tpia.:

amazing what happened within 8 years.

na so e be.

nothing new anyway.

Hw do u mean?

naijacann:

@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

You can continue laughing o! The solution is the same thing Bush knew but was too shy to try: a change in US foreign policy. That is what Obama indicated he'll do and he was rewarded with a nobel before even starting. Its your thinking that he was given because he's not Bush that is funny. Haaaaaa!! lol.

naijacann:

@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 was nominated in Feb doesn't mean he was awarded the prize in Feb. According to the Nobel Committee Head "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". It was stated clearly that Obama is making "extraordinary efforts" meaning he's yet to achieve his goal. Even obama sees it as a "call for action". The committee never said he had already achieved it. They're only trying to encourage him t push harder. Yes he can!

Whatever your arguement, Bush can never win that Prize.

^@Radiant, I concur! In fact Hitler will win the prize twice post humously before Bush!

@ MUZBO and RADIANT

Of course. These days you would have to be either a far left loon like al gore and US worst president so far, gimmy carter to win the award.
I mean, why would bush be proud of associating humself with someone like gimmy carter or algore who mainly makes money trashing his country abroad? Carter left office with an 18% approval rating. Bush left with a 40% approval.
With some one like arafat having received the award, u can immagine the mentality of the anti american norwagians deciding these awards.
Ronald regan liberates eastern europe of  more than 80 million people through his dipolmacy against gubachef and gets no award; Bush liberates 50 million muslems
in iraq and afghanistans and gets no award. But obama goes abroad insulting america and telling the whole world how america stinks, and then he gets award for it(LOLOLOLOL). That shows u the mentality of the norwagians.

Check out his latest approval and see why americans are outraged over this nonsense:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll.   To the right hand side of the website and see why republicans are waiting to sweep house in 2010.

Ok Naijacann, so you are a republican apologist but just think how it will sound if a war monger like Bush is given a nobel peace prize. What kind of message will that send? You might think Obama doesn't deserve it but for the love of mike don't say Bush deserved/deserves it!

@MUZBO
Actually i'm the biggest obama fan dat u can get in the entire black race. I actually voted for him. I dont know about you.
Come to think of it, if someone like Gimmy carter(I mean, are u kidding me?), the worst US president alive, could get the award
or Al gore, getting the award for promoting the biggest hoax and falsehood of the millenium and for consistently trashing his country abroad, are evidence to the fact that the biggest criteria for getting the award is that you must either be anti-american or a far left loon just as paul krugman was before he got the award. Do you think they would have given the award to a black conservative president with the same aspirations as Obamas'?, hell no!
Bush, a war monger? Ridiculous statement. That shows me that u not only watches CNN and BBC but also MSNBC.
Bush liberated women and children in iraq and afghanistan, and gets no praise, but obama goes around and trashes his own country, and gets honored(LOLOLOL)
What a world!

@Naijacann, have you ever thought that maybe the US deserves to be trashed is the reason why Obama and Carter got the award? Sorry to say, you don't sound like an Obama fan because you seem to prefer people hide the truth(something Obama abhors). BTW Jimmy Carter is the only American president to have achieved the longest lasting peace accord between a muslim country(Egypt) and Israel. So I don't know what you mean by he is the worst president. Your voting for Obama means little because if we subtract your vote we can still approximate fwd.
lol

Obama's Nobel Prize
By Reuben Abati

IT was not only Americans who were surprised at the announcement of US President Barack Obama's name as winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. Nigerians were also just as dumb-founded: what has he done in less than a year of his Presidency to deserve a Nobel Prize for of all things peace? America is still at war in Iraq, despite Obama's campaign promise that he will bring that war to a quick end. Although President Obama has opened a window of opportunity for dialogue with Iran, the relationship between both countries remains uneasy. In the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and in Afghanistan, the United States is still involved, under Obama, in various shapes of war. President Obama had promised to intervene in the Middle East crisis, but not much progress has been made, with the parties to the conflict appearing ever so unwilling to engage in dialogue.

