Honestly, why do you continue to produce this nonsense? Everyone could see from miles away you were going to take a swipe at Obama, rendering your rambling diatribe redundant and pointless.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of the START treaty? Obviously not. But hey, why deal with facts, when you can construct a "narrative" with your own nonsense?

Fairly certain the Maine didn't blow up in 1989.

There should be a 10 year waiting period between the act worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize and the candidate's eligibility. This would prevent many of these knee-jerk reactions. Otherwise, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will continue to get embarrassed on a semi-regular basis.

This piece is low-quality work, sloppily written and poorly reasoned. Some of FP's "name" writers -- David Rothkopf leaps to mind -- occasionally need a real editor to keep their posts on point. I don't know the specific duty range of an FP associate editor, but this one clearly needs a real editor to let him know when his writing is not up to standard, and needs to be redone.

In this case, a real editor might have directed young Mr. Keating to address the objection that President Roosevelt actually did the thing for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, hosting and guiding the negotiation that ended a major war between two of the world's great powers. Almost every other section here has a similarly large gap in its facts or logic. FP is not so starved for content that it could not have held a feature like this for proper editing, or until next year's Nobel Peace Prize award.

This could have been an interesting thoughtful well researched piece, but it was really just lame and largely predictable cynicism. Criticism of Elbaredei and the IAEA for getting the peace prize is based on a) their pursuit of a pacific alternative to the Iraq issue (er, why is that a bad reason?) b) a sluggish response to an event in Japan that took place six years later and c) the fact that there are five more nuclear weapons states compared to its foundation in 1956. Well, maybe the P5, or maybe zero nuclear weapons states would be an appropriate standard to hold the technical agency, the IAEA. But I'd prefer judge them against President John F. Kennedy's famous 1962 prediction that "by 1970, there may be 10 nuclear powers instead of four and, by 1975, 15 or 20." There's likely just four new nuclear powers since 1956, only three of which, India (1974 and 1998), North Korea (2006), and Pakistan (1998) have tested a nuclear aweapon. Fewer than Kennedy's prediction for 1970. And where's your evidence that Syria is close to a nuclear weapon? I thought their program was stopped dead in its tracks when the Israelis bombed the site in Der Ez-Zor. If you've got any further evidence, why don't you tell us, and the IAEA?

Agree Obama was controversial, and AGAIN you are judging the award after things largely done afterwards (Al-Awlaki, OBL etc) but if you want to do it that way, why not mention START, UNSCR 1887 (2009), intention to ratify the CTBT? Clearly it was an award given more to influence than reward - it happens, it can be more useful that way.

And if you are looking for controversial ones, how about Liu Xiaobo? I appreciate Voltaire's position: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." But even so, an article like this should highlight why others might disagree, eg, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-winner-liu-xiaobo-chinese-dissident for his views in support of wars based on neo-con philosophy.

Really not worthy of the FP brand, this one.

This article ignores the terrorist Menachin Begin who was the leader of the Irgun terrorist group before 1948 and killed many civilians. He won the nobel prize for his peace treaty with Egypt. Aslo, Yitzhak Rabin who also was a member of terrorist groups and then became a prime minster and won the prize for his work.

It also ignores Shimon Perez, who won it in 1994 and currently he is the president of Israel, he confirmed the gaza war and also he is one of the reasons why the peace is now at hold and not working.

Nobel Peace Prize recipients are often controversial and therefore easy targets for even less than thoughtful journalists but the fact that Menachem Begin is absent from this list is shameful.

A dreadful article, compounded by the fact that "IgNobel" is used by another organisation that publicises bizarre research. This article besmirches their brand.

The intro statement to the Award should have said: Barack Obama, self-absorbed Idiot-Savant imbued with Ivy League hubris and conceit.

I'll only comment on them in order;

1. Arafat - why not him and Rabin shaking hands rather than a 70s picture with a gun in the background?
2. KIssinger - good call
3. Teddy and Andrew Jackson - whats the difference as men?
4. Woodrow - well everyone was banning interracial