

Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize - unwind
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/
U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The motivation mentions "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Congratulations.
======
tsally
Gandhi died before he was awarded the Peace Prize, even though he was
nominated five times. Obama gets it less than a year into his Presidency? I
like Obama, but that's just wrong.

~~~
jacquesm
Yep. It should be a prize for achievement, not for intentions.

The Nobel Prize has just devalued considerably.

~~~
ugh
Nobel Peace Prize. No reason to drag the other Nobels into that.

~~~
jacquesm
By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one
institution.

So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did
that.

From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize:

"The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized
and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to
discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a
cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this
case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the
other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize.
For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years
after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations."

So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ?

I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of
the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do
anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the
potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'

~~~
boredguy8
"By tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one
institution."

That's just a part/whole fallacy. The badness of what some priests did to boys
doesn't devalue what Mother Theresa did by virtue of them both being Catholic.

~~~
masomenos
Pet peeve of mine: Teresa was not necessarily the greatest person to walk the
earth. From her Wikipedia entry ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa>
):

She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations;
however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include
objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens,
Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the
proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a
belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying.
Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices
and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was
spent.

~~~
boredguy8
Nobody's perfect, and of people well-known in the West, she's at the top of
the list. Those flaws certainly don't outweigh the good, and the flaws
certainly aren't on the level of child molestation. So absent an alternative
that avoids having to take ten minutes to explain who I'm talking about, I'll
continue to use that ol' nun.

~~~
1010011010
What good did she do?

------
jacquesm
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work
for a world without nuclear weapons."

I'm happy for him, and I'm glad to be rid of Bush too, but isn't that a little
premature ?

Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gorbachev made sense at the time, but
plenty of these nobel prizes seem to be very politically motivated and not
because of actual achievement.

For instance, Al Gore won the prize, as did Yassar Arafat.

~~~
bilbo0s
MLK gets imprisoned, shot at, fire bombed and beaten. Encourages millions to
stand with him at non violent civil disobedience actions. Millions do so
DESPITE the fact that they will be imprisoned and beaten.

Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a
notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'.

Gorbachev. OK, when was the last time American school children practiced what
to do in case of nuclear attack? Anyone remember 'civil defense fallout
shelters'? I didn't think so.

Obama . . . WTF?!?!?! Diplomacy between peoples . . . WTF!?!?! Did Israel and
Iran give up their nukes and I missed it? Did the Palestinians stop
slaughtering Israelis and vice-versa?

Alright, alright, those are too much. How about something simpler? Can I go to
Cuba, drink rum, and lay on a beach just because, without having a US
government Customs Agent detain me on my return?

No?

Didn't think so.

This Obama Love-fest is sickening.

Even Gandhi is blushing at this one.

~~~
mcd
Just a few comments (this whole thread is contrary to YCNews policies).

> Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a
> notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'.

Nelson Mandela was convicted of trying to overthrow the state by armed means
and sabotage. It was not due to non-violent protests and even if the cause was
right, armed insurrection is never right. And if he succeeded in overthrowing
the state it would have been a mess at that time.

Mandela was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the ANC). While
he does not bear personal responsibility (since he was in prison) Umkhonto we
Sizwe did quite a few despicable things during the struggle.

Also, Robben Island (where Mandela spent the majority of his time) isn’t that
notorious. Many prisoners of the struggle era were kept there and many of them
obtained degrees while in prison (from UNISA). I would much rather be
incarcerated in Robben Island than today’s Pollsmoor prison.

Whatever the argument, he still deserved a prize (as did FW de Klerk) for the
negotiated settlement that brought about the first multi-racial elections.

~~~
viggity
Armed insurrection is never warranted? So the Polish resistance during WWII
wasn't "right", was George Washington wrong for rebelling against Britain?

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of
tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson

~~~
mcd
I personally feel that killing is almost never warranted. Gandhi did not kill
anyone and Desmond Tutu never advocated for violence.

The problem with violence is that everyone feels that their cause justifies
it.

~~~
viggity
You didn't answer my questions. Specifically, was the violent resistance
justified in WWII?

It is easy for someone to be a pacifist when they don't worry about violence
on a daily basis because the most powerful military in the world protects
them.