The effect of President Obama becoming Nobel Laureate Barack Obama was further dampened with his own expression of shock. Nominations for the Peace Prize closed within two weeks after President Obama's assumption of office in 2008. So, there seems to be no empirical assessment of work already done. Ever so humble and a master of special moments, Obama was quick to go on record in the following words: "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honoured by this prize." But he does not intend to reject the prize: "I will accept this award as a call to action," he said. "This award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity."

Obama is the third American President in office to receive the Nobel Peace prize after Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919). Former US President Jimmy Carter won the prize in 2002, for his humanitarian work. Should the Nobel Committee have given the prize to Obama? In his will, Alfred Nobel the founder of the prize had directed that there should be emphasis on "achievement". And indeed in all the other categories, chemistry, physics, economics, literature, medicine, the reason for the award is hardly ever in doubt even if the Nobel Committee over the years has overlooked some of the most accomplished men and women in history (James Joyce, Mahatma Ghandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Edison etc). Obama was given the award for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation among peoples." Thus, the Committee has given the award to encourage Obama to endorse his vision. And I guess, to tie his hands. The award of the Peace Prize is subjective after all.

But one message that the choice of Obama sends out this year is that the Nobel Prize Committee plays politics with its choices and that it is not just excellence that impresses it. While this may hurt less in the Nobel Peace Prize category, it could do much damage to the integrity of the prize if this were to be the case in the other subjects. But let's just say, this year, the Nobel Prize Committee has been caught by the bug of "Obama-mania." Why the haste? Obama still has plenty of time left as US President. If he were to be awarded the prize in two years and the same reason is given, there would have been millions of people across the world endorsing the choice and Obama himself will not feel embarrassed. But this year, nobody is celebrating. The prize looks like a non-prize: the controversy that it is generating is taking the shine off the other prizes where distinguished intellectuals are being celebrated.

Some commentators have pointed out that the Nobel Peace Prize has always been awarded for political reasons, or that it is the only category where achievement does not always count. I beg to differ. In assigning a part of his estate to the promotion of peace, Alfred Nobel did not talk about "efforts" or "politics" but actual work in that regard and so he wrote on the peace prize, about giving "one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Has Obama in the last nine months done the best work that Alfred Nobel asks for? This is the question that the five-man committee in Sweden must seek to answer convincingly.

The truth is that in most of the previous cases in this same category, the reason for the award has not always been this doubtful. Let us consider a few examples: The Red Cross (1944); Martin Luther King (1964); Amnesty International (1977); Anwar al Sadat and Menachem Begin (1978); Mother Teresa (1979); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1981); Lech Walesa (1983); Desmond Tutu (1984); International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1985); United Nations Peacekeeping Forces (1988); Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk (1993); Medecin Sans Frontieres (1999); United Nations, Kofi Annan (2001); Mohammed Yunus, Grameen Bank (2006). In each of these instances, at the time of the award, concrete achievements in the direction of peace and its promotion or the extension of its frontiers could be properly identified. Martin Luther King preached non-violence; Amnesty International has been a consistent defender of human freedom, Sadat and Begin signed the famous Camp David Accord (1977), the first major breakthrough in Egypt-Israeli relations; Obama's 2009 award is based on "hope." To be fair however, there are perhaps a few other recipients who like Obama were given the Nobel Peace prize to encourage them. Two veritable examples in this regard are: the award in 1991 of the prize to the Burmese opposition leader, Aung Suu Kyi; and in 1994 to the trio of Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."

One more point to consider is this: Could it be that Obama has been given the prize because he is the first black man to be President of the United States, and since it would be politically incorrect to say so, it is better to hide under the euphemisms of international diplomacy and cooperation? For if the truth be told, Obama's emergence and the colour of his skin ( a black man in the White House?) has done a lot more for international co-operation than we can imagine. The singular event of his Presidency has given hope to all marginalized groups in the world. It has reduced the scope of human alienation and reaffirmed hope in the oneness of humanity. It ranks among one of the most phenomenal events of the last century. Add to this the fact that Obama is the most international American President in more than 100 years.

