Reading through the transcript of Obama's speech in Oslo, it is startling to read how Obama attempted to make his hawkish beliefs and theories congeal with such respected pillars of non-violence as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. He seemed to be suggesting that the ‘Obamian' view of international affairs was far superior to what these bulwarks of non-violence would seek to achieve, if only they were seeing things in the manner that this political ‘luminary' and ‘rock star' views them. And in an attempt to elucidate his bizarre and extremist point of view, Obama caricatured proponents of non-violence as "not facing the world as it is" and "standing idle in the face of threats." Ultimately, Obama's comments leave us with a similar conclusion as to what was told to the citizens of Oceania, in Orwell's incomparable work of political science fiction 1984; tragically Obama seemed to be attempting to argue that war is peace.
At Oslo, very early on in his comments, Obama threw out the red herring (or perhaps it would be better to call it a non-sequitur?) of a just war? What war was he talking about exactly? Was he talking about when the United States didn't intervene to stop the bloody massacre in Rwanda? Or could he have, perhaps, been talking about Israel's most recent conflict in Gaza that he ‘monitored', at the time; before officially becoming the 44th president of the United States? I ask these rhetorical questions because I don't see any just wars that the U.S. is currently involved in, nor do I see any that are forthcoming on the horizon (except for perhaps the one that the ALBA nations are fighting against the imperialist U.S.). It's clear as crystal in Obama's imperialist, paternalistic Oslo remarks that the man feels his military is entitled the ‘rule the roost' over the whole of the planet; and not only that, but moreover, he seems to think that in his attempts to ‘wage peace' and engage in neo-colonial efforts upon other sovereign nations that it is not only acceptable, but it is in the service of ‘peace and justice' to interfere in the internal politics of all manner of independent countries all throughout this world!
In an apparent assault upon rational thinking and any sort of reasonable method or system of thought, Obama seems to arrive at the conclusion that what he believes, is in some incomprehensible way, superior to the eminently respectable beliefs of the unparalleled Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi! For those who are not familiar with realism in International Relations theory, that's all Obama is doing in his Oslo remarks; he's paying homage to realism, and how it is, in the imperial Obama's ‘humble' opinion; a higher understanding of international geopolitics, than presumably Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. would have chosen to pursue. I'm sure that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were more than familiar with all sorts of theories that imperialist countries have used to justify war, intervention, bellicosity, aggression, invasion, occupation, etc.; and dismissed them as more rudimentary, savage, and barbaric, rather than as a higher or ‘more perfect' understanding of international conduct among the ‘great' imperial regimes.
Obama's suggestion that the idealistic (even utopian), and unsophisticated Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi; if only they could have come to know the ‘benevolent' empire of the United States of Amnesia, would have seen what great wonders, that the napalming of countries all throughout the planet could achieve; is just patently and baldly absurd! It's almost as if Obama's peace prize comments were sponsored by Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and/or General Dynamics! Of course, they were, in fact, sponsored by the U.S. military industrial complex; but one of its components in particular, I don't think that that was the case. Obama is nothing if not discrete about these sorts of machinations, even if he is sold out and comprimised to the core.
Obama, on more than one occasion, in his Nobel prize remarks, made mention of international standards that must be applied, to military actions all throughout this world! Well then, if that is what our dear leader Obama is suggesting, then I must ask the venerable commander; why he has been giving the back of the hand to the leader of Tibet, since he was first elected to be the leader of the United States? If international norms and standards are something that Obama pays great respect to, then the Dalai Lama should be just the sort of person that he holds up and admires (Obama is to the right of George W. Bush on this by the way, who Bush gave an award to)!
What international standard were the Chinese abiding by when they subsumed the formerly sovereign nation of Tibet? What standard are the Israelis abiding by in their illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and their seemingly interminable expansion of illegal settlements in that land? What standard are the Israelis adhering to when they fail to acknowledge their possession of nuclear weapons; while Obama, of course, condemns Iran for its ostensible pursuit of those identical munitions (which there is little evidence and/or corroboration of anything other than for civilian uses)?
I found Obamas speech, at Olso, to be a justification for U.S. hegemonism and military power, short and simple! The man loves his empire and he has a thirst for blood! Thank you for telling us that Barack! I'm sorry to say this though, dear one, but if it walks like a militarist and talks like a militarist, then I say that, a militarist it is! The bestowers of the Nobel Peace prize on to Barack H. Obama should be publicly shamed for their disreputable actions! They should wear a scarlet letter for bestowing this sort of commendation upon such a strong believer in imperialism, neocolonialism, and fiat rule via the barrel of a gun! If it was a man of peace they were looking for surely they couldn't have found it in the life's work of Barack H. Obama!!? If they were only trying to curry favor with a hawkish leader that could not otherwise be abated (without their callow attempt at a carrot); then I don't think that they'll succeed on that score either, but I suppose that at least it wasn't for a lack of trying!