"If the choice is between cowardice and violence, I advice violence" - Gandhi

------
AndrewDucker
So, basically he gets an award for not being George Bush?

~~~
patio11
This makes him the second American president to get a Peace Prize for not
being George Bush, which the head of the Nobel Committee _actually admitted to
reporters_ when Carter got the award. I stopped caring about their opinion on
anything after that.

 _But the chairman of the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee said bluntly
that the award was meant to slam Bush's policy on Iraq.

"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as
criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq,"
Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters._

(Reuters)

~~~
vijayr
Looks like George Bush is the "inspiration" for quite a few prizes

~~~
brazzy
It's an achievement, of sorts.

------
kqr2
In contrast, Arizona State University actually withheld giving Obama an
honorary degree normally awarded to visiting speakers on the ground that his
main achievements are yet to come:

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6289816.ece)

~~~
miked
Obama spent years at the U of Chicago law school, a place that publishes by
the pound. He didn't publish a single paper the entire time he was there. My
guess is that's why they withheld the honorary degree.

------
kyro
I'd like someone to inform me of one accomplishment of his that warrants his
receiving of the award. And pushing a catchy a slogan of 'change,' to get
elected, isn't one of them.

~~~
kyl
Does this count?

[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiiu...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiiuAu6pX_Cw)

~~~
steve19
no. every prior US president has also worked on nuclear disarmament. Probably
every Russian president as well.

Only one Nobel winner ever achieved disarmament ... and I don't think he
should have gotten the award.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_W_de_Klerk>

------
ananthrk
I was surprised (and pissed off) and wanted to check who the contenders were
and this is what the website had to say:

 _Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions
concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. A prize-awarding body
may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access
to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning
a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may
not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date
on which the decision in question was made._

------
justlearning
When I read the title, I thought it was a link bait, until I clicked.

may be, the Nobel Prize association is under new 'management'? I thought the
Nobel prize was given to accomplishments rather than ideas. I really like
Obama, but isn't it bit too early?

~~~
sandrogerbini
>> "isn't this a bit too early" I tend to agree. I really hope (for everyone's
sake) that this does not lead to complacency.

------
bitdiddle
I'm hopeful that this prize provides a needed boost to his efforts. Obama has
made great progress in restoring America's role in the world. He has the
opportunity to make great progress on world peace and this prize is a strong
vote of confidence in those efforts.

Well done! I'll be curious to see where he donates the money, though he's not
a wealthy man financially, he might want to keep some of it.

~~~
miked
_though he's not a wealthy man financially_

Both his books have sold millions of copies. The Clintons are now worth well
over $100 million, just from giving speeches.

Al Gore left office worth about $2 million and is now worth over $100 million
from a combination of his global warming book, movie, and speeches and various
board directorships, including at Apple and at Kosla's VC fund. Obama will
scrape by somehow.

~~~
bitdiddle
I think it was one of the Adams who opined that men go into politics to either
help their businesses or hurt the businesses of their competitors.

Of course Obama's real wealth is in those two beautiful girls.

~~~
johnnybgoode
> _Of course Obama's real wealth is in those two beautiful girls._

Oh dear, I'm afraid this sentence could be interpreted in many ways. :(

------
sandrogerbini
I wonder if Obama was as surprised as I was.

~~~
MaysonL
Probably, but he responded quite well. See Jim Fallows critique of his
comments:
[http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/obamas_...](http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/obamas_nobel_remarks_four_very.php)

------
RK
I was just in Europe for the past few weeks and many people asked me about
Obama. It seems that in Europe they are still in the honeymoon phase, whereas
in the US it's moved on to the fighting through policy phase. None of the
Obama supporters I know in the US still have that post election glow because
the debates over health care and such are raging so hard. Europe isn't really
touched by that so the honeymoon seems to be lasting longer.

I was very surprised that he got this award right now, but knowing how many of
the Europeans seem to still feel, I was less surprised.

------
nir
The Nobel Peace Prize committee have done the world an important service
today, by reminding us how meaningless and fickle most awards are, no matter
how much prestige they are supposed to carry.

------
helium
Well at least the prize didn't go to Twitter...

He still has the power to start a major war against any country in the next
few years. How ironic would this be then?

------
ajju
Pres. Obama pushed for diplomacy with enemies when it was politically risky
for him. I think this was both right and courageous. But they should have
waited till his diplomatic efforts bore some fruit to give him a Nobel.
Awarding it now shows remarkable lack of faith in him AND diplomacy.

Way to jump the shark, Nobel peace prize committee!

