Obama's Nobel war prize speech.

It was a good speech, but not good enough. President Obama still appears to justify war as a means of problem solving.

My greatest disappointment in his speech was his failure to make a clear distinction regarding the use of force. For it is the difference between the “force of law” and the “law of force” is the difference between night and day, good and evil, right and wrong.
There should be no doubt that “force” will be needed in conducting future aspects of foreign policy and national defense. But there should be no doubt that military force in the context of war will only reduce our nation’s security, for war itself justifies the killing of innocence. And, likewise, the use of force in the context of waging law, where the loss of innocent life is simply and profoundly unacceptable, will improve most aspects of our nation’s security. Laws are made to protect the innocent. Wars are waged knowing they will be killed.
War is obsolete. We just haven’t figured it out even though we know that ‘those who live by the sword die by it’. The law of force now puts biological weapons in the hands of all. And thus sets the stage for the meek inheriting the earth.
My favorite lines…and there were others I liked: “…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.” Barak Obama, Dec. 10, 2009, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.