Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Nov 2009 17:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 395710
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-04-08
Presidents of the US should be evaluated for the peace prize AFTER their term(s) is/are over. For all we know, Obama starts a crippling war somewhere down the line, and who'll look silly then?
In the end, Obama hasn't achieved a darn thing yet that earns him that prize. I mean, go him, but let's wait until we can actually evaluate what he has done with all this power he has now.
Disclaimer: this is not a political statement in any way. I'm not from the US, so I have no particular affiliation. Although, I do think Palin is totally hot.
The prize is for improving the outlook for peace in the world. Obama, just by replacing Bush improved the outlook and possibility for peace in the world by a large margin. By those standards, maybe he deserved it, maybe not.
Agreed that it would have been better to wait, but then again to insure any winner does not go out and start a war after getting the prize, you would only be able to give the prize posthumously.
KRR