Obama did not win the prize in ten days. History will make that clear. If he deserves it later, only time will tell. The prize was a politically motivated message intended to "help" direct the direction of US policy on world events. This "proactive" concept of winning a prize is against the history of the award and sets a bad precedence. Others were more deserving of the prize.

When I watched the news today it was evident that even the most stanch Obama supporters realized that this event "wasn't right".

It is also a little "odd" that the award came just as Obama was making the decision whether or not to escalate the war in Afghanistan. A slight tip might be all that is required to change the direction of the war.

the voting ended when he was only in office for 10 days is what I said.

This might sound weird, but the whole world was closely following the entire election campaign in 2008. They might have ended up liking him during the campaign and like the enthusiasm he was bringing.

not weird at all. I can understand that. but my point is that he hadn't done anything yet....only made promises which may or may not be kept...just like past presidents before him. if it had been up to me...I would have waited to see what the person actually does first...then give the award

The people I have talked to from other countries did like him, they hated Bush, you know.

Only one person from another country disliked him and he is a racist. Doesn't hide it.

You are correct, as usual. The theory that he won for presidential election promises makes no sense in the light of real history of what any president will typically promise to get elected. The precedent of "what he might do" doesn't sell either. This is a move to affect the direction of world policy.

I hear plenty of attacks on the IOC as well for politicizing the Olympics. I don't really understand the BO attacks, myself. There are plenty of substantive things to criticize him about, and this isn't a very good one.

just wanted to make sure I wasn't saying something else Joe

I understanding the WHY....just not sure I agree. I would be more ok with saying someone is nominated because of what someone might do and then wait until the person does it to win

Even Obama sees it as a motivator to be more peaceful in his endeavors with the world.

I don't see anything wrong with that either.

It is not like they have him by the short hairs and are twisting his arm to do what they want. So I don't see it as a bad thing like that.

People want the wars to end. We want the wars to end.

They are not doing anything for terrorism, they are not making us or them a better country. All the death for nothing.

All humanity should want it to stop unless they are terrorists.

I believe I said earlier in here (not sure since their or several threads on this) but I don't blame BHO for the award at all. he had nothing to do with the decision or anything and I might have accepted it myself. I have a problem with it not being awarded on merit and actions as president...I have a problem with any one for not getting it on these things. I just don't agree with it and think it would have been better to wait and see what his actions are and not on campaign promises made. I have no problem with him personally because I've never met him and he could be a really cool guy for all I know. I don't agree with all of his policies....but nothing personally about the guy.

I think it would mean more to someone if it was earned one achievements

I think folks would have found it odd no matter when it happened for this particular president. Bottom line we don't know for a fact the underlying reasons for their choice, just that they made it. I could definitely see it as a way to steer the direction of foreign policy as well, but that's the cynical side of me. Though still, it could be, if it is it's a brilliant move. But it really puts a kink in the agenda for those in Washington wanting more troops etc. will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Either way I think it's a good thing ultimately. Especially the way Obama handled the news.

Those that might have deserved it more, are still as worthy of it today as they were yesterday, that can't be taken away from them. Hopefully they will handle that as gracefully as the president has handled it. Personally I don't think he is all that pleased that this happened at this time, but I'm not him so I don't know.

I was agreeing with you. And it isn't Obama's fault. This issue is less about Obama than it is about the selection committee.

I just wanted to make sure. I am not reading worth crap the last hour

I think they nominated him because he is not George Bush. :)

Anyway, I think President Obama's Nobel can be used to support US efforts worldwide fighting terrorism and the spread of nuclear arms. If it is a signal of greater cooperation among European nations with our efforts, that can lead to a good outcome.

It may lead to combined efforts fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and bringing stability to that country. I never agreed with the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. Saddam was a cruel dictator but one who was ruthless enough to crush guerrilla warfare and suicide bombers supported by outside interference. Once Iraq was weakened it strengthened Iran.

President Obama is fighting two wars. The outcome of both rest on his decisions. If he can rebuild international relationships guiding them to support US efforts in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan we may have a winning outcome.

At this point joking or what you call bashing Obama for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize takes away from the good it may bring to our country--to have a sitting President who received this honor.

It is up to him how he uses it.

Even if that was the case it doesn't make it right. 12 days in and to even get considered alone is a joke then, 9 months later win the prize. It's just wrong anyway you look at it.

The committee stated their reasons, making it right for them and they are the end of it, right?

They do not give the Nobel for "things done" all the time anyway so their reasons are theirs.

I think somewhere in like the first page of this, or the other thread, can't remember, I already have agreed that to nominate Obama for his 10 days in office, is not only wrong but stupid.
I was the first person to bring that up on this forum, yellowrose can confirm it.
I'm trying to figure out myself the "why" and then there was an article I posted from the huffington post, that had a piece from the associated press report with the Nobel association and they said in a summary that "they did not nominate Obama based on his 10 days in office, but because of hoping that he will perform well as a president".

No, I knew what you meant, it came out wrong as I wrote it. It was meant to say that I was agreeing with your thoughts on the subject

You will always have war and conflict in this world. You will always have death. Almost a million people perished in the Rwandan genocide. We did nothing. No military intervention. UN peacekeepers removed. Sometimes war is necessary to prevent excessive death and restore peace.

Compare the effort Obama continues to keep Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized to doing nothing. We already know death and supporting terrorism was the end result when the Taliban had control of Afghanistan. Weakening Iraq was not something I personally supported but can we turn back at this point?

Ok no probs. I think the problem is, some people post articles and it's taken as his/her opinion. I'm usually just a messenger boy or trying to explain why this or that , but to tell you the truth I haven't even voiced my own opinion on this whole thing. Nowhere in any threads I said "this was the right thing to do" or "he deserves to be nominated" none of those...you or anyone can track back and see if they find anything like that.