~~~
kevbin
They jumped the shark when they gave the prize to a boastfully-amoral purveyor
of warmongering realpolitik in 1973, an unrepentant terrorist in 1994, an
ineffective cronyist international kleptocrat in 2001, a self-aggrandizing
bigoted apologist for dictators in 2002, and a scientifically-illiterate shill
in 2007. Jumping the shark is what they do.

I'm not sure its a club the President wants to join, at least not this early
in a first term.

~~~
ajju
Well in his defense it's not like he asked for it. Gibbs first response to the
news was "Wow". I think they are smart enough to know that far from being a
feather in their cap this is a potential PR crisis on their hands.

~~~
miked
_in his defense it's not like he asked for it_

Let's see if he turns it down. Either way, it's a win-win of him and he'll get
plenty of adulation.

------
kqr2
Apparently, there were a record number of nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace
Prize: 172 people and 33 organizations.

<http://en.rian.ru/world/20090227/120342505.html>

Unfortunately, the list of names won't be revealed for 50 years.

Without the list, it's hard to compare everyone's accomplishments.

------
rykov
Nobel Committee could not resist after seeing all of this accomplishments:
[http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-
ad...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address)

------
ajju
From the secretary of the peace prize committee:
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-
kfROlV...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-
kfROlVhexdt7vLCBR7KGa1gwD9B7CB282)

_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and
democracy only after they have proven successful. More often, the prize is
awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes
at critical moments.

Posted by AP 6 hours ago. Clearly they knew this would create controversy.

~~~
tome
Also:

_ Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute.

The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a
strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.

Wow! So Obama was president for only 11 days before he was nominated.

~~~
ajju
Someone else mentioned that US presidents are probably automatically
nominated.

------
sampladoc
Obama got the prize for the simple fact that he is not bush. His doctrine is
one of engagement and diplomacy. The people in Oslo clearly stated that they
meant for the prize to make his doctrine permeate the status quo. I agree that
it's a bit too early for him to get it but the prize was clearly political.

------
thismat
I think this would hold more weight if he hadn't backed down from the missile
defense program and instead pushed hard to set it up in key points around the
world.

What better way to encourage peace then to start building anti-nuke stations
around the world to nullify that threat from all parties.

~~~
jacquesm
The operative word in there is 'nullify', anything over '0' is not acceptable,
and just about everybody agrees that 100% kill rate isn't going to be
achievable. So effectively this shield will do exactly nothing, the only thing
it guarantees is that if there will be an attack it will be a lot more
massive.

Some thing during the cold war, the stockpiles were enormous, not because we
needed the power to destroy the world several times over, but because launch
facilities might be destroyed.

Also, first strikes will be directed against the areas involved in the missile
shield, because after that the rest is wide open.

I see the whole missile defense shield as an attempt to revive the cold war
because it's good for defense contractors, those guys made untold billions.

~~~
thismat
It seems we're talking in two different places about the same subject, haha.

I do see your point, and it does seem logical. It definitely would be nice
though to remove the threat of any nuclear attack from or against any nation
for the foreseeable future. Though I guess a nuclear strike might be less
devastating than years of war in the long run huh? What a chilling world we
live in.

~~~
jacquesm
True enough. But still, if I have to worry about terrorists and failed states
that seems to somehow be more acceptable than to have two superpowers on hair
trigger 24x7, where any stupid move or misinterpretation can lead to a huge
disaster.

There is a list somewhere of the number of 'close shaves', too long and too
close to have any confidence that such a state could be maintained
indefinitely. That was just a matter of time.

------
johnohara
Insight into the man if he accepts it.

~~~
mahmud
My thought exactly. He should reject it.

The two people who ever declined to accept the award where both socialist
revolutionaries; Sartre and Le Duc Tho. He is not prepared to be in their
league.

------
johnnybgoode
Here is the issue. The US government has tremendous power over world affairs.
Norwegian politicians don't typically have much of a say in the decisions of
the US government. But the Nobel Peace Prize is a way for them to have some
influence, so they use it for this purpose.

------
kqr2
Nit pick : Could the original poster or moderator fix the typo in the title?
Price -> Prize

------
stuaxo
Is this because he's not Bush? There are still wars going on that his country
is involved in.

------
sandrogerbini
Obama, Imma let you finish, but Kissinger was the worst pick of all time! A
great review of the prize committee's choice @
<http://technopolis.blogspot.com/>

------
davidw
Not really hacker news in any case. It looks like politics and current events.

~~~
roundsquare
A bunch of the nobel prize winners have been posted here over the past few
days. True, this one is more politically charged, but it seems to fit within
that trend.

