I wonder how our President can accept the peace prize and then cite an argument for just war?! I personally feel his decision to increase troops was morally bankrupt. A more peaceful approach would have been to refuse the prize.
Now our prez did close Guantanamo and he has laid down a progressive plan for peace, but I think the two wars he has inherited make it a prickly predicament.
Is Obama a war mongerer? Does he feel a little aggressive push is necessary to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is violence ever necessary?
His decision to enact violence is not necessarily unethical. Even Gandhi and King understood violence is necessary to enact change. Violence in some order can bring about peace - even the non-violent violence that encouraged civil rights and brought down the monarchy in India was in my opinion ethical violence. The violence of WWII took the lives of millions of more civilians than any other war this past century. Democracy does not deplore that war.
If our president wants to make a change in our world through violence he needs to enact violence in other sectors to secure peace:
Reasons for "just war" in other regions besides the Middle East:
Labels: afghanistan, iraq, just war, middle east, obama, peace prize, politics, U.S. Presidents, war
I am an educator and a writer. I was born in Louisiana and I now live in the Big Apple. My heart beats to the rhythm of "Ain't No Place to Pee on Mardi Gras Day". My style is of the hot sauce variety. I love philosophy sprinkles and a hot cup of café au lait.