and were did you hear/read this information?

Lol, I don't think so. He deserves to be kicked from office more than he deserves a prize. I'm gonna stop talking now, I tend to get pretty aggressive when talking about obama.

Well, first, we need to examine some things, don't you think?

1) What were the ACTUAL REASONS he was awarded the prize, rather than some hasty remarks from someone who apparently seems completely biased?

2) Who were the others that were being considered for the prize, if that was even announced?

3) What are the actual qualifications for getting the prize?

4) Out of the others who were nominated, who truly deserved it more?

Until these questions are answered, I'll stand over here, not leaning either way, Nya~.

NO, NO he does not. we need a better leader, a less reckless one.

warmaker : It's worth noting that very few of those things happened by the time he was awarded the prize back in 2009 and that there have been a total of 310 drone strikes under the Obama Administration as of today.

MegaRevolution1 : 1) The official reasons for the prize were "Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a 'new climate' in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world." Additionally, Thorbjørn Jagland, one of the members of the Nobel Committee, said, "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do."

2) There were 205 nominees in total. The full list won't be released until 2059, but it's known that civil rights activists from China and Afghanistan as well as politicians from Africa were among the nominees. A sample of the speculated nominees include Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba, Afghanistan's Sima Samar, Chinese dissident Hu Jia, and Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Morgan Tsvangirai.

3) As stated by Alfred Nobel, the prize goes to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." In practice, though, the prize often goes to people who have just started to make accomplishments with the intent of helping further accomplishments to be made.

4) Since the other nominees are kept secret for now, we can only guess about which deserved it more. Personally, I would have liked to see Sima Samar get it for her women's rights and overall human rights leadership in Afghanistan, but perhaps she wasn't actually a nominee or maybe there was somebody even more deserving.


So, with all that said, I think Obama was an alright choice at the time and not particularly different compared to past laureates, but I would have preferred it if somebody else got it. "Peace" in this context isn't strictly defined as pure non-violence, and many other Nobel Peace Prize laureates have been involved in wars and whatnot (for example, Woodrow Wilson won the prize despite being the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces during World War I), so I don't think his recent actions invalidate his prize, especially considering the fact that the global community usually supports counter-terrorism measures if they believe they're for the greater good, especially in the case of Osama bin Laden's death.

Ah, then I guess he was a fair choice then. Plus, I'm sure the ones that could be considered better nominees will definitely get their time in the years to come, Nya~.

Also, lol at all the Anti-Obama hate. That's all I can really say without getting into a huge rant. :V

yeh when he got it he was full of fire to make changes, some were made but he failed to push others through congress and ultimately i think its worn him down.
Compared to every president since ww2 though, hes an absolute pacifist. I think it was a tactical move to encourage the usa.
Europe is bickering a lot about the recession and we got the nobel peace prize this time, same deal, to encourage the current path.

He is the best president you ever had.

But no, he didn`t really deserve it. It was given to him way too early. For you see, the rest of the world, we kind of thought he would end all the madness after the W. regime and we could deal with America that would be more sane and run by somebody who was not an ex-cockehead fratboy who only cared about what his buddies in the big business and in skulls and bones wanted him to do. Have mercy, the guy could barely put together one coherent sentence together on his own and acted like he was in some bad cowboy movie.

Well, Obama gave lots of big speeches and words like all politicians do and giving him the Nobel peace prize, it was kind of just a handshake as in "we know you are going to do the right thing". Which he didn`t or could not do.

And to give a peace prize anyway to a leader of a country that is in prepetual war anyway was kind of weird.

Does Obama deserve peace prize? No
Does Obama deserve to be man of the year twice on time magazine? No
Does Obama deserve to live in mansion, take vacations, and play hot potato with your rights? No
Does Obama deserve to strut around lieing to Americans? No

But he does it anyway and gets rewarded for it.

JigSaw : I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you for making the post of the day.

So, yeah, of course he doesn't deserve it. (Don't think I should say this, but here it goes) He's killed too many jobs to be awarded the peace prize.

And I probably won't respond to any replies, to let you all know. Not gonna get into a Internet debate again. 

I like how people are so eager to criticize Obama as being "violent" but turn a blind eye to how Bush decided to go attack Iraq for no real reason when he was in office.

Yes, Obama ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden. Are you complaining? I thought most people were happy to know that man was dead. Do we not remember 9/11? How many American lives were lost on American soil because of the plots of bin Laden?

And Bush supposedly waged his "War on Terror" that never actually did a thing to target bin Laden, but instead went and attacked an unrelated country (Iraq) to kill Saddam Hussein. Now I'm not saying that that Hussein was a good guy by any means. Yes, he was a terrible dictator... but what exactly did he do to us? Nothing as far as I know. Bin Laden at least was responsible for the deaths of our citizens.

Before you attack Obama for his so-called violent actions, I hope you're ready to admit that Bush did a LOT worse. His half-baked "War on Terror" lead to the death of innocent Iraqis as well as needless deaths of many American soldiers who had no business being there. Obama's attack on bin Laden was clean and efficient. He was sniped. We didn't lose soldiers in that operation. We didn't kill extra people in that operation. We just got the job done.

And you're really bugged that he didn't stand trial? Do you think he would have ever surrendered to anyone so we could take him in and sentence him anyway? That's an absurd notion. When dangerous criminals resist arrest, they get shot. That's just how it works. Doing things any other way puts more lives at danger. If they wanted a fair trial, they should submit to the authorities and allow such a thing to occur.

patar4097 :

Sure, it must be hard to have to present some facts and justify an opinion on a discussion board but very easy to ragequit before actually having an actual discussion. But sure,we are all friends here. No biggie.

Obama raided a compound on foreign soil (that is called terrorism), killed Osama, disposed evidence by dumping him in sea like a mob would dump a murder victim off a bridge into a river. That is an act of a criminal not a peace prize winner.

Bush blamed an innocent man and started an illegal war over it and covered it up.
Obama illegally invaded foreign territory and killed an innocent man and covered it up.

Both are criminals.

Osama did not kill 3000 Americans himself, he could have conspired too. But that is no different then Obama and Bush conspiring to kill hundreds of thousands in iraq which would make them all one in the same, criminals not peace prize winners.

Fact that Osama death was a cover up leads to more proof that 9/11 was one as well. People who cover up murder are criminals, in this case its safe to say we are being run by them. It couldn't be any more apparent then now to realize who is playing who here.

For all we know, the peace prize awards are run by criminals as well. And it probably goes deeper then that but I'll leave it up to Jesse Ventura to investigate lmfao

I don't think any politician should get peace prize, especially the president. That is a very dirty job especially when half the country hates you and finds dirt about everything you do in and out of office.

JigSaw :
Im pretty sure they dumped him in the deep briney to stop his grave becoming a shrine.
Whos the "innocent" man.
And who did 911 then? The government?

thenumberone : Osama is the innocent man, I'll even quote Osama himself:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."

"Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

"They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance."

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom."

"The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people."

warmaker : The things you've listed didn't become relevent until after the prize had been awarded. Obama wouldn't have been my first choice, but I understand why they chose him. The commission certainly could have done worse, so overall it was an ok decision.

Obama's Prize is yet another nail in the coffin of the noble Nobel (!) organization. Peace Prizes were given to people doing ANYTHING but promoting peace (Al Gore, IPCC, Yasser Arafat), and Economics prizes were given to people believing that the Broken Window Fallacy is a recipe for economic growth (like Krugman).