Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I disagree. The locations you mention have quotations & images of philosophers, historical figures, poets, authors, actors, atheletes, and public figures of all kinds. Some (not all) of those displays have origins in religion. The historical role of religion in government and law is important. It is part of our culture. For a modern court or school to give a nod & pay homage to that role is not a slap in the face of any particular belief system, nor is it 'advocating' any particular religion.
When a library somewhere puts up a pithy quote from Frued, Nietzsche, or some other sectarian it isn't a big deal to me - even if I disagree with the overall senitment. It doesn't make me want to 'join' an organization that respects the subject. They are just tipping a hat to 'good advice' and great people & events from our shared history. To suggest that some images/quotes/events/displays should be banned because they happen to have their origins in religion is censorship of the worst kind - and people who claim to be 'open minded' should be ashamed to have any part of it.


If a courthouse had a display of a dozen different ancient law codes, and the ten commandments was one of them, I don't think it would be a problem for most atheists. The problem is when that is the ONLY one displayed, especially in the form of a "2.6-ton granite monument".

And if you take another look at the ten commandments, only two of them (murder and theft) are still against the law. Well, two and a half, since bearing false witness is sometimes illegal. If you want to "give a nod" to it, fine, but others try to claim it's the "foundation" of our legal system (as in the article). Twenty five percent congruity is not a foundation, and I doubt there is a religion or philosophy where those actions aren't condemned. So "give a nod" to all of the other ones, too.

And I also think it is highly unlikely that your local library would be able to post "God is dead." on the wall. But I'm glad to hear you would let it slide if they did.

Atheists are the ones saying that there shouldn't be displays of religious beliefs on public property like courthouses, schools, libraries gov't buildings. There's a big difference.

I disagree. The locations you mention have quotations & images of philosophers, historical figures, poets, authors, actors, atheletes, and public figures of all kinds. Some (not all) of those displays have origins in religion. The historical role of religion in government and law is important. It is part of our culture. For a modern court or school to give a nod & pay homage to that role is not a slap in the face of any particular belief system, nor is it 'advocating' any particular religion.

When a library somewhere puts up a pithy quote from Frued, Nietzsche, or some other sectarian it isn't a big deal to me - even if I disagree with the overall senitment. It doesn't make me want to 'join' an organization that respects the subject. They are just tipping a hat to 'good advice' and great people & events from our shared history. To suggest that some images/quotes/events/displays should be banned because they happen to have their origins in religion is censorship of the worst kind - and people who claim to be 'open minded' should be ashamed to have any part of it.

>> ^ElessarJD:
While it was certainly a shitty thing to do, don't kid yourself into thinking that a group of white kids going to a predominantly black pool would be welcomed with open arms either. The stereotyping and paranoia goes both ways.


it may go both ways, but not with the same consequences. That's like saying a kid getting beat by his parents is less a victim because he/she is being disrespectful (and the beating is a form of mutual disrespect).

and I'm tired of the "white person in a black neighborhood" crap for the same reason. a young white person may expect to be accosted in a black neighborhood (which may be a bullshit assumption, especially since the whitest girl at work just went on a Roscoe's run), but a young black person expects to be accosted by police at ANY moment they are out in public (which is somewhat more justified, because young black people are in public more often that young white people are in black neighborhoods, so their is plenty of evidence, including personal experience, that you will get patted down for being brown).

please substitute the ethnic/cultural/religious sectarianism of your choice in the above paragraph.

No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts.


I'd be as surprised as you if Cheney's ever done anything out of the kindness of his heart. I still like the idea of saving those millions of Kurds even if Cheney only did it so he could pad his pockets.


And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.

Your wording says more about your world view than about what happened. You say killed, but died is more accurate. That you are content to lay every death since the US invasion on America and totally ignore the role of decades of living under a brutal sectarian dictator says everything. Your wording suggests that Iraqi's were peacefully united in one cause before the invasion, rather than living under the thumb of a vicious dictator that spent his time encouraging and cultivating sectarian hatred to secure his iron fisted rule.


or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country

Yes, the proof of America's evil intent is conditions being placed on billions of dollars of aid that America is offering to just give the Iraqi people?


Oil companies the underdogs?

Your the one that said they controlled less than 40% of the world's oil, not me. If your statements contradict each other look in the mirror.


Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.

Funny you'd call someone racist while you pretend like Iraq was better off under Saddam.

