According to Alfred Nobel's will, (Initiator of the Nobel Price) the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:
“ during the preceding year - shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
On October 9 2009, US president, Barack Obama, was announced the winner of the Nobel Peace Price.
And ever since he won people have been writing all kinds of things ...
Some say he doesn't deserve it because he has no notable, concrete achievement to his credit.
Many say it's too much, too soon. A lot of political analysts have ridiculed Obama and the Norwegian committee that awarded the prize
From reading many online articles, analysis and comments, I can safely say there are more people against his winning than for it.
Do I think Obama deserves or doesn't deserve the Peace price? This is my stand. And I borrow words from Nigerian rapper M.I.
In one of his songs M.I said "I'm not saying I'm the best; My question is, who is better?"
"I'm not saying Obama has done so much for peace in the world, my question is; who did it better?"
In other words, if Obama doesn't deserve to win it...who does? Neville Chamberlain?
Go check out the list of nominees and tell me who you think should have won instead of President Obama...
That's all I'm saying...
Some past winners of the Peace price include - Martin Luther King Jnr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Theodore Roosevelt, Kofi Annan, Henry Kissinger, Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu to name a few...*
Any answers?
