Headlines read " Obama defends war as he accepts Nobel Peace Prize"?

Didn't you hear, Liberals love the war now that Obama is President!

Why does a headline, something the media chooses to print however they see fit, affect your opinion of anything? The Nobel Peace prize issue has been discussed ad nauseam. The committee made a decision and that is all there is to it. No American made the decision, so who exactly are you accusing of being hypocritical?

And to the dolts who said "liberals love war now," many of all were all for going to Afghanistan after Bush, and we knew that Obama said we he planned to send more troops during the campaign.

Both wars were going on when he was nominated and awarded the Peace Prize. The Nobel Prize committee saw his commitment to peace. I do not blame the President for the two wars they are bush/cheney's totally. He did not do as bush did for 7 years and ignore the one in Afghanistan. He has to deal with what he was given when he took office in the best way he sees fit.*

I'm not a liberal/Democrat, but what he said made perfect sense to me. I'm far from an Obama supporter, but I actually give him props for the speech he offered. The idea is that there are, in fact, some cases in which war is morally justified and necessary in order to preserve the greater harmony in the long run.

final question first, you have the final author yet incorrect e book - George Orwell's 1984, no longer Animal Farm, and "warfare is Peace" is between the slogans of IngSoc ("English Socialism," that's unnervingly close to to New Labour and the Democratic celebration in its psychological pliability and intolerance of dissent ). yet I could agree that President Obama's speech replaced right into a masterwork of doublethink (going back to 1984). that's frightening - incredibly of being embarrassed concerning to the mismatch between his billing as super Peacemaker and his music checklist, Obama's speechwriters have given him a thank you to be a sanctimonious warmonger.. no longer basically unapologetic approximately kicking out the jams in Afghanistan (via eu standards, besides) yet self-righteous approximately it. that's the place Bush went incorrect, too - incredibly of seeing Iraq as only a splash grimy corporation to be finished expeditiously and completely (with a brilliant invasion and known and top-rated destroying all those artillery shells that have been left unguarded in stockpiles to grow to be IEDs), Bush allowed himself the luxurious of detaching from certainty and asserting victory previously all of the undesirable adult men have been dealt with. the two a sort of guys have been long on fancy speeches and short on sensible innovations for last those wars up via destroying the competition.

So, all liberals and democrats support Obama now?

Look, the point is that he's trying to resolve matters with as little bloodshed as possible. If that means war, then so be it. Worst case scenario, we leave it alone and Al Queda steals Pakistans nukes.

I'm not sure about you, but I don't want Al Queda to have nukes.

He defended to end the war and not to start new ones by using diplomacy but headline readers are always confused...

obama has stated from the time he started his campaign for president that he believed strongly in the war in afganistan - which after all sheltered the guys who attacked us in 9/11.

his support of this war comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

but that aside, republicans are simply incredible in their new found love of peace.

what happened to 'we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?' and other such jingoistic rubbish that you all used to spout?

you're probably a hippie.

get a haircut!

Obama hasnt done anything yet worthy of a NPP and he should have turned it down. He didnt start that war btw it was that idiot GWB which you people voted into office twice

Because war is sometimes needed for peace.