why do u hate MOTGAN TSVANGARI with a passion, he's a good man, he wants whats best for the people dying of hunger in Zimbabwe,

From AP News : "In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses"

Please show me the standing armies that the following recipients have reduced or abolished. What does the "spreading of peace congresses"
sound like, or working for fraternity between nations mean? Clearly, you think you understand the charter better than the Nobel Peace prize
committee.

# 2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
# 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
# 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
# 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
# 2004 - Wangari Maathai
# 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
# 2002 - Jimmy Carter
# 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
# 2000 - Kim Dae-jung
# 1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
# 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
# 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
# 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
# 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
# 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
# 1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
# 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi

IMHO aside from his efforts to re-brand America to look better than a bully nation, that visit to Egypt, France, Ghana etc and the speeches He delivered during those trips just bumped him further up in line for the price prize.

wtf what has the man done is les than one yr

thameamead:


why do u hate MOTGAN TSVANGARI with a passion, he's a good man, he wants whats best for the people dying of hunger in Zimbabwe,

What exactly did he do ? Isn't he still satisfied with the pain and suffering, since they've given him a position ? what exactly has he done as prime minister ?  post his resume

_{I see no difference between him and Mugabe}.

^search me o! Rosabelle thinks the guy is was a favorite. Favorite to loose if you ask me!
@Rosabelle, where is that your favorite nominee I asked you to choose nau or have you lost your spice?

naijacann:

@Radiant
If fighting terrorism wouldnt bring peace, I wonder what else it would bring.
If enthroning democracy wouldnt bring peace, I wonder what else it would lead to.
How can you award such prestigious (now highly ridiculous) honour to a man who has just
spent barely 12 days in office? Remember the nominations ended feb. 1 and so, he hasnt even done anything
yet as at when he was nominated. To use the word 'ridiculous', would certainly be an understatement.

What did Bush achieve in 8 years? War upon war! Be honest pls.

Well deserved. But i must add that Obama has not achieve anything to provoke this award

yeswecan:

Well deserved. But i must add that Obama has not achieve anything to provoke this award

So, how does he "deserve" it

@Radiant

Oh come on, u stop talking like a child and sounding ridiculous.
Was  it not under Bush that America had the lowest unemployment  rate in 30 years of under 4.6% in 2007?
Was it not under Bush that seniors started enjoying free health care benefits and prescription drugs?
Was it not under Bush that 50 million Moslems in Iraq and Afganistan were liberated, even though someone like u feels the Taliban should still be governing the Afghans and Sadam Hussein, still hanging his own people.
Was it not under Bush that a bill was sent to the democrat contolled congress in 2007 to regulate the financial institutions so as to avert this financial calamity that later befell the world, and your current pres, Obama,joined nacy pelosi and other democrats to defeat the bill(and they are naw blaming bush for the financial melt down).

Did clinton not go to war? He fought 2 wars(kososvo and cold war with borris yeltson of russia), read ya history. I hate it when people argue without regard to the facts.
Did Bush not inherit OBLaden from Clinton? Wat did Clinton do to capture and kill the man when he had him encircled? He decided to look the other way.
How many times was America and America's intererst attacked under Clinton? More than 6 times--- the first world trade center bombing in Feb 23 1993,  Kohbar tower bombing in 1995, Oklahoma city bombing april 19, 1995; US  embassy Nairobi kenya and dares salem tanzania  bombing Aug 7, 1998(2 bombings in a day); USS cole navy destroyer bombing on oct 12, 2000, and many other terror attacks on US during clinton, including the planning of the 9-11.

What did clinton do to stop them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, just because he wanted to be seen as the darling of the europeans, who wants a weaker america; and this weakness certainly led to 9-11 by terrorists who miscalculated and thought that Bush was another weak Clinton. In going to war, bush decided to put a stop at these terro attacks. That was why neither america nor america's interests were attacked under his admin after 9-11, unlike wat obtained under clinton.
Do you know how much Bush gave to africa and african hospitals while in office? Has there been any man alive today who did even up to half of wat bush did for africa. Go to TANZANIA, ghana, ethiopia, benin, sierra leone(pple that manage grants well) and see how many lives bush saved because of his HIV initiative for africa. Do you know how many factories he helped set up there? Go to nigerian hospitals and ask them how they manage to get the expensive retroviral HIV meds and you'll understand wat I'm saying. Of course Bush wouldnt have had any reason for war if Clinton had done his job well. I laugh at times when i hear some people talk about the economy under clinton. If the conservatives and republicans hadnt kept him in check and on numerous occassions stopped him from raising taxes on americans, do u think clinton would have succeeded. Please, read your history and stop beign deceived by CNN and BBC

just like NIGGERS to pull down the success of another Black man.

and you wonder why your world (your mind) stay STUCK!