He is loved across the world; and with his charisma, he inspires not just marginalized groups but also the younger generation. The power, symbolism and proven magnetism of his message: "Yes, we can" project one of the most effective battle cries of the age. And that, in addition to the colour barrier that Obama's ascendancy effectively destroys, is good for world peace, for humanity too. So why doesn't the Nobel Prize Committee say so? In playing politics, I guess the wise ones in Sweden needed to be seen to be correct. But did they need to be political? Obama won't be the first black man to win the Nobel Prize for Peace; emphasizing the historicity of his election and presidency can do no harm. He will be joining in this prize category, Albert Luthuli (1960), Martin Luther King (1964); Desmond Tutu (1984), Kofi Annan (2001) and Wangari Maathai (2004), but his prize would have been in a special class of its own if properly defined.

Now, on the details of the five-man committee's own declaration, what are the issues? There is no doubt that President Obama has given some of the most impressive speeches and taken a few symbolic steps on world peace. In the past nine months, he has been very vocal on the issues of nuclear arms proliferation and disarmament. He has led the campaign on the floor of the United Nations on climate change. He has spoken passionately about bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians to the path of reason. He wants to take America out of Iraq and put an end to the mistake that the Bush men made. He wants to stabilize Afghanistan . Wants, Hopes, Promises. The only thing we can hold on to so far is Obama's charisma and eloquence. From Europe to Egypt to Ghana , he has wowed audiences, firing up the popular imagination with hope that the world can be a better place. Under George Bush, America was one of the most hated countries in certain parts of the world, but now Obama's active engagement with the rest of the world is making America popular again and the American Presidency more approachable. Many of those who didn't like George Bush are in love with Barack Obama.

But whereas it is the truth that America 's engagement with the world has always oscillated between isolationism and openness, no one should be in any doubt that America 's interest in the world is first and foremost all about America. Not even Obama can change that. His mandate is to promote human freedom, democracy, American business and American exceptionalism: everything is about America not necessarily the world. So the American President may collect the $1 million Nobel Prize money and make a great speech in Oslo in December but that is not likely to change much in terms of the real planks of American diplomacy. For example, will Obama's America submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)? Will America agree to a reform of WTO rules to favour developing countries more? Will Obama's America reduce its own nuclear weaponry to promote global peace? What Obama does about hunger, and poverty in the world is as important as what his presidency does to reduce the spread of war.

What is possibly certain is that the Nobel Prize for Peace will tie Obama's hands, put him under pressure and compel him to live up to the expectations of the prize. It is a subtle kind of blackmail. And so, we should ask: Does Obama need that? Giving a man a prize because he has the potential to win it is rather patronizing. Chairman of the award committee, Thorbjoern Jagland says: "I hope it will help him, Obama is the right man at the right time, and that's why we want to enhance his efforts." See? They want to help him!

Too many men and women of talent have been derailed by too much early praise and help. It is a pitfall that Nobel Laureate Obama must watch out for. Now that his right-wing critics have been offered fresh ammunition for stalking him, when and if he falters on the question of peace later in his Presidency, they will be out with daggers. Good enough that he has the good sense not to celebrate. But that may not be enough. He should reject the prize, this Greek gift, from Sweden. And he will not be the first person to do so. In 1973, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger were both awarded the Peace Prize for brokering the Paris Peace Accord on Vietnam. Tho turned down the award saying there was no peace in Vietnam. Earlier, in 1964, Jean Paul-Sartre also rejected the Prize in Literature on the ground that it would make no difference whatsoever to the quality of his art, and that he would rather not be turned into an institution in any form. In the end, President Obama will be judged on the basis of actual performance, not his fine speeches, not what a five-man Nobel Prize Committee thinks he should do.



We Must Not Forget Jude Igwemezie

IT is important that you know a compatriot of ours called Jude Igwemezie. He is the Nigerian engineer who has won a contract to build a monorail network in Iraq worth $500 million under the auspices of a company called TransGlobin International. The proposed rail network will link the city of Najaf with three Islamic holy sites in Shale, Kufa and Imam Ali. Before going to the Iraqis with his proposal, Igwemezie had first approached the Nigerian authorities. Out of patriotism! He wanted to build a standard gauge rail from Calabar to Lagos. But the Nigerians in power only tossed him up and down. "As a diaspora person, I kept coming back, knocking to help Nigeria. On the other hand, I can't keep knocking forever, " he lamented.

