Chinese here.

In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning.

So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is an illustration of the committee's political independence. Unlike Liu Xiaobo's prize, that of Obama was controversial and broadly unpopular within Norway.

Independence and ineptitude.

Ignorance is why you are being down voted, the man spent his entire time in office at war if that is deserving of a peace prize I'm not sure what you'd have to do to not deserve one.

The military, Wall Street, healthcare financial services, and government (size, reach of power), win after every single election.

I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.

>The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.

With these "wars" in particular he actually does have a great deal of power. They aren't actually wars but "military actions" for the most part. The commander in chief can unilaterally order the armed forced to withdraw if he so wished. Instead Obama ordered drone strike after drone strike, bombing after bombing (so many in fact that there was serious concerns that we would run out of bombs[0]). His merits as a president can be debated, his merits as a peace prize winner cannot. He simply did very little to promote peace and much to prevent it (see Syria).

[0]http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs...

I completely agree. But what do you think they would have done to him had he refused to go along with it?

I don't have the information required to tell you specifically what would happen, but I will note the media was very friendly with the Obama administration. Those media organizations are held by parent companies that also often own weapons manufacturers. Obama was a man who was very concerned with his legacy and thus by the transitive property media portrayals of himself. Is it possible that he traded the lives of innocents for his personal vanity? Maybe, but the truth is we will probably never know why he did what he did. The only thing that I can say for certain is he didn't deserve any award with peace in the title.

Obama won the year before Liu Xiaobo, so how does this make sense?

Liu Xiaobo always has supporters.

Far as I can remember, at that time (Around 2009, 20 years after Tiananmen event), there are some people says Liu Xiaobo should be awarded with the peace prize for against CCP's dictatorship.

Some people event had a debate about it. Some say Liu is a hero for democratize China, others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by ... may be the US?

That debate later end with Obama's prize.

I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president.

> I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president.

Why not?

Because I'm not a taxpayer in the US?

If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?

If you mean right in the legal sense: Because of freedom of speech? If they think they have something to say about someone, and be it the leaders of my country, then they have the legal right to say it.

If you mean right in a moral sense, I guess my question still is: Why not?

If you are negatively affected by the actions of a leader of a foreign country ... why should you not have a right to criticize that?

If you have some constructive criticism as to how the leader of a foreign country is doing their job badly and how they could to it better ... what would be the use of not saying so out loud? Couldn't that possibly even be a contribution to their country?

I really don't see why having contributed to something would have anything to do with whether you should criticize it or not?! I can see how maybe you don't get a direct say in who gets to be the leader, but that's quite different from criticizing them, isn't it? I haven't contributed to Equifax either, but I still don't see why I shouldn't criticize their leadership?! Or should I? Why? Why not? And how is a country fundamentally different from a company in that regard?

That's a very odd sentiment. Do you believe most of the posters here also have no right to criticize China for these actions? Or that noone here has any right to criticize north Korea? I don't think anyone here pays them any taxes.

It's your freedom to do so, plus you have that right written in the law which we're not protected by.

For me, I just don't comment something I don't understand, I'm not living in the US, so I can't feel what Obama's doing.

Because of that, how can I make a comment that is appropriate? I can't even make a comment that's accurate (Judging by those late night shows I watched on Youtube).

Now about tax, I think it's actually you paid your government to do what they want. When they did something wrong / you don't like it, of course you can complain about it.

But as a foreigner however, if the US government did some negative thing on us, the most effective way I think is to blame our government for letting it to happen.

BTW: Of course, in China we have anit-US (Or Japan etc) prides from time to time, just I'm not a fan of it.

> others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by external enemy

This is what all the dictators say.

Smh