@Mandingo
I totally refuse to play this tried and failed race card that u're using. I know in your world, it is a crime for someone to say his/her mind, backed with facts,especially if what is being said is not in line with your belief. I just will not play this race card, I'm above it. I've decided to side with Martin Luther King that 'we should judge someone based on the content of his character and not from the color of his skin'.

@Naijacann, are you saying that by taking the war to the terrorist it will bring peace? You put some valid points but you like most people do not comprehend where these terrorists are coming from. All your points with the fight fire with fire solutions equals fighting the fire from the surface. This is what you should know: terrorists don't have a problem with America or Americans, these terrorists and their sponsors only hate US foreign policy. So whether it started with Bush, Clinton or the Snr Bush doesn't matter but Obama wants to change these policies and embrace the Muslim world. Did Bush win any of the wars he started in his 8 years- NO, he only made America more unpopular everywhere. Your points are valid but missing the crux.

@MUZBO
You also missed the point. You' re under the presumption that Bush hated Muslims, these are the major headlines u'll read and hear in CNN, BBC and MSNBC. I've consistently listened to Bush's remarks about Islam and he's just right on the point that Islam is a noble and peaceful religion. You also assume that Muslems hates Bush/America, I put it to you that that is absolutely not true. I have tens of muslem friends who tells me that the nonesense that Al Jazeera puts on air is mainly fuelling the fire and that they're sincerely happy with Bush for giving women and children the opportunity to live again in iraq and Afganistan. Your strength through peace thesis didnt work under Clinton. In fact the last time I checked, America has liberated more muslims than any other religious worshippers----going from their liberation of muslims in kosovo, first gulf war(where they stopped a tyrant from killing fellow muslems), 2nd gulf war and then Afganistan(where women were not even allowed to show their face let alone go to school)

If by policy, u presume that the attacks on america were mainly precipitated by america's support of israel, then u're definitely being naive. If u think it is because of the iraq or afghan war, then ure obviously wrong because america wasnt there prior to 9-11. These are monsters who wants to ensure than women dont get education, people's hands and heads are cut off for petty reasons, enthrone a singular religion and kill innocent people for no obvious reason. For me the best way to deal with them is to return their heartlessness and wickedness with bruth force, even though bush didnt go to such length. Trying to sweet talk them into changing their beliefs as Obama naively thinks he can do, is simply laughable.

Come to think of it, most muslim countries receive the largest share of America's yearly grants. Countries like egypt, indonesia, algeria, afghanistan, kuwait, kososvo, nigeria, pakistan, laos, karzistan, chad, yemen, qatar, etc are all either muslim countries or have high muslim population and all benefits from america's magnanimity running into billions of dollars. Now. if giving charitable developmental grants to these countries is not a good foreign policy, I wonder wat else is. The idea that we should disregard these positive aspects of help and focus on a few miscreants that aims to create harvoc on the world based on the false belief that they will be rewarded with 90 virgins in heaven, is just ridiculous.

@Naijacann, I never said Muslims hate Americans, in fact I said the exact opposite. And yes I know the grudge muslims in the middle east have against America is about their policy concerning Israel. Your pals saying Al Jazeera have not been sincere with their reporting apparently have got it twisted.
I once watched a piece of news simultaneously on both CNN and Al Jazeera and was soo amazed to see that the Pro-american sentiments by the demonstrating muslims were being reported by only Al Jazeera. Why CNN skipped that part still amazes me till today. I've been disillusioned by the news media so I take everything with a pinch of salt and draw my conclusions. Anti-american sentiments won't stop if the US continues to support Israeli propagation in palestine territories and taking the war to them won't solve anything.