>> ^Skeeve:
From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

I just wanted to point out that it's really misguided to say that religion caused all these conflicts which happened to have religion tacked on to them. The Crusades, for example, were less about religion than they were about halting the advance of a growing empire. Religion is the excuse and the propaganda tool for mobilizing one group of people against another, usually for political reasons or in competition over resources. We'd have plenty of wars still without religion, and the scapegoating is pointless.

>> ^rottenseed:
And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book.

You clearly haven't researched them at all. Some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism aren't spiritual but pragmatic. Then there's Taoist philosophy which is agnostic when it comes to belief in a soul or an afterlife, but it teaches that ultimately it doesn't matter. I see modern astrophysics and quantum physics making new hypotheses that mirror Eastern philosophical tenets, such as cosmic inflation theory's infinite/eternal field of bubble universes being similar to the Tao. Eastern philosophies can't be lumped in with Western religions, and aren't adequately described as "spiritual stuff."

>> ^burdturgler:
menatlity thanks for the civil discussion.
We disagree and that's it. I think he has an issue and you don't. We just read it differently. As far as why God allows eye worms .. malaria .. pianos to fall on your head .. look .. That's life. People get struck by lightning too. You know people die, right? That's even accepted among the religious folk. Like I said I have been witness to and suffered through some awful shit. Still, I know others have suffered more. There are people starving every fucking day. Most of them don't have to. It's all politics. Half the donated wheat to charities rots on docks because of political infighting and bullshit. People fucking die while food rots in a boat. Shit happens every single day. People cause more plague, war, theft, death, hardship and strife than they could ever blame on God. I'd like to see a graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war. Of course, I can actually see the graph .. so maybe I'm biased.


I've been trying to understand your point of view throughout this discussion burdturgler, and I kind of get what you are saying, but there are a few problems.

First, you seem to have missed the opening lines of his answer. What Attenborough is raging against, if anything, is people using god as an explanation for life by referencing the beauty of nature, while ignoring all of the horrible things that happen. People who say that god exists because the eyeball is so perfect or roses are so beautiful tend to forget or ignore the fact that there are rather gross and horrible things in nature as well.

Secondly, by acknowledging that bad things happen and it has nothing to do with god or the devil you prove that you do not follow the same brand of religion as the majority of Christians/Muslims. Take that as a compliment because you seem altogether more intelligent than most of the religious people I know and your view is infinitely more logical. Attenborough is inundated with the less logical views of your fellow theists, I'm sure, and he is specifically attacking that ignorance.

Third, and I'm sorry if this comes off antagonistic, but your example of a "graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war" would not work in your favor as an example of death and hardship caused by man as opposed to caused by god... Religion has a huge influence on the Iraq war. From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion burdturgler and I honestly look forward to hearing more from your point of view.

>> ^liverpoolfc:
Excellent way to win a battle of ideas, walk away because you don't like what you're hearing... how can we expect others (the ones we want to convince we're right and they are wrong) to listen us when we aren't prepared to listen them regardless of whether it is even possible to reason with them. It sets a bad example...


The thing is, we HAVE listened to them, we've argued with them and evidence IS still with us. This wasn't a debate, it was a speech and I completely stand by anyone who walked out on the basis that a lot of what he is spouting is deeply and simply sectarian. It's been heard before and it's as wrong now as it was then.

What is your point exactly?

The reporter is expressing shock and surprise in this video by the way.

Israel had a media blockade in the whole of Gaza. Al-Arabiya is based in Dubai Media City. There are no studios in a war zone, reporters take position in any available place.

Many Arab reporters were killed in Iraq because they refused to abide by report restrictions imposed on them, Al Arabiya seen its reporters killed in Iraq for non-sectarian reportage, Al Jazeera lost cameramen in vague circumstances when a A-10 fired on it's position.

The Youtube channel this comes from is full of anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel clips and shit. Hardly objective either.

>> ^MINK:
^the invasion itself is what he did, forcing far too many civilians to move, or die, or live without water for days, or be accidentally bombed and killed, or be recruited into terrorist forces that you would call patriots if the situation were reversed.
i know bulldozering graves is a sick image, but just try to imagine a starving baby that had plenty of food before the invasion, and think about how you would assess world politics if you were the father.


That doesn't overwhelm the starving babies from before the invasion that died of malnutrition in their mothers arms in Saddam's concentration camps. Their father's never had a chance to re-assess world politics though as they were executed before they had the chance.