~~~
davidw
You can bet that the other threads had no mention of Glen Beck.

~~~
roundsquare
Fair enough, I'm defending the posting, not the comments.

~~~
davidw
Any mention of Obama or Bush or Ron Paul or whoever, is pretty much bound to
devolve into controversy of a more or less unenlightening and, all too often,
unenlightened nature.

------
silkodyssey
I agree with the general sentiments that the award is probably premature but I
think the general nature of the award lends itself to situations such as
these.

An award has to be given out every year and the world does not produce ghandis
at that rate so the people who have made profound achievements will have to
share the award with those who've done less.

This does diminish the achievements of the greats in a sense but that's just
how the system works and the fact that we can't really point to anyone else
who obviously deserved the award more than Obama suggests that he may have
been the best choice after all.

~~~
colanderman
They could have taken Time's route and given it to me...

------
plinkplonk
My theory - Republicans bribed the Nobel Prize Committee to award this to
Obama. Cheap for an instant PR disaster.

~~~
mseebach
Or the democrats did it, so Obama can hold a long rejection-speech,
highlighing all the people more worthy of it than him for an instant PR
success.

~~~
lionhearted
Nobel prize recipients are called beforehand and asked if they'll accept
before being announced publicly. Actually, most major awards are these days,
as it removes the, "Thanks but no thanks, your cause is bankrupt" responses
which tend to be embarrassing.

~~~
mseebach
Yeah, that makes sense.

Amazing then that nobody told him about how accepting that prize might
constitute a pretty big case of hubris.

------
marze
The committee is probably thinking Obama will now need to live up to the prize
--if is isn't a real peacemaking dude from here out, people will certainly
whine.

~~~
shrikant
Yes, just see how well it worked for Yasser Arafat...

~~~
marze
One can always hope.

------
tomjen2
He didn't deserve that - he haven't even closed gitmo yet.

~~~
mingdingo
It does seem awfully fast, but for what it's worth:

1) He banned torture (waterboarding)

2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be
easy.

3) He's willing to negotiate with Iran without pre-conditions

4) He's actually trying to push for a Middle East peace deal, and is being
vocal about settlements

5) He wants a world without nukes.

6) He didn't put the missile shield near Russia, significantly calming things
down over there.

Probably some other stuff too.

Is he like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi? Absolutely not. But considering how
leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique.

~~~
jacquesm
> But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is
> unique.

Yes, he is unique. As is everybody else.

Uniqueness is not a reason to give someone a prize, achievement is.

And from where I'm sitting the only thing that has changed is that the
American President is no longer making a fool of himself on the international
stage and hasn't made the rest of the world wonder if he still has all his
marbles.

But to give him a prize for that belies the people that have in some cases
paid with their lives for achieving their goals, and then to be awarded their
'prize' 30 years after the fact.

There should be some honour in being awarded a prize, this is more like an
incentive to keep going.

~~~
greyman
Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in
Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much
worse choices in the past.

~~~
jacquesm
It's not like he had a whole lot of choice there, the missile shield was one
of the biggest and stupidest mistakes of GWB (outside of invading Iraq and
squandering the world wide ocean of goodwill the US could tap from after
9/11).

Recipe for getting a nobel prize:

Undo your predecessors stupidity.

We should be getting to parity first, then we should improve beyond where we
were roughly 9 years ago, then some time needs to pass to figure in the side
effects of all the good intentions. If it still stands you can have your
prize.

Less than a year into a presidency that has already lost a lot of its luster
is premature by any standards.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one, I'm simply saying that he has to earn
it and has not earned it yet. By far.

Well, apparently he has, but after this I can't see anybody taking winning the
Nobel Prize for Peace as a real achievement.

If there was really nobody deserving it more than Obama this year then maybe
they should have simply skipped a year.

Makes you wonder who the other nominees were. Is there a list of that ?

~~~
thismat
Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?

~~~
jacquesm
Because they do nothing to remove any threat that we are currently
experiencing, cost an enormous amount of money, lead to strife within the EU,
put money in to the pockets of US defense contractors that could be spent
better in more constructive ways and that are based on the flawed principle of
the 100% kill rate, which means that when the time comes to deploy you simply
overwhelm them.

~~~
thismat
I see your points, I'm curious though, why does it lead to so much strife with
the EU? Why isn't defense considered a peaceful action? Was it the location?
Or was it because it made them feel like they didn't have that super power
anymore?

I understand it doesn't really reduce any real threat we're facing right now,
but what about other nations we would be protecting? The smaller countries who
don't have nuclear weapons as a defense option?

These are serious questions, not playing devils advocate here, I'm genuinely
interested.