@ MUZBO
Even though i dont agree with most of ure arguements, I sincerely respect your point of view.
I so much enjoy chatting with people like u who argue based on points and issues rather than calling others names.
A bottle of beer for that(LOL)

@Naijacann, thats cool. Lol. I admire your submission on this issue. Its true most people on NL fail to realise that we all have our own respective opinions and would rather resort to name calling to drive theirs. And truly some would disagree with a point and won't provide a better one. Its all good sha. Cheers!

@Muzbo,

@Naijacann, are you saying that by taking the war to the terrorist it will bring peace? You put some valid points but you like most people do not comprehend where these terrorists are coming from. All your points with the fight fire with fire solutions equals fighting the fire from the surface. This is what you should know: terrorists don't have a problem with America or Americans, these terrorists and their sponsors only hate US foreign policy. So whether it started with Bush, Clinton or the Snr Bush doesn't matter but Obama wants to change these policies and embrace the Muslim world. Did Bush win any of the wars he started in his 8 years- NO, he only made America more unpopular everywhere. Your points are valid but missing the crux.

I made a statement earlier which I'll repeat here.  I'll appreciate if you will point out its veracity or otherwise.  Peace is maintained in our world only through the instrumentality of force. This explains why every nation on earth has a police force.  The lack of such will bring anarchy to the nation.

Please be aware that Bush fought Al Quaeda on two fronts - militarily and ideologically.  This is to be expected because while some can be persuaded of the error of their ways, others will not stop from doing evil unless they are stopped through the use of force.  Bush's efforts are largely succesful which explains the following from the AP news this week - "U.S. national security adviser James Jones said last weekend that the al-Qaida presence has diminished, and he does not "foresee the return of the Taliban" to power.

He said that according to the maximum estimate, al-Qaida has fewer than 100 fighters operating in Afghanistan without any bases or ability to launch attacks on the West. - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLjgdXU8KLh71Hf-NLRD3a5NzT8gD9B5T9J00

Al Quadea is on the run not because of diplomacy but because of brute force.  As Naijacann eloquently mentioned before, Al Quaeda and their threat grew under Clinton but have been diminishing since Bush took them on.  This is a fact!

@TAYO-D
I say GBAM!. I concur.

God! I miss Becomerich's satelitte intervention to establish the correct coordinates that made Obama win the Nobel prize. Becomerich. Hear me out and stop the noise on this thread with at least a Nobel prize evidentiary map.

POST

He won so what??

whats all the unnecessary hate for too??

abeggi congrats to Barack oo jare!!

@tayo, first let me say your analogy with police force and all doesn't handle this bone of contention. When there's a war the police is useless and they'd retreat until soldiers calm things and hand back to them. Then more importantly, you should know that the war on terror is not a conventional war. The terrorists are not following any rules of engagement because they have no alliances/allegiance except as they claim- to God. So if you expect that killing all the Afghans will bring peace to the US I'll tell you right now that that's wishful thinking. The problems are fundamental and while the Taliban may be dying, Islam is growing. If the new generation of muslims see the war as against them then tell me: will the war ever end? How much can America handle? If they spend a million on the war on terror they'd have to spend almost as much on National security.
I don't know much about economics but I am convinced that Bush's outrageous expenditure on wars put America and thus the world in this financial meltdown of a thing. I don't even have to think too hard before I put 2 and 2 together and make the connections. Face it, taking the war to the terrorists will only fuel the crisis. Obama knows this.

@MUZBO
I really laughed when i read ya sentence that taking the war to the terrorists is not the solution.
I guess the solution is by allowing the terrorists to bring the war to us,so dat we can always be on the defence; LOL

the US president wins nobel prize, everyone is surprised, many ask how did he deserve it, but most are happy for him. they all congratulate him. except, Hamas, Taliban, Tayo D and Kobjunkie. . . . and the hotheaded republicans in the US. . . . .

recently i've been really mad at this barrack of a guy for being delusional in hoping for bipartisanship, but i must throway my anger and congratulate him in this. and hopefully, with the reaction of the republicans, which tallies with the reaction of the taliban, he can at least forget those guys and act like a president and not a candidate.

why all the issue of how did he deserve it? let me see. . . first of all, we are not the nobel organization and we don't know how they are chosen, and we dont have the right to disregard their choice anyway.

but this is what we know . . . . in 1919 when woodrow wilson won the prize, the league of nations had not been ratified in the US senate, it failed, it did not succeed in preventing war between nations, but it didnt stop them from giving him the prize for his efforts . . . .to be continued

in 1934 arthur henderson won the prize for his role in the disarmamnet of the world. that did not stop the germans from arming themselves and goin on the hit the world with another war. but arthur won the prize all the same

in 1935 carl von ossietzky won the prize for the efforts of his magazine which attacked nazi germany, but nazi germany were not stopped by him but by american GIs and their allies. yet he took the prize. and nobody complained

1946 emily greene balch won the prize for her role in ''women international league for peace and freedom'' . today 63 yrs later, millions of women around the world can only dream of freedom. but she won the prize, and nobody complained.

