A not so Nobel effort.

I'm fairly sure this is degrading the Peace Prize and you would think they'd have learned from the debacle surrounding Yasser Arafat that giving a Nobel Peace Prize to political opportunists is a waste of time.

US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to strengthen international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.
There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Zimbabwe's prime minister and a Chinese dissident had been among the favourites.
The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.
"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Well he has certainly captured the worlds attention, though many like me wonder if negotiating away nuclear weapons will actually work, I mean as long as North Korea (where any USA President has zero influence) has them, then someone else will need them just in case there is nuclear blackmail to be had. So the whole thing seems merely a sop to the wet lefties to keep them onboard whilst his health reform bill flounders and his popularity levels nosedive in the face of an increasing public hostility in the States.

The problem with nuclear weapons is that the tin is now open and they can't be stuffed back in it. Plus negotiations only work with civilised nations and on a basis for trust (or fear of consequences), there will always be the sneaking suspicion that somewhere somehow somebody has one that's not on the grid.
Now I do wish for a peaceful world, don't get me wrong, however if you want peace, you don't start by weakening your options, particularly when some of your opponents don't give a damn if you give up your nukes as they are going to get them anyway. In diplomatic terms, the maxim "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is still the way to deal with potential threats.

The other thing that bothers me is that he seems to be getting a prize for trying, to me it looks like the liberal leftist "there are no losers" dogma taken to the pinnacle of idiocy. He hasn't achieved anything for Gods sake, just spread a little good will with no tangible results other than leaving Poland and the Czech republic with no missile shield. Yes talks on nuclear reduction might be a good thing, but please, no prize till it's been done, not because you've got a dialogue going.

I might be missing the point totally (not for the first time) but to me the Nobel Peace Prize should go to someone who has achieved something that has stood the test of time and is not actively prosecuting 2 wars. Mind you, they gave one to Arafat, Al Gore and the idiot who came up with the Sunshine Policy. Compared to that giving one to someone who hasn't actually done anything seems almost an improvement.

BTW Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel peace Prize in 1936.

H/T to Mr Eugenides for this Link