"After 9/11: Literature, Arts, and Ethics in the Age of Terror" is a team-taught, interdisciplinary course run by Paul Lauritzen and Philip Metres at John Carroll University, at the 10th anniversary year of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
President Obama's Nobel Prize Speech
Here is a video of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech. The first 15 minutes are particularly relevant to our discussion this week.
I was surprised at how much i liked Obama's speech. He really kept my interested and got me to think about what the US's role is in the world. He really described well how war has changed from a just war into a war without boundaries. Where more civilians are killed than soldiers. I really felt his speech justified the course of action he took. To say the least he is very persuading. Overall, i ended up watching the whole speech, not just the first 15 minutes and i found it very interesting. I think the debate is still going to continue as our world and idea of war continues to change. I'm still on the fence when it comes to how large of a role the US should play in the rest of the worlds problems.
I am not to usually like speeches by presidents because most of the time it seems as if it’s not them reading a speech. They usually have someone else write it for them. But this one is different than other speeches. I actually remember watching this before when he gave this speech. I love how in his acceptance speech he still turned it into a speech of “just war”. I also like that it is funny that he is accepting a NOBEL for peace, he also points that out that it is very unusual. Like Jon said, war is not army against army anymore. People need to take in account the civilians. The one thing I found interesting was that he gave justice to fighting an unknown group of terrorists and why people should care about a fight on terror. The thing that helps them out is that they are able to do a lot more by technological advances. A small group with a ton of anger and the access to technology can do a massive amount of harm against people. WE may win a war or anyone may win a war but you will still leave the men, the women, the children of that nation scarred for life. There truly is no winning in war. He says EVIL does exist in the world. EVIL is such a broad definition. Each person sees what applies to that word as something different. I don’t agree with how he used our veterans to gain sympathy for why the US should get involved. I believe the way he said it, it was smart. No one would disagree but if you have to do that to gain peoples backing that the US has been involved in keeping peace for the past 6 or so decades. When he said War is sometimes necessary, what describes when it is not necessary or when you are just war hungry because we are so use to it? What justifies war? Especially when Obama just said that he has the right to act unilaterally when our nation is in harm. There needs to be a check to what is going to happen.
After listening to President Obama's speech, I can't say anything else but I agree. I came into the video with an open mind with no expectations to the speech. At the end, it was more than I could ask for. It was almost if the President through out all the gratitude and acknowledgments from the people and got straight down to business. He accepted the applauds but understood there was a greater task at hand. He wanted to get the point across that sometimes that there is a need for violence to ensure the peace. Like Chad stated, I want to understand what makes a war necessary and what doesn't. With that, I would like to know what makes the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq necessary, not saying i dont agree with them, I just want to know the reasoning. Hopefully, President Obama remembers what he spoke about during this speech because right now I feel like we do not need to make any irrational decisions, but to remember what the greater task is at hand and that is peace.
I was surprised at how much i liked Obama's speech. He really kept my interested and got me to think about what the US's role is in the world. He really described well how war has changed from a just war into a war without boundaries. Where more civilians are killed than soldiers. I really felt his speech justified the course of action he took. To say the least he is very persuading. Overall, i ended up watching the whole speech, not just the first 15 minutes and i found it very interesting. I think the debate is still going to continue as our world and idea of war continues to change. I'm still on the fence when it comes to how large of a role the US should play in the rest of the worlds problems.
ReplyDeleteI am not to usually like speeches by presidents because most of the time it seems as if it’s not them reading a speech. They usually have someone else write it for them. But this one is different than other speeches. I actually remember watching this before when he gave this speech. I love how in his acceptance speech he still turned it into a speech of “just war”. I also like that it is funny that he is accepting a NOBEL for peace, he also points that out that it is very unusual. Like Jon said, war is not army against army anymore. People need to take in account the civilians. The one thing I found interesting was that he gave justice to fighting an unknown group of terrorists and why people should care about a fight on terror. The thing that helps them out is that they are able to do a lot more by technological advances. A small group with a ton of anger and the access to technology can do a massive amount of harm against people. WE may win a war or anyone may win a war but you will still leave the men, the women, the children of that nation scarred for life. There truly is no winning in war. He says EVIL does exist in the world. EVIL is such a broad definition. Each person sees what applies to that word as something different. I don’t agree with how he used our veterans to gain sympathy for why the US should get involved. I believe the way he said it, it was smart. No one would disagree but if you have to do that to gain peoples backing that the US has been involved in keeping peace for the past 6 or so decades. When he said War is sometimes necessary, what describes when it is not necessary or when you are just war hungry because we are so use to it? What justifies war? Especially when Obama just said that he has the right to act unilaterally when our nation is in harm. There needs to be a check to what is going to happen.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to President Obama's speech, I can't say anything else but I agree. I came into the video with an open mind with no expectations to the speech. At the end, it was more than I could ask for. It was almost if the President through out all the gratitude and acknowledgments from the people and got straight down to business. He accepted the applauds but understood there was a greater task at hand. He wanted to get the point across that sometimes that there is a need for violence to ensure the peace. Like Chad stated, I want to understand what makes a war necessary and what doesn't. With that, I would like to know what makes the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq necessary, not saying i dont agree with them, I just want to know the reasoning. Hopefully, President Obama remembers what he spoke about during this speech because right now I feel like we do not need to make any irrational decisions, but to remember what the greater task is at hand and that is peace.
ReplyDelete