Disregarding the fact that Obama never should have received the Nobel Prize in the first place, yes, it should absolutely be taken away if he decides to attack Syria. There is nothing peaceful about bombing a country and killing civilians as punishment for killing civilians. That makes no sense. There are plenty of other, more "peaceful" solutions to this problem. Jumping to bombs as the first and only option proves he is undeserving of such a prestigious prize.
The United States must terminate its parallel world agenda that runs counter U N. . One of the objectives of the United Nations is to ensure fair play among nations and the reason why the United States goes their own way at times is because they are not abiding by fair play.
Ordering multiple air strikes on innocent people. Supporting Israel on their war with the Palestinians, hundreds of children have died as result. That sounds very peaceful to me. He Still hasn't pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, now he's trying to accuse Assad of having nuclear weapons, just to start a war.
The Syrian conflict is none of the business of the USA. Although I had high hopes for Obama when he was elected, I have been supremely disappointed by his actions. If Obama wants to warmonger in Syria and poke the big american nose where it Doesn't belong, then he does not deserve a Nobel Prize at all!
I think that you can say general that the novel prize for Obama was wrong and that has nothing to do just with syrian...
A novel prize should be given as a prize for a life time work and not as a advance for a young president, who has not started his work.
We will see after his time as a president, if he deserves one or not but at this time the answer is NO.
Maybe now is the time for the comitee to make a decision...
Many people have done much more to promote peace than him. Giving the prize to him was a publicity stunt more than anything! If he decides to threaten countries with war and endless violence then he is doing no more for peace than any other criminal. He puts the Nobel Peace prize to shame.
Obama should have never been awarded the nobel prize. It is not easy winning the Nobel prize and there are many other suitable people who deserves it more than a tyrannical politician who uses drones on civilians, spies on citizens, and now intending to involve the US with the current situations in syria. "I believe that I can authorize military actions without any congressional approval," - Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for actions undertaken in the year leading up the Nobel Committee's deliberations. Actions before that time are not considered, and actions taken after are not either. There have been many Nobel PEace Prize recipients who have committed atrocities or major military actions after their award (or in the case of Nelson Mandela, was involved in a guerilla military group before it). To suggest any recipient have an award revoked, particularly a national leader, for military actions, is absurd and shows an ignorance of what the Prize is awarded for in the first place.
They aren't always different. This needs to be asked differently:
-Should Obama have it took away if he invades:
-Should Obama have it took away if he let Syria massacre it's population.
Peace can't always be the product of wishful thinking. Only a idiot believes such a thing. Sometimes, the only way to preserve 10 years of peace, is 5 years of war. War isn't bad... Motives are.
He was given the prize because of his prior actions. I'm not really sure if he deserved it or not, and the whole thing seems very confusing to me. However, the one thing that I do know for certain, is that current actions he is taking in no way eliminate his prior actions. This is not a point system. There is no tally of good and bad things that contributes to the validity of his award.
In addition, the prize should not be taken away because of the Syria issue. There are many Political and Military leaders who know more than you and I who are on board with the idea. That however, it a totally different topic, so I'll end it on this note...
A strike on Syria does not eliminate the fact that he has done good in his past. A strike on Syria could bring a new life to many people. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
How will you sleep tonight knowing that in Syria there are women and children that live in a war zone that is under attack from the use of chemical weapons and explosive weapons. Wake up. Not everyone can just "get up and move" out of a neighborhood being contested as a war zone. Mothers responsible for children can't feed a kid on a constant retreat. Assad and his regime have used chemical weapons on rebels. Not only was this a red line placed by the international community, but it is sick and inhumane. With artillery, tanks, planes, etc. At his disposal, he used a weapon that was outlawed for use in WAR for crying out loud! An attack like this on enemies with gas masks would be a crime, but lobbing nerve agents that cause you to cough up your lungs and cry tears of blood into an area inhabited by innocents is pure genocide. Sometimes violence is the answer, no matter how much we want to say no. Gandhi said "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."
If we need to attack in order to save lives, I'll be on the front lines. As a member of the US Army Infantry, I would be more than happy to give my life so that any HUMAN BEING can just have the chance to live in peace, regardless of race, religion, or politics. I mean every word I say about that. America is great, but this planet is not. I serve the people of the United States, but I am a child of this earth, and I will not hesitate to help those who can not help themselves.
Consider the case of Yasser Arafat, the terrorist leader who died of AIDS. Anything at all about him ever seem like peace prize material?
Honestly, Obama was a weak choice for it (not actually ruining the value like the above), yet it may have been a really weak year for peace leaving barely any other contenders for consideration.
First, when he has been given a peace prize was there any covenant like: I will never invade to those who use a chemical weapon? Or I will never fight? Even if I fight you will have a right to take it back? I do not know but I think there was not.
Anyway, this question is like: should messi's ballandor be taken away/back if he plays badly or when he commits something against football. I think this explanation is enough.
Whether or not he deserved it or not is not the question. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize cannot under any circumstances be taken away. This is not my view, but this is actually the rule of the Nobel Foundation (see http://www.Nobelprize.Org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/statutes.Html#par10 ).
I do not believe Obama deserved the peace prize, but one thing is clear; the prize is his and his to stay.
Now, since time immemorial, humanity has faced the dilemma of choosing between two evils and it always comes up choosing up the lesser of the two. A similar case can be drawn up for our renowned leader, President Barack Hussein Obama. Being the president of a country as United States of America means a lot in itself. The kind of pressure, responsibilities and the desire to carry on a legacy is just enormous. America has the great ideology to spread and protect the rule of democracy and the people of America have seen it as a dream to witness the whole globe under this idea. President Bashar-al-Assad is against that idea. Now, let us try and empathize with President Obama, he has the example of his predecessor George Bush, who saved the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and generously gave the brave soldiers of the US army to the NATO-ISAF troops to save Afghanistan from the Taliban. What we should look over here is that though it was all for a greater good, Obama was never in full agreement to this and therefore, he worked hard to save those precious US lives which would otherwise might have been claimed by Afghanistan. Bring those soldiers home was an act of peace and not war. President Obama promised this during his campaign and held up his end. Doesn't this show us his strong character? America is lucky to have leaders of such nerves while there are also parts of the world where leaders have the sole agenda to rob the mob of their own wealth. God bless those places! The President has went to great lengths to foster international relations, promote democracy and peace and make the world a better place by efforts such as the Non - Proliferation treaty, withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan and many more which gained him the Nobel Prize in 2009. What is here to understand is that intervening in the Syrian Arab Republic is also one of those actions in view of those same ideologies but the method is not pleasing which brings me to initial point I stated that it is the dilemma between choosing the lesser of two evils. This implies to the situation in the context that if Obama doesn't take any action, then Syria will tear itself apart which would mean absolute annihilation which can be easily prevented by intervening which would in the long run prevent that absolute annihilation by inflicting which would now seem a greater devastation but is actually not. A true leader, a believer in the cause and a champion is one who in the times of crisis suspend their neutrality and do what is right even if it means to choose between two evils, they choose the lesser of the two in view that it is the necessary evil. Will that I would like to emphasize that Obama should NOT be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize if he decides to attack Syria.