In the end, our man took his skills to Iraq where the authorities seeing the value of his effort and track record signed a Memorandum of Understanding with him in two months! By the time Igwemezie's project in Iraq is completed, with Iraqis benefiting from the ingenuity of a Nigeria-led team, Nigeria will still be busy trying to figure out a solution to its transportation crisis. This is the Nigerian story all over again. It is one of the reasons we are a failed state. Nigeria has many outstanding achievers in different fields of human endeavour in the world. But we are unable to make use of their talents.

When they come home, seeking to help, the mediocres within the system shut them out. If they are truly determined and refuse to go away, they could be confronted with funny stories about religion, or ethnicity and if that doesn't work, they could be poisoned or bumped off. Nigeria runs a system that resists talent and excellence. It is a country where mediocrity thrives. Sadly, we keep giving to other countries what we lack at home. Nigeria 's railway system for example is dead. In the last eight years, so many billions have been invested in it, and there is nothing to show for all that. And yet, Nigerians continue to die and groan on terrible roads. Can anyone blame Jude Igwemezie if some day, he decides to change his nationality? We must rebrand our country first by making it accept the best and the brightest.


http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article02//indexn2_html?pdate=111009&ptitle=Obama's%20Nobel%20Prize

naijacann:

@MUZBO
Actually i'm the biggest obama fan dat u can get in the entire black race. I actually voted for him. I dont know about you.
Come to think of it, if someone like Gimmy carter(I mean, are u kidding me?), the worst US president alive, could get the award

first of all, being the best US president doesnt qualify u for the award, conversely being the worst US president doesnt disqualify u for the award.

about jimmy cater, this guy played a role in the peace between israel and egypt. something that exists to this day. when last did you hear egypt attacking israel or vice versa? and as for the hostage crisis of 1980/1981, what fox news et al wont remind you is that all the hostages came out alive . that situation contributed to the fall of cater, but if u ask the families of those hostages, the lives of their family member was worth the price paid for their release. and that price? . . . . the political demise of jimmy cater.  . . . . and he is the worst US president. . . . and doesnt deserve the peace prize.

Radiant:

He was nominated in Feb doesn't mean he was awarded the prize in Feb.

tell them

whatever your arguement, Bush can never win that Prize.

never . . . . never . . . never . . . never

did someone say Bush liberated 50 million musl-ims? . .

everybody pls let us laugh at naijacann

ronald reagan liberated 80 million europeans . . . . . . . .how? when? last time i checked, the berlin wall fell when gearge HW bush was president.

the most honorable US president in the last 50yrs . . . . . George H.W Bush. one day, historians will recognise his role and his sacrifice. he broke a campaign promise (politically suicidal) in order to save the US economy. he knew it would nail him politically, yet he did it, b/c it was extremely necessary to turn the economy around. he did it, american voters fired him, then clinton came in and reaped the reward of that decision, there was 8 full yrs of economic boom.

the cold war ended on his watch, and people give reagan the credit, the economy grew out from his groundwork, and people give clinton the credit. yet he kept quiet.

scottN:

Hw do u mean?

I mean how fast things went down the drain and America became a persona non grata

The Clinton years must have been an interlude.

@MUZBO and Pres-elect
May I remind both of you that Amwar Sadat flew to Telaviv on his own to make peace with israel. The event at the rose garden white house that  u referred to, was just a photo-op
I very much remember the then King of saudi and the entire arab praying to God for his plane to crash while he was flying to Israel.
(I've never ceased to laugh so laud whenever i remeber the events of the late 70s). Sadat gave up because
Israel had beaten the holy shit out of egypt and was almost encircling the sinai mountain and other strategic
parts of egypt. This goes along way to butress my point that sometimes u can only achieve peace through stength.
Trying to sweet talk your enemies like alqaeda, the taliban or iran into changing their behaviour, is highly laughable.
This is one of the major problems i have with obama. U have to be ready to use force if it is absolutely neccessary.
There was a reason why the iranians released the hostages in the early 80s. That was because a new radical had just
been sworn in in the white house and that was why they hurriedly released them because reagan was set to decapitate and oblitrate iran.
There's a  reason why the terrorists never attacked america while bush was in office. That was because they were guaran-damn-teed of
Bush's response if they dared it. Remember they attacked US and US interests almost on quarterly basis during clinton administation.

