How could they give the nobel pece prize to the leader of a country at war? and are also the biggest arms exporters in the world,supported Israel in the slaughter of innocent palestinians less than a year ago. ive nothing against obama,and he's a big improvement on bush ..... (well even Forrest Gump would be an improvement on him) but surely its premature to give it to him. imo
Was thinking exactly the same thing myself today ,it a real strange choice baffeled me thats for sure , what has he exactly done to deserve it?
Its a bit suspect alright, fair enough he closed Guantanemo, anything else hes doing is only in its early stages, if they come to pass, fair enough nominate then. Ghandi was nominated how many times 4/5 and never won it
The official line used is "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace. He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates. Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan. He is careful to say that America respects the cultures and traditions of others - again, trying to project the US as a defender not an aggressor. But he also wants to stand up for "universal values". It is a difficult balancing act. His statement that "America has never fought a war against a democracy" might raise the issue as to whether it has fought on the side of non-democracies. There was a mixed reaction when he was named as the winner of this year's prize, becoming the fourth US president to be given the honour. Mr Obama's elevation to the rank of fellow laureates such as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, before he has even spent a year in office, has sparked fierce debate. Critics also said it was inappropriate for the honour to go to the commander-in-chief of a country involved in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Acknowledging the controversy, Mr Obama said he accepted the award with humility, adding: "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize... my accomplishments are slight." He could not argue with those who said many previous laureates were "far more deserving" of the honour than him, he said. Defending his Afghan troop deployment, Mr Obama said there were times when "the use of force [was] not only necessary but morally justified," as long as force was proportionate and civilian casualties minimised. "Instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace", he said. "A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," he added. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." He said the US "must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war" to differentiate it from "a vicious adversary that abides by no rules". Mr Obama also emphasised alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of diplomacy and sanctions to confront nations like Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programmes. While Russia and America were working to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, he said the international community must ensure Tehran and Pyongyang did not "game the system". "Let us reach for the world that ought to be," Mr Obama said. "We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace." He paid tribute to anti-government demonstrators in Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe, and said the US would always stand on the side of those who sought freedom. Protests Some anti-war demonstrators gathered outside city hall, where the ceremony was held. "We are protesting against him because... we don't think he is a man of peace," one of them told AFP news agency. I think he has the same script writer as george dubya had. An absolute joke to award a peace prize to the commander in chief of the biggest aggressor on the world stage. Team America lives on.
The US is the biggest hypocrite of a nation in the world. All you ever hear from them is democracy this and democracy that, when in fact if any of the so called smaller nations like Bolivia try to set up a democratic Goverment the US will fund and train said nations military to overthrow it. Barack Obama should have not received this award until he pulled all the US troops out of Afghanistan & Iraq and stopped this illegal war (for oil).
Scandalous when ya think some of the people who have recieved it, Martin luther king, Mandela, Amnesty intl. I'd say Bill clinton did more for peace with the northern talks and middle east talks.
Its a disgrace of a decision and nothing more than an International popularity contest! He has done F-All to do with peace during his brief rein in charge. Promised alot but still awaiting delivery How the head Commander in Chief of a Military at war can receive this is beyond me!
It is strange that he received this considering is in office less than a year and so far has actually done nothing, he has talked the talk about peace but hasnt every leader, yet nothing has been done. What is he going to get if he actually follows through on anything. Its also amazing that in accepting a 'Peace' award he talked about War and Force being a good thing.
I agree with others that it might seem strange that he is getting this but I think its a sign that the international community want to laude him as a pece maker to veer him off the path of Bush....maybe that he has the award he might stay away from Iran and Korea.
Iran and Korea are a bit different though as they have WMDs and are flagrant abusers of human rights. When Dubya went into Afghanastan that was just a token attack for 9/11 all he wanted was Iraqs oil and to finish his daddys work there. Whatever about Iran the US wont go near Korea for 2 reasons, the first and most important one is they have nothing the US want to rob and the second is Kim Jong-il is a nutter and probably would start world war 3 which the US cant afford.
Alfred Nobel created dynamite so I would't hold the prize in much esteem. With regards Obama, last month he refused to meet arguably the most peaceful man on the planet - the Dalai Lama when he was receiving an award in Washington and he then tip toed around the issue of Tibet during his China visit. The man is not worthy of a peace prize as if he was the only city in Scandanavia he would be in this week is Copenhagen to put some life into the faltering climate change summit.