~~~
jacquesm
Here is my take on that, but it is skewed because of location (EU):

Poland and several other countries in the former east block are still
extremely anxious about being on Russias doorstep, and the Americans figured
that now was the time to get a foothold there in case there would ever be a
'revival'. Playing in to the fear they promised a shield from anything bad
that Russia might be able to do, ostensibly because of the so called rogue
states.

But I really don't see N. Korea or Iran attacking Europe, if Iran will do
something it will more than likely be against Israel, and if North Korea will
do something I'd expect it to be against Japan or South Korea, and most likely
conventional against SK, Japan I'm not so sure.

So the threat is magnified for political purposes and to get a foot on the
ground right where it kicks the Russians in the teeth. And of course the
Russians never played along and named it for what it was.

NATO has some serious firepower in Europe already, but hardly any of it near
the old Russian borders and using a popular fiction (that Iran and North Korea
are a threat to western Europe) they tried to get their way.

Obama figures it is simply going to cost a bunch of money, increase the
tension so better to let it go.

Smart move on his part.

~~~
thismat
Very informative, I think your take on it, because of your location, leads to
a better understanding of the area and the tensions. Helps people like me
understand it a little better.

I agree with you that Iran and North Korea definitely don't seem to be a
threat against Western Europe, at least not an initial one or immediate one. I
was under the impression that the locations for the shields were chosen based
on it being able to intercept a multitude of possible strikes against
different countries. Obviously the information I've gotten has been minimal
and not well researched, which is why I continue to pester you ;).

Given the information you've provided, it seems Obama was indeed making a good
decision, that's good news. I am a little curious on what the real threat is
already against the US though. It's arrogant to think that we're not being
targeted for a large hit, but with the media the way it is it's hard to
accurately gauge anything, I tend to err on the side of being overly critical.

------
armadilko
Some will say there is no place for politics on HN, on one hand it is right it
is likely the technological site but on the other all the stuff we do has so
much influence on the society that we can stay apolitical.

------
_ck_
While the discussion quality is high, does this really belong on HN?

------
diablo_r
There is a place for politics on HN after all

------
hlizard
The pro Obamas fellows doesn't understand that it always finishes the same
way... the guys in uniform come to your home...

~~~
unalone
I was going to respond, then looked at your history and realized you were a
troll. Good game. Shame on whoever upvoted you.

------
romanm
I am watching Glenn Beck show on Fox News every evening, he revealed that
Obama has inserted a bunch of Marxist into the white house, fellows that
admires Hugo Chavez , Lenin , Che and other nice dictators that are
responsible for most of the blood in last century.

~~~
davidw
This sort of commentary is why we avoid politics here.

~~~
kyro
But Glenn Beck is an emotionally driven and controversial talking-head hacker!

~~~
joubert
And uses Vicks to summon tears.

------
lispm
that Gitmo is not yet closed is not Obama's fault. In the US almost nobody
wants to take the prisoners. The whole thing is a total mess.

What the Nobel price really means: Obama needs more support and less
obstruction. The old elites don't give up just because one guy gets elected.
The struggle against the military-industrial complex, the neocons, the
conservative lunatics, etc. will be long. Plus the US is not prepared for deep
structural reforms (like getting rid of the two party system, getting rid of
commercialized prisons, getting rid of a fake economy, really reducing the
military budget, etc.).

It is a sign from the international community that his intentions are
recognized as going in the right directions, now people need to work with him
to get stuff done. Like the russians and the chinese leaders need to really
reduce the nuclear arsenals. Other leaders need to understand how useless
these weapons are today.

------
known
I think Obama deserved Nobel Prize. Let us check his struggled Childhood
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Early_life_and_career>

~~~
niyazpk
I didn't know that the Nobel peace prize was awarded to the person who
struggled the most in his childhood.

~~~
known
And I didn't mean "the Nobel peace prize was awarded to the person who
struggled the most in his childhood"

------
pavlov
Congratulations Americans. Above all, this award is a recognition that the
United States still stands for something unique.

(It's hard to imagine the Peace Prize going to any other major political
leader currently in office. Hu Jintao? Dmitry Medvedev? José Manuel Barroso?
Nah.)

