Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

Pro starts off in saying that Obama's accomplishment has been in the stances he has taken in all of the "wars" "and the fact that he's made it to the very top with these stances." But taking a stance is not an accomplishment an accomplishment is defined in the dictionary as "an act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment." Obama has not carried anything into effect yet with these wars. Taking a stance is not enough he needs to do something, he may very well do something in the future of great merit. But as of now he hasn't so he didn't deserve the award. Pro also goes on to say that it is not just these stances but it is how these stances compare to past Presidents. So what about every liberal President we have ever had, do they all deserve the award too for their stances? Pro also makes it sound as if the only people eligible for this award are US Presidents but anyone in the entire world can receive the award. So we can not only compare what Obama has done to past Presidents but we must compare what he has done with every other person in the world. I would also like to say here once again that what did Obama do as of February 1 of this year. He had barely been in office for a month! He had not done anything even close as of then to merit the Nobel Peace Prize. Next Pro says that the only reason Obama has not done anything is because of the conservative opposition and that the conservatives are stopping him. The democrats have a huge majority in Congress, they can even override a filibuster. The only "conservative" opposition Obama is experiencing is from talk show hosts like Rush and Glenn Beck and their supporters. The conservatives do not have enough power in government to stop him. So that argument is completely false. Pro also makes the comparison of how if he died in a fire for trying to save people would not he still receive a medal? Yes you very well might, but Obama is in no fire because once again he has the majority in Congress, and do you know how he got elected? He got elected when the majority of people in the country voted for him. Pro also makes a very good comparison of "I want to find a cure for AIDS... Where's my Nobel Prize for science?" he says that if someone comes very close to finding the cure they might receive the Nobel. Okay, but Obama has not even come close to ending the "wars" Pro talks about. Simply taking a stance does not end the war. He may be "heading in the right direction" according to the liberal view point, but he needs to take some real steps in order to deserve the award. 1) Middle East: Pro says here that the troops being sent are going in to Afghanistan and yes I am well aware of that. He then goes onto say that it is okay to fight terrorism in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Because Iraq had nothing to do the 9/11 and Al-Queda. This is something I don't understand, can you please explain why it is okay to fight terrorism in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Also I would like to point out here that sending more troops into a country to fight is not peace it is war. 2) War on Drugs: Here Pro once again says that Obama has a history of leniency and has peaceful intentions. Then if you look at round one he basically says that Obama has realized that we should legalize drugs. Now I could go into all of the negative effects that illegal drugs have but I really don't think it is necessary. So instead I would just like to ask how is being lenient on illegal drug users and allowing them to break the law some great accomplishment? Why does that mean he should win the Nobel? Frankly it doesn't all that it means is that he does not uphold the law. 3) Gay Rights: Pro says Obama is making great strides and if conservatives strike him down it is not his fault. I have two problems here: one is what are these "great strides" he is making because simply being for gay rights does not mean he is making "great strides." My second point here is a repeat and again it is that conservatives don't have the power to stop him. 4) Immigration: Here Pro says that Obama has made progress. Well, can you please give some specific examples of what he has actually done. Because all I have heard is Obama once again being lenient in this area just as he is in the war on drugs. In addition to that as of February 1 what had he done because the resolution states "Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize" not Obama deserves. 5) War on non Christians: Pro did not understand what I was saying here so I will restate my previous argument. In the first round Pro said that Obama has not catered to Christians and downplayed the fact that he is a Christian. Pro also said that because of this it will reduce the attacks on our country. I said if this is true then why were there just recently arrests made in Denver and NYC to prevent terrorist attacks? 6) Patriotism: Here I would like to say that Pro ignored what I said about the Patriot Act. Pro's argument here was that Obama ordered GITMO closed and the rest is just red tape. But here is an article saying otherwise: "Reporting from Washington - Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said Tuesday that the Obama administration would probably not meet its Jan. 22 deadline for closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the fate of more than 220 foreign terrorism suspects being held there might remain up in the air for months longer." http://www.latimes.com... So they are not sure when they will be able to close Guantanamo, therefore Obama should not receive credit for it until it is done. 7) Environment: Once again Pro says we are on the right track with this and it is very different from Obama's predecessors. This is something that continues to be an argument before Pro but just because we are on the right track and Obama has "good" views doesn't mean he deserved the Nobel. Wait until the end of his first term and then let's see if he has made any accomplishments. 8) Poverty: Here Pro says that Obama is pushing for health care reform but he can not do it single handed. He does not have to because once again, Obama has the majority in both houses of Congress. Conservatives can not stand in his way! But why not wait too see if he actually gets it passed before we just hand him a Nobel Peace Prize. Finally, Pro ends by saying that Obama can't single handedly end these wars and that half of the people and half of the government are conservatives. But once again this is not true as I have already explained several times Obama has the majority in Congress and the way he was elected is the majority of people voted for him. Pro also says that compared to other Presidents Obama greatly outshines them. And in some people's eyes he may outshine other "Presidents" but I think Pro missed my point here what I said is that anyone can receive the prize. So has Obama outshined everyone in the entire world? "A bipartisan group of six members of the U.S. Congress have nominated humanitarian Greg Mortenson of Bozeman for the Nobel Peace Prize. Mortenson, 51, founder of the Central Asia Institute and co-author of the bestselling book "Three Cups of Tea," has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years." http://bozemandailychronicle.com... Here is an example of a nominee who has truly accomplished something, in a few years time Obama may accomplish something but as of yet he has not and therefore did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Also just as an extra I would like to put in this link which has a video covering Obama's accomplishments: http://www.hulu.com...