I'm sorry if that sounds calloused about the current plight of Iraqi's, it honestly isn't meant to be. The conditions there ARE still horrific, and for many are worse than before the invasion. But no longer is it because their own leadership is actively trying to starve or kill them.

It is the terrible sectarian violence and hatred causing the grief, and blaming that on the invasion is damagingly naive. The decades of brutal repression and encouragement of sectarian hatred that Saddam imposed did infinitely more to create the hate that is the problem in Iraq today. It's not as though Shia and Sunni factions were dancing in the streets holding hands before the invasion turned them into mortal enemies. America's greatest guilt in all of it is not the invasion, but the decades of support given to Saddam prior to the 90's.

>> ^Throbbin:
What is it about you Paultards?
This schiff dude predicted it - that IS pretty impressive.
However, so many people have formed a cult around Paul and Schiff. This is not healthy.
Much like the pacificists(looking at you MINK), there is a dramatic and substantial difference between idealogical merit and practical application. The world is too messy to allow for it.
But I guess it's ok on the internet?...


I'm guessing you're referring to military spending, so I'll just leave you to it. It's not like it's even possible to continue doing it, it will either end voluntarily or involuntarily, there's simply no way to fund it without hyperinflation. I'm personally satisfied with nuclear arms, no country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. 9/11 was a poor man's stunt that we should be blaming on our own ineptitude. We were lazy on intel, there were no plane sheriffs, and cockpits had no barricades. If any one of those had been addressed, it would have failed.

Keep on believing that "national defense" is Americans sacrificing their kids to defend countries other than America, buddying up with some dictators and overthrowing others, and building bases around the world. As for psychopaths, have fun spending trillions to play terrorist whack-a-mole where your collateral damage produces more terrorists than it kills. That's exactly what Bin Laden wanted, he can inflict so much more damage and recruit so many more people if we're mired in sectarian Islamic strife.

Killing over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians and creating 3,000,000 Iraqi refugees does not really seem like a fair trade for saving "Kurdistan" which America never meant to do in the first place and still doesn't really give a fuck about.


I'd like to see the source for your numbers, the Iraqi Ministry of Health estimates less than 200-300 thousand violence related deaths since the war began. Even the Lancet survey covering ALL deaths since the invasion estimates under 700,000 deaths.


For starters, lets assume your numbers are bang on. 3 million refugees since the war began is an improvement, as the entire Kurdish population were fighting for their lives to maintain even a refugee like lifestyle. That's 4-6 million right there alone. So the refugee situation in Iraq is better now than under Saddam.

1 million civilian deaths simply has to include ALL deaths and is the highest estimate that anyone has made. If you want to assume the highest estimates are right, at least 1.3 million were killed under Saddam. The numbers of course don't tell the whole story. The deaths attributed to Saddam are of direct executions, many of them buried in mass graves that are still being dug up. From the Lancet study(the highest reported deaths I can find at 700-800 thousand) includes "the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.)." I really needn't point out the importance that difference should make.

Lastly, the majority of deaths in Iraq now are a direct result of the sectarian hatred and resulting violence. Can you in good conscience tell me that hatred wasn't worsening every day under Saddam far more than it has since his removal? Saddam used that hatred to his advantage throughout his entire reign, and the American contribution to it has been through incompetent efforts to lessen it.

>> ^rougy:
"We're never leaving Iraq and if we did, it would be an even bigger disaster."
That's a conventional bit of wisdom that is often repeated but has little basis in reality.


Really? So your saying Sunnis and Shias will stop trying to kill each other if only the Americans leave the country? I think I'd go further than Ryjkyj and say that leaving Saddam in power was also a bigger disaster.

He without question fueled the sectarian violence far worse than the Americans have because that was in many ways his goal. And that isn't even talking about his campaign to entirely eliminate the Kurdish people. I think that the mass graves of Northern Iraq are now being dug up in stead of filled up is justification enough for Saddam's removal. How much responsibility the US had in removing him is debatable, but doing it was for the greater good of humanity. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of Saddam's Al-Anfal campaign and countless other atrocities.

>> ^burdturgler:
Read the post right above yours
"...democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state..."
That would be terrorism in relation to Islam, not domestic terrorism like Timothy McVeigh, etc.
And it needs to be part of the content of the video.


Oops sry, didn't read the paragraph closely enough.

Read the post right above yours
"...democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state..."
That would be terrorism in relation to Islam, not domestic terrorism like Timothy McVeigh, etc.
And it needs to be part of the content of the video.