Obama wins Nobel peace prize

[sumob]

well, if you really feel that way, then you can have him...!

No way we will not be able to pay for the Telepromptors used by the man.

[nebula82]

A complete joke. Even for a political award this is still very premature.

At this rate the Nobel committee will find some way to award Mugabe with the peace prize!;)

Maybe if Obama solves the Iraq & Afghanistan quagmires, achieves something with his nuclear disarmament goal, etc., then MAYBE down the road history will justify this award, but that’s a big IF.

Nebula82.

[nebula82]

President Obama sure is getting a lot of publicity following this issue.

Yesterday my 5 year old kid when asked to name the President of india promptly replied Obama and even when corrected refused to accept that Obama was not the President of India.

Seems nothing he does can dent his popularity a significant amount.

Nebula82.

[nebula82]

And only three more years to go!!:(:(

Obama still has plenty of time to steer his ship back on the right course. IMO it’s time to get rid of the czars, and start governing from the center, or center-left.

He’s not done anything un-American, nor has his administration done anything as outrageous as Bush's mismanagement of the Iraq war (in the beginning).

IMO Obama will never sink to the incompetent depths that Bush did.

Nebula82.

[reasonmclucus]

President Barack Obama should have followed the example set by North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho in 1973 and refused the Nobel Peace Prize. Many are criticizing the decision to award Obama the Peace Prize. This isn't the first controversial decision by the Nobel committee.

It is inconceivable that the Commander in Chief of a nation whose troops are actively engaged in armed combat should be awarded a peace prize. I happen to support the U.S. role in both conflicts, but recognize that involvement in war is inconsistent with receiving the Nobel Prize.

If Obama has made an "extraordinary effort" for peace, why are Americans still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? How is the practice of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an example of "reaching out" to the Muslim world? Is the Nobel Prize Committee demonstrating racism by seemingly suggesting that the killing of Muslims is insignificant?

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war. Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible, but peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

The Nobel Committee awarded the 1973 Peace Prize to Tho and Henry Kissinger for the work on the Paris Peace Agreement designed to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Tho refused to accept the award because he realized his nation had not abandoned its goal of uniting Vietnam by force if necessary. Kissinger initially accepted it but subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to return it.

Tho and Kissinger at least had done something that could qualify them for consideration. Obama has done nothing but talk.

Obama has not ended any war as President Theodore Roosevelt had when Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for helping negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Many questioned the decision to give the award to Roosevelt because American military forces were dealing with a violent rebellion in the Philippines.

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war. Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible, but peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

President Obama should not accept a Peace Prize so long as these conflicts are going on.

[JAD_333]

President Barack Obama should have followed the example set by North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho in 1973 and refused the Nobel Peace Prize. Many are criticizing the decision to award Obama the Peace Prize. This isn't the first controversial decision by the Nobel committee.

It is inconceivable that the Commander in Chief of a nation whose troops are actively engaged in armed combat should be awarded a peace prize. I happen to support the U.S. role in both conflicts, but recognize that involvement in war is inconsistent with receiving the Nobel Prize.

If Obama has made an "extraordinary effort" for peace, why are Americans still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? How is the practice of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an example of "reaching out" to the Muslim world? Is the Nobel Prize Committee demonstrating racism by seemingly suggesting that the killing of Muslims is insignificant?

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war. Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible, but peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

The Nobel Committee awarded the 1973 Peace Prize to Tho and Henry Kissinger for the work on the Paris Peace Agreement designed to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Tho refused to accept the award because he realized his nation had not abandoned its goal of uniting Vietnam by force if necessary. Kissinger initially accepted it but subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to return it.

Tho and Kissinger at least had done something that could qualify them for consideration. Obama has done nothing but talk.

Obama has not ended any war as President Theodore Roosevelt had when Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for helping negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Many questioned the decision to give the award to Roosevelt because American military forces were dealing with a violent rebellion in the Philippines.

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war. Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible, but peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

President Obama should not accept a Peace Prize so long as these conflicts are going on.

The peace prize committee erred in awarding the prize to Obama. They did so on the basis of his stated approach to lessening tensions between the US and its current crop of adversaries. The committee sought also to hold his feet to the fire--keep him on the course he set soon after being sworn in, a course in sharp contrast to the previous administration, which all goes to show us that the perception of progress is relative.

But as to refusing the award, Obama's advisers would be likely to point out several downsides. 1) It would raise the question whether he is really interested in peace; 2) It would deny him the prestige the prize carries when he participates in international peace discussions; 3) It would place achievement over effort as a qualification to win the prize; and 4) It would insult the Nobel Prize committee. Admittedly, some of these considerations are small potatoes. IMO he should have turned it down, saying it's too early to judge his performance. Had he done so, I think he would have gained more respect internationally.

[Julie]

I can't believe the things that fall in that man's lap just because people "like" him. Geez. The many people that have worked endless hours in negotiations for peace, I would imagine, feel pretty invisible right now.