turn to when he makes a decision (i.e., he does not have the luxury of relying only upon non-violence).

[G_j]

17. Then, it's certainly a crying shame Obama isn't MLK Jr.!

now there was a truly GREAT leader, who walked his talk.
true he was not a politician, but he understood politics without compromising his core values.

[shadowknows69]

22. +10000000000000000000000000

[rollingrock]

23. Great quotes from a truly great man

thanks for posting those.

[shadowknows69]

12. Sure he does. If our "defense" department actually defended the country

Instead of attacking other people and the intelligence agencies weren't hindering each other thanks to Bush's Department of The Fatherland Security, there isn't an enemy in the world that could do us any lasting harm.

[Hosnon]

14. No, he doesn't. Unfortunately, non-violence is not an effective response to violence.

Self-defense is often necessary and is often just.

[shadowknows69]

16. Fine, so let's defend. The first Al-Qaida aircraft carrier that invades our waters

We should sink the fucker post haste. Put intelligence assets on the ground in suspected strongholds and cells and prevent the crime, but pull our occupying armies out now.

[Hosnon]

18. Well, naturally, the Webster Doctrine recognizes that a country need not wait

until an army has crossed its border to respond.

But in large part, I agree with you. And I think you agree that a foreign policy based solely on non-violence would not work. Try as we might, we can't change human nature (at least not yet).

[shadowknows69]

19. And the U.N. charter says something about not starting pre-emptive wars.

The way we've cherry-picked which international laws we follow through the decades (are there any left?) is disturbing.

[shadowknows69]

20. We have certainly created enough new enemies for ourselves in recent years

But to keep occupying countries in some foolish quest to "get the bad guys" just keeps making new bad guys and unless we're willing to committ genocide it will never end. To back off the ledge of further violence takes braver men than it does to go to war. No guarantee if we do that "they" will, but we can then retool our DOD to fight this as it should be. Intelligently, patiently, above the board and thoroughly. The people planning and funding the next attack on this country aren't in hills in AfPakistan, those are just the martyrs we're making. The true leaders are like ours. In safe places pushing buttons and ordering other men to die for them. You can't beat that system by pissing off whole countries of people.

[shadowknows69]

21. dupe delete. DU having issues tonight?

[bigtree]

15. he's personally conflicted

. . . or wants to have it both ways. He doesn't have the luxury because of his philosophy on war. He can't blame that on history. But he certainly tried.

[Iggo]

7. And Gandhi, too.

He was on a roll.

[rollingrock]

9. Ghandi too?

I wouldn't be surprised if he somehow managed to drop Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama's name as well. my eyes kind of glazed over after the MLK and evildoer bit, so I guess I didn't get to that part.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Yes. But, he should have been quoting Orwell. "War is Peace".

[blues90]

27. Obama is all about making personal history

MLK was promoting the idea if we act in a none violent manner this action will spread and replace the idea of aggression and wars. We were in Vietnam when MLK gave his speech. MLK also looked into the camera and spoke to the people.

Obama hands out evil and we cannot always talk to the enemy so we should bomb them and Obama has yet to look into the camera and speak to the people , he raises his head as if looking to some higher power or invoking it.