After living america with 14% unemployment, double digits inflation, long lines at the gas station, and projected weakness before the world,
how can u claim Gimmy carter , who also left office with 18% approval rating lower than what nancy pelosi currently has, is deserving of any award?
Bush rescued america from clinton's recession, rescued america from clinton's OBLaden, rescued america from clinton induced 9-11, gave america the lowest
unemployment levels of 4% in 2007, kept terrorists out of north america, gave women and children and opportunity to live in both iraq and afghanistan,
made america stronger and more alert, gave africa the highest level of funds and help any living human being today had ever done, etc.
I sure believe either bush or morgan tshangarai should have been given the award.

@ Pres-elect
Reagan fought the cold war even before goubacheff came in. He defeated the evil sovian empire and got it replaced with
a modern arrangment starting from yeltsin. If averting the cold war with ussr aint liberation or peace , i wonder what else is, considering
the fact that soviet nuclear weapons were capable of wiping the entire world away.

breaking news . . .
a new comedian in the house . . . . the naijacann show

naijacann:

Bush rescued america from clinton's recession,

help me laugh somebody . . .

rescued america from clinton induced 9-11,

clinton caused 9-11 . . .

gave america the lowest
unemployment levels of 4% in 2007,

then replaced it with a recession which was caused by future president Obama

join us next week, for another interesting of the new award winning comedy show . . . the naijacann show. . thank you for watching/reading/laughing

^^ as usual, you must attack the person, not the argument.

na today?

@pres-elect: actually some people argue that 9/11 would NOT have happened if the Clinton Administration took proactive and preventative measures to take and tackle the ALQAIEDA threats seriously.

yet again, I am with @Tpia on this one!!! Can't we all PRETEND to be civil and debate issues rather than attacking individuals for not sharing the same views as we do?

@Pres-elect

Now i know that u dont know your history even a bit. You rely so much on the nonsense that cnn tells you.
Just because Bush went down to work, instead of constantly attacking his predicessor at every chance he gets,
like obama has always done, does not mean that he did not inherit any problem. This shows you he,bush was more of an experience leader and problem solver,
(as he was a former governor), than obama. That Clinton left a recession for Bush, is a statement of fact and not an opinion.
Go back and do your research. Just read this link and be wise  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession.   Please, do not rely
exclusively on this link(just as you've always relied on wolf blitzer and other left wing loons in cnn), do more of your own research
about the recession Bush inherited. How about the huge security mess he also inherited?; a mess that certainly led to 9-11.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

INTERPRETATION OF KEYWORD:
The Nobel Committee had taken notice of a recent trend in international politics and the events of the first decade of this millenium, beginning in 2001 to the moment, is a bad omen and an undesirable path for the future of international relations.  A new model is needed to structure a path forward.

I'm good at debating the issue. I dont even mind being attacked personally,
as long as i keep putting out my arguements on the issue.
This na naija thread and naija will always be naija, wey be say u must demonize
the other side(LOL). As for me and my household, we'll keep arguing based on the issues.

@Negro_Ntns

I just wished the nobel price commitee had 'sweet talked' the terrorists away from attacking the world center
or even attacking their fellow european countries like britain and spain; may be we wouldn't have
had any reason to fight back as we did in afghanistan and iraq.
How come no one blames the terrorists for attacking the US and other countries?
Why must you blame the victim(Bush and the US) for deciding not look the other way as clinton always did?
Why is it a crime to take the fight to the enemy who has killed 3 thousand of ya citizens?

Naija,

I know how u feel about the prize. I share your feeling. . .this is a dumb move and in principle one that would make it particularly difficult for Obama to live up to the promise of the honor. Their tact was a smart one but the vision was obscured.

