I believe the award was premature. Nobel Peace prizes are nominated in February, which would be a mere two months after his election. We must analyze what he could have done in this time to be awarded such a great honor, and the truth is, the American People elected him in, and he had not yet done anything worthy of the prize.It is arguable that he still has not yet done enough to get such a reward.
Those who chose him to win the award said that it was meant as a motivator. It was meant to be representative of what he could do in the future. Since when is potential enough for that award?
Obama should have said, "Thanks but not yet. " He would not have been the first individual to turn down a Nobel Prize he was not yet worthy of. I am not saying that he should never get a Nobel Peace prize.
I am simply stating that it was just too early. Consider the damage this may have on him in the future if he fizzles. Consider those who have not received the Nobel Peace prize that were more deserving.
Yeah I think so! Barak Obama can bring peace to world, and he can deserve his noble prize. Dialogue is the solution, not war!
No. Heads of states should not be considered recepients. To give it to someone who's at war on two fronts makes you question the state of mind of Nobel commitee.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.