1960, albert luthuli won it, for his struggle against apatheid south africa. apartheid di not fall for another 40yrs. yet he won it. nobody cried foul.

1973, henry kissinger, for ''attempting to bring cease fire in vietnam and withdrawal of american troops'' , the vietnam war lasted a few more yrs and was brought to an end by new president gerrard ford. yet he won it and nobody complained

1975 andrei dmitrievich sahkarov, for his struggle for human rights, for disarmament, and for cooperation between all nations. you and I know how far with disarmament today, more countries are still building nuclear weapons, india and pakistan got new ones, yet this dude won the prize and nobody complained

1982 alva midal, disarmamnet, the world today still has nuclear weapons, more than in 1982, yet he won the prize
1984, desmond tutu, apatheid remained for many more yrs , yet he took the prize
1989 dalai lama, tibet is still struggling and he is still in the fight for their freedom. yet he took the prize 20yrs ago

i can go on and on to show that people get this prize not necessarily b/c of what they have achieved, but also their attitude towards an existing problem, and their contribution so far. there are various factors, we do not know it all, but whoever wins it, deserves some congratulations.

2009, barrack hussein obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples . . .

who can deny that he has not made extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy? which american president has ever gone to a muslim country to make a major speech telling the muslims that israel has a right to exist. which US president has ever put it straight to israel that they have to stop the expansion of the settlements which fuels the anger that fuels the violence. at the same time he has taken on the russians and increased diplomacy and nuclear disarmination with the russians and chinese. he may not be the best candidate for the peace prize, but nobdy can say who is the best candidate for peace prize. he won it, we should be happy for him. if tayo and kobojunkie are not happy, they can as well join rush limbaugh and the taliban to go to hell . .

i'm happy for him , i'm even happier to see that the republican hotheads opposed it (people who were happy when chicago lost the olympics) hope he'll be able to see that the republicans will never negotiate with him on anything. then he can damn them and do his thing while he is still president and stop fooling around with tv shows

@PRES-ELECT
U still missed the point. How could he had made all these 'extraordinary efforts' that u alluded to under 12 days into his admisnistration?
Remember he was nominated in feb, barely 11 or 12 days after his swearing in. All those other guys u mentioned had spent considerable amount
of time on their positions trying to make those impacts. I strongly believe they gave it to him, just because he is not Bush, period. They chose aspirations over accomplishments and it makes a mockery of the nobel peace award.

he made it clear he was ready to talk to iran. he addressed them as the islamic republic of iran.iran is the ''hottest'' diplomatic topic of today. his diplomatic gestures made a sound impact all over the world except in the US and taliban. it may have meant have meant nothing to you, but it meant a lot to Oslo. they decided to give it to him, e dey vex you? go get ya own. history has placed him at the side of nobel peace prize winners

neither woodrow wilson, nor mikhail gobachev were glorified by their country when they won the stuff. so i'm not surprised if republicans repudiate his victory. he did not campaign for it, he did not lobby for it, he did not expect it, it was not in his agenda, he woke up one morning to hear that it was given to him. what do you want him to do, throw it away? no way. he owns it, it's his. i cannot debate those who do the selection. these people have been doing this thing before my grandfather was born, so relax. leave him alone,

anyway you guys dont matter , the guy has his prize. he has promised to give the money to charity, i hope its from his heart and not an attempt to please the hotheads.

obamas award came as a surprise to him . He is the 3rd sitting US President to receive the award. does he really deserve it and what are his achievements?

get the full gist at

www.current-newsevents..com

I think based on the area of International Diplomacy he deserves it. Besides Obama came at a time when the whole world desperately 1ted a change in Bush Admin.

amazing what happened within 8 years.

na so e be.

nothing new anyway.