When scaled and compared pound for pound, there is nothing Obama had done in the short tiem he has been in office, however promising the effort seems, that Clinton had not already accomplished in his first term in office. Speeches, he gave. . .peace negotiations, he was knee deep in it, intervention to control and minimize the spread of regional wars or to protect minority groups, he was there. . .patience and leadership not to rush to war when he clearly had a legitimate reason to fight, . . .you know, Clinton had accomplshments in his resume.

It appears to me and I hope you will agree that this prize was more a symbolic snub at Bush than a recognition award for Obama's efforts. They are saying "for everything that Obama is doing to reverse the deeds of Bush, we will give him Nobel prize". So what happens if the wars America is engaged in escalates? Obama is in a tight fix, and so are the Dems.

Republican is the representation of malefic energy and thrust, Democrats are woosies - they are weak! I am not a Repub but I like the way they operate. . .very bold and adventurous!

Someone mentioned Carter and the embassy hostages. . .again, another malevolent move by the Repubs to defeat Carter. The hostages were cleared for release before the elections. Repubs went behind the scene and negotiated a delay of their release. If they had been released before Carter left office he would have become a hero president. Instead, today, Regan is the acclaimed hero and tat for one reason only - the hostages were released under his leadership, not that of his predecessor. As a matter of fact, and for the record. . .the hostages were released only few days after Regan was inaugurated. He could not simply have accomplished such a monumental task within few hours of becoming president. . .because such diplomatic issues are preceded by lengthy diplomatic negotiations. So then Carter should earn the credit for the successful negotiations and the ultimate homecoming of the hostages. . .but because his party, the Dems are such woosies. . . they yielded!

The Nobel committee have just set Obama and his party up for a massive electoral defeat next year at the polls. If he does not respond aggressively to international threats Repubs will label them as WEAK on national security. . .if he reacts with strong fist, the internationa community will wonder at the merit of this Nobel prize. . .just as we are wondering now; WHY HIM and not Clinton or any of the other more deserving and accomplished peace advocates around the world?

@Negro_Ntns
Great Post with well thought out facts.
But the widespread belief is that the iranians knew that a radical(Reagan) had just won the election and that
was why they hurriedly released the hostages. Carter didnt do so much. Today the iranians are holding
3 americans(even though u dont hear it publicly). They couldnt have done that under Bush. Why?, because
they knew how he would respond. Sometimes u need peace through strength rather than strength through peace.

uhm, just for the records, the hostages were released while ronald reagan was taking his oath of office, but anyway sha, as a republican, he has to take the glory for that, as well as the glory for ending the cold war and freeing the whole eastern europe.

about clinton, he may well receieve the peace price sometime later. perhaps the guys in Oslo were a bit concerned about lewinski  you never know . . . .

in the meantime, enjoy the comedy show from naijacann . . . . Bush inherited a recession from clinton, clinton caused 9-II, and Obama caused the recession that started in 2007

dont forget to join us next week for another episode of the naijacann show
thank you for ur time

_{all commercial customers should forward their chegue/cash to me} i'm the programme manager

this same reagan was president when americans were killed like rats in little lebanon and what did the mighty reagan do? he withdrew US forces from lebanon. Mighty reagan.[s] that guy was a lousy president. great only in the eyes of lousy people.[/s] . . he was a great guy

check this out for more details on the lebanon affair and the great response from the great president reagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

I guess i don tire to dey respond

I found this so funny in the beginning, but not it's just plain irritating. I'm a fan of Obama although I find him more and more disgusting each day. But, how can a person be awarded such a prestigious prize based on the his dreams, aspirations and promises? Makes no sense to me.

Congrats men, is not easy. three gbosa; u deserved it. cheers man,

He deserves it. The Norwegian Nobel Committee considered his efforts and involvement to strenghten international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Remember, the initiator(s) of the prize stipulated that the peace price 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'. This criteria has been surpassed by Obama via his avowed troops withdrawal; reaching out to the moslem world and telling the whole world that no single nation including the USA has monopoly of power and knowledge.
Congrats, Uncle Obama!
Guys should read this above and stop complaing
@posakosa its nobel peace prize and not for human activism