This is my opinion. Do not bash. Remember, this is a debate.
First off, I don't like Obama. I did not vote for him. But I am not biased.
He hasn't been in office that long. It has not even been a whole year since his election. He has not done anything worthy of earning the peace prize. Did he get it simply because of what he might do? Or simply because he isn't George Bush?
I just think he needs to really earn it. Giving him the peace prize just brought down its meaning. I feel anyone can be given one now for saying what they "might" do.
I agree with you--Obama hasn't done anything yet other than make promises.
He doesn't deserve an award as prestigious as a Nobel Peace Prize, at least not yet.
I feel like the committee in charge of the decision gave it to him with the hope that it would keep him on track and help him follow through with his promises. But... if that's the case, I think the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be political. It should be rewarded to individuals who truly deserve the honor, regardless of their political position or status.
I don't really keep up with current events, but even I can think of people who deserved it more than Obama. : /
I did vote for him. I think that, given time, he has a good shot at straightening out the mess we've been in for the past eight years. However, I am not aware of any special accomplishments that would make him worthy of the award. So, in summation - I AM an Obama supporter, and even I don't think he should have gotten it. Anybody know who else was in the running, or who should have gotten it?
Greg Mortenson deserved it more than Obama. He's the one that really famous book, Three Cups of Tea, is based on. He builds schools for children, predominantly girls, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other middle eastern countries. With education, he hopes to fight the radical extremism that predominates in the area and give children a chance to succeed by offering alternatives to the militant-run schools.
If you read the book, you'll see why he deserves it. He's clearly not doing it for the prestige... he just wants to help people and promote peace. And he's actually done a lot. He originally promised to build just one school, but he ended up building over 60 in the last decade. He's also built bridges, women's centers, wells, etc.
Greg Mortenson deserved it more than Obama. He's the one that really famous book, Three Cups of Tea, is based on. He builds schools for children, predominantly girls, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other middle eastern countries. With education, he hopes to fight the radical extremism that predominates in the area and give children a chance to succeed by offering alternatives to the militant-run schools.
If you read the book, you'll see why he deserves it. He's clearly not doing it for the prestige... he just wants to help people and promote peace. And he's actually done a lot. He originally promised to build just one school, but he ended up building over 60 in the last decade. He's also built bridges, women's centers, wells, etc.
I agree with this. This is who I thought deserved it more than anyone else. I helped start up a Pennies for Peace program at my school last year. We raised over $200 for these schools. It does a lot, and they are a wonderful group.
I am big supporter of Obama. Since I can't vote, I volunteered to help call people and tell them where they can vote. But, I am rational and I see that he did not yet do anything to deserve it. The nominations for the prize were done in February - he hadn't even been in office for a month.
I like Obama, and maybe by the end of his term, he will have deserved it. But I don't think he thinks he deserved it so much either (as he said so himself).
All I can think is "What, did he say he's bringing all the troops home from Iraq?" That's the only way I'd consider he should get one...
Truthfully, though, I've heard a lot of people saying he's "not that great" and complaining about "Where's the change he promised?"
Like I said many times, "Who-ever gets elected, the only change we'll see is in our pockets, 'cause that's all we'll have left."
Whether good or bad comes of this president's four years in office, all I can do is shrug, smile, and say, "Hey! Don't blame me. I voted for the other guy. I was hoping he'd croak in-office and we'd get a woman president."
This is an interesting perspective from Bill O Reilly on Obama winning the Nobel peace prize. Firstly I agree with the assertions he makes that Obama had neither earned the award, nor has he had a peaceful presidency. As O Reilly also asserts it is to the benefit of the US state that the world perceives them as being a country bringing peace to the world (even if this is oh so painfully removed from reality).
As for myself, I would rather of seen the prize go to Morgan Tsvangarai.
I voted for Obama, although I wouldn't say that makes me a supporter since I only really voted for him to keep Palin-via-McCain out of office. I absolutely do not think he should have gotten it. Maybe, maybe if he'd fulfilled his campaign promises, he might have been worthy, but he still shouldn't have won. As it stands, he's done little to promote human rights even within the US, he hasn't ended the war or even come close, he hasn't been particularly proactive when it comes to combating climate change, he hasn't improved our relations with other countries all that much. I mean, I'm sure he's a great guy and all, but the Peace Prize is supposed to be for outstanding actions, and he just hasn't done anything that amazing.
He got it because he isn't Bush, that much is clear. And, yeah, I'm glad he's not Bush. We couldn't survive another one. But I'm not Bush either, and I certainly didn't get an award for it.
My husband is strongly against President Obama but he did admit (it's hard to get him to admit even a single good thing about a topic his is not for) that President Obama is improving our image and our relations with other nations.
I'm not sure how many non-Americans there are in Menewsha that might have a different opinion, but all of the sites I was on during the election and after, 99.9% of the non-US members kept posting about how happy they were and how the U.S. could now be welcomed into the 21st century. Without knowing anything about him, people love this guy.
We all know he doesn't deserve it. He knows that too. I think he even said so in his speech. The real question is why was he given this prize above so many others worthy of it? I think it is deeply political and all about continuing to make the U.S. look like a more likeable nation.
