People have worked for years and have never received the Noble Peace prize. What a joke that they would give it to Obama so quickly for doing next to nothing to deserve it.

Absolutely he deserves it! He has gone farther than any other president to spread diplomacy and, in the process, has managed to smooth down the feathers ruffled by our last president. President Bush, I have to say, was crude, rude, and juvenile. I'm thankful Obama won the election and has been traveling around showing the world showing everyone we Americans aren't as imature and ignorant as we have been portrayed.

Good question. I think many will agree that the Nobel Prize committee were a bit too early in awarding Obama with this prize. The Peace Prize is supposed to be the biggest peace prize for people that have gone to great lengths, and usually through great trouble to achieve their goal.
For Obama, this seems to happen just too soon. He has promised a lot, and is probably working very hard to clean up the current mess the US is in, but he is far from ready.
So, this award is more like an ' encouraging prize' than what it is intended to be, a recognition of outstanding past performance.
If you check http://www.mahalo.com/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize, you will see that also people on Twitter are highly amazed by his Nobel Prize.

One thing needs to be taken into account: The European Union, and especially Norway/Scandinavia have been very much opposed to the politics of the Bush Administration. They are probably very relieved with the current swing in attitude in The White House, and this might have influenced their decision.
Then again, I am from the EU myself (The Netherlands), and am very happy with The US choice for Mr Obama, but even I, and everyone I spoke is really amazed by this choice. Maybe in a few years, when he proved he was able to reach his goals, but not now. Too soon.

Has Obama really done as much for peace as this man?

When I watched the announcement this morning, the committee said it was awarding him for his "efforts". I'm not sure that "trying" is justification for the award. Lots of people try hard-- some more so that President Obama. I think this award was a political gesture-- and it cheapens the Nobel Prize.

I will answer my answer in short because @mith already said words of my mind.

Obama is a great person but it is too soon.So I will say that he don't deserve it right now.

Hilarious! Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize because he is the first black U.S. president, which stirred up hope, possibility and excitement around the world - couldn't we just be happy with that? So much for teaching my kids that they must work hard in order to receive the fruits of their labour, and that it is what they 'do' in life that is important - not what they 'say' or the color of their skin.

The novel prize committee has made their choice certainly base on criteria, This is an honor to your country {united states of america} bestow to your leader. The committee of the nobel prize are people who are respected, intelligent, So you have no reason to question their decision. They represent one of the most prestigious organisation in the world.

The Nobel Prize
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.

Einstien is also a recipient of nobel prize and became immortal because of his theory of relativity.

First try getting 100 successive best answer here at mahalo, even then you are not yet qualified to question the nobel prize committee.

Whoa, a lot of aspects to this, a lot of thoughts:
1) It IS very soon, and shocked the heck out of me this morning. I woke to the radio talking about "a president" winning, and I was trying to figure out which country's president they were speaking of. My jaw dropped when they finally repeated the news.
2) But, y'know, who else was in the running for things that happened in the past year? There have been years when they announce the recipient and I think "wow, a slow year for peacemakers." Other than the election of a U.S. president who campaigned on the need for diplomacy - especially after 8 years of unilateralism - who would receive it.
3) Maybe they should have awarded it to the American electorate, for choosing the candidate who was more committed to peace - both candidates expressed some change from the previous Administration, but McCain did not come across as credible in that (and others) department.
4) I think McCain is somewhat accurate in his comments today that part of the committee's decision was based upon expectations, even though the Nobel announcer said it was not. But, hey, Obama did make commitments to change the way the world works and the way the U.S. handles its leadership role. I think it is for the better, most of the country felt so, too, and the world and the Nobel committee obviously agrees.
5) The Republicans are wayyyyy over-reacting, just as they did with the 2016 Olympics announcement, just as they have with so many things. They have been rewarded for their over-reacting in the past - and their over-acting - and will again, unless Obama supporters quickly extinguish the "too soon" flame.

6) Very soon? Yes. Too soon? No.

He absolutely deserves it.
I don't agree with everything he does, however he is a huge global voice for nuclear disarmament. Few could argue that this is a huge step toward world peace.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-nobel-peace

. . . but don't take my word for it, The European Commission President thinks he is quite deserving.

JosÉ Manuel Barroso, European Commission President
"A tribute to President Obama's commitment to the values of peace and progress of humanity. This award is an encouragement for engagement by all those who can contribute to bring about a safer world."

. . . then again I will say the Taliban is very disapointed.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman
"He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan ... We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/wl_time/08599192939300

when the pro gramme is over the rest of waste will be removed , or we going to remove the waste. no not at all .
when the pro gramme is over it should be appreciate for the pro gramme . then we feel happy, we must be happy with the pro gramme carried out for the benefit of larger group of the world.

I enjoyed reading the other posts. So much so that I had to offer my ten cent's worth of opinion. Even though the question has had several different responses, I think the replies have not taken into account the motivation behind the decision.

To try and answer the question properly you must ask yourself - 'What was the reason behind the peace panel's decision?

Was it really because of Obama's accomplishments or was it for his potential?'

Few could disagree that it was for the latter. Obama was given the award, not for his achievements, but for his potential to achieve peace. This is not uncommon with the Peace Prize Awards.

There has been a precedent set previously for encouraging peaceful actions. For example, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho both shared the prize in 1973 despite the fact that the Vietnam War was still going on and would continue to do so for several years afterwards. The motivation behind this was simply to dissuade the sides involved to stop the war. Although widely criticed by many for its perceived hypocrisy, the intention was justified. However, the result was not the one expected. It was a calculated risk that did not pay on that occasion.

Obama is a similar choice. He has the possibility to achieve peace and deal with the long list of problem-countries such as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Israel. The Nobel Prize Committee are merely trying, whether right or wrongly, to motivate him towards stabilising these regions by providing and incentive.

Therefore, the next question that is raised is the role of the Peace Prize. Is it to award people for past achievements? Is it just a tool that is used to promote political favourites? Or can it be used to achieve peace?
Because picking one of these strategies completely changes the outcome and value of the prize.

Obama is the leader of the United States so first and foremost is his duty to America. However, America is completely dependent like every other western state on other countries. Completely isolated countries are not capitalist economies, most are communist or dictator-led. In the modern world no country can go it alone and hope to be successful. The world has become too small for this approach.

Without the global foreign investment from many countries the American Economy would become stagnant. Even China, a resource-rich nation, one of the most affluent, is expanding its influence into every foreign market that it can.

Clearly, however, a balance must be struck between indigenous industry and foreign investment. If for example the American Car industry, with some adjustments, could expand to European and Asian markets - its problems would be solved almost instantly. Thereby, it is imperative to consider other countries, because ultimately what is good for them is also good for you.

So what has this got to do with the Nobel Peace Prize? Everything! To greater aid economic growth, difficult regions have to be stabilised. The Middle East is of critical importance to other countries for its oil resources. So in essence peace is the ultimate litmus test of successful economies.

It would be naive if we believed that they, the Nobel Peace Prize is all about peace. Peace is the foundation for stable economies.

So the question we have to ask ourselves now is this. Does it matter if Obama is deserving or not when all that matters is peace, stability and prosperity?

Secondly, wouldn't we easily forgive the Nobel Peace Prize committee for this decision if he delivers on his promise? If ten years down the line he manages to succeed? Isn't it worth taking the risk of a mere loss of face in exchange for something that has never been done before?

Something to think about?