Because, like the awards to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, it is in part another chance to reward an American for NOT being GW Bush. The Nobel Committee didn’t think bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, rescuing them from oppressive regimes, and (in Afghanistan) rescuing women from literal slavery justified Mr. Bush’s methods. Like or dislike Mr Bush, his stance that there is right and wrong polarized opinion about him. Both those who were for or against his definition of right and wrong but also those who fear the possibility that there is no gray area for them to operate in. If you haven’t guessed I respect love Jesus, the USA, and approve of Mr. Bush.

Awarded a prize for essentially doing nothing other than verbalizing what he’d like the world to be makes the award itself a sham. Also, to award the “PEACE” prize to a man from a country whose miltary is deployed around the world killing their fellow man based upon HIS orders, irrespective of his verbalized ideals, makes the award a meaningless.

I think he was nominated because of the rush of hope that he brought to the world just by being elected. I think he received it because he has greatly improved the atmosphere between the US and the rest of the world and is engaged on several fronts to try to improve relations between nations around the world. This is a man who cares what the world thinks and about the well-being of those who are not exactly like him.

He got the prize as a result of politics on the part of the Nobel Committee, not because he has done anything to deserve it. Giving the prize to Obama when there are so many individuals who has really sacrificed to help others is a slap in the face for their efforts. It cheapens the prize and makes the committee look goofy. But it falls right in line with other recipients like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yasar Arafat. I agree that disarmament is a great idea, now all you have to do is convince the Iranians who want to vaporize the Israelis; convince the North Koreans that they should feed their people instead of building missiles; convince the Sudanese Muslims that they shouldn’t kill or enslave Sudanese Christians, and keep Chicago teens from beating each other to death. In regard to the last question, what world peace? It does not exist.

The Committee has cheapened and made a mockery out of a once “noble” award so that it is no longer meaningful. All he has done is run his mouth rather than do anything meaningful. Promises from an “Empty Suit” will not change the world for the better, just engender anger from those he has conned.

I believe that Obama should not have received the award, even though I am a very liberal Democrat. It’s much too early in his presidency to determine if any of his major efforts in the middle east, etc, will bear positive fruit. Additionally, I don’t see how carrying on two separate wars, which are both hopeless, qualifies one for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The award in recent years has been used to encourage behavior of which the committee approves. Gore for wanting to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor (and taking a percentage of course), Carter and Arafat for being anti-Israel. With Obama’s award, it is to applaud his apology tour and subjugating the customs and beliefs of the US to those of the global elite. If our president ever decides to stand up for his country instead of spitting on it, the dons of Stockholm will drop him faster than you can say “George W. Bush”

Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a President that is about to increase troops to Afghanistan when there is no war plan is a joke.

Will Obama be able to fill his own shoes?