It's so aggravating that we as a nation are stooping to these things. Is there any way Obama could have pulled himself from the running for the Peace Prize? It HAD to be an option!
A LOT of people didn't earn the prize who truly deserved it. This is certainly not the first case.
However, I think the reasoning for awarding the prize was valid, and it isn't the most controversial award in history either (the Kissinger award resulted in two people resigning from the committee altogether).
As a caveat, I don't think he should have beat out the other people in contention for the prize. Were his competition different, I may think differently.
I am also pleased with how Obama handled it (by giving away the money to charities).
I'm not sure how to feel about him winning it just yet, all I can say is that he better earn it now.
until I actually see Obama DO something, he doesn't deserve this award. You can talk about peace all you want, but that doesn't mean you deserve a nobel peace award. Hell, if that were the case, give me one. I can talk about peace too. I want to see someone who is out there doing things, like Mother Teresa, bless her soul. I'm certain there were a lot more people who deserved that award than him. He could get his next time around, this year's didn't belong to him.
I agree that he may not deserve the award yet, but then again have any of the people before him achieved world peace? There is still war in the world despite all of the Noble peace prizes that have been given out. I think the prize is more for the people who have a significant enough impact in the world towards peace and maybe not actually achieving it. He may not have ended the war, but I really believe he has the intention of stopping the war. Despite whatever people may think, he is not the only person running the country and has to deal with a lot of politicians who do want this war.
Although I like Obama, and would have voted for him had I been able to, I'm not really sure why he got the Nobel Peace Prize, something a lot of people seem to also have been wondering.
Sure, he inspired Americans, certainly enough to be elected president, but does that make him worthy of an award that is highly prized and should not be lightly awarded? I will admit that I haven't done any research to find out the reasons the Nobel committee selected him, but I believe there was definitely someone who probably deserved it more. Again, no offense to Obama, but it's the truth.
I suppose it's possible he's getting it for diplomatic efforts to bring the world together, and to open better lines of communication between countries, but ideally that's something every president should have worked towards, and probably did. I'm certainly no expert on presidents, and probably know no more about them than the next person, but it would seem reasonable to me.
Maybe it all comes down to the Nobel committee's definition of "peace". I don't know. All I can say is my opinion, and that probably won't get very far.
I heard that the Nobel Peace Prize committee nominated Obama before he had officially been made President of the United States. So whatever they saw that they thought he should be awarded for, they saw before he became president. so everything he has done as far as talks since he took office, weren't considered for his nomination, from what I understand. does anyone know of anything significant he did before taking office?
Hmmm... I thought he already got it. Before he was president. None the less, what he did, or has yet to do, I just don't see it, so I voted "Not yet" for the poll at the top. I don't really care much about politics, but this made no sense to me when I first heard about it.
I heard that the Nobel Peace Prize committee nominated Obama before he had officially been made President of the United States. So whatever they saw that they thought he should be awarded for, they saw before he became president. so everything he has done as far as talks since he took office, weren't considered for his nomination, from what I understand. does anyone know of anything significant he did before taking office?
Well that information I did not know and it kind of blows a lot of theories out of the water, doesn't it? If the committee did it politically to improve the U.S.'s social standing, then I figured they'd do it only if he were president. Did they just predict he would become president? Or did they do it to try to influence voters? Like.. well Obama might win the nobel peace prize, that's impressive, let's vote for him.
I think sometimes people forget that presidents aren't always just sitting around doing nothing before they are elected president. Obama was a senator before he ran for the presidency and he did do things as a senator. I don't have to much information on what he did, since I live far away from where he was senator, but I think that would be an interesting thing to know before making a decision about this topic.
I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize committee has all their marbles to begin with. Henry Kissinger receiving an award, and Mahatma Gandhi being passed up FIVE YEARS that he was nominated, including the year he was murdered. :/
I call BS on the entire thing, based on their prior decisions. But does Obama deserve this award? I don't know, it seems like a congratulatory pat on the back for being a decent president, and being quite diplomatic to foreign nations instead of alienating them. I view that as the president's job. So he is trying to do his job. An award for that is unnecessary.
Honestly, he was governor of Illinois for two years before running for president and not many have heard of him or what he actually did as governor. If he really made differences enough to earn him the prize, beside just being president or saying he will make peace, then we would of heard of them.
He already has it, so he better prove me wrong and earn it. Donating the award money to charity isn't going to change my view so simply.
The man made history, and has given hope to alot of people. His character is just coming out to the people. Even if he has given hope, that doesnt mean he has brought peace to anyone anywhere. They should have waited at least a few more years before they decided to hand out a noble and honorable prize to him. I mean, the man has only been in office less than a year
Honestly, he was governor of Illinois for two years before running for president and not many have heard of him or what he actually did as governor. If he really made differences enough to earn him the prize, beside just being president or saying he will make peace, then we would of heard of them.
He already has it, so he better prove me wrong and earn it. Donating the award money to charity isn't going to change my view so simply.
He was a senator, so he did play a role in the national government.
He was a senator, so he did play a role in the national government.
I never said he didn't play a role. I merely stated that he hasn't done anything worthy of remembrance because no one really seems to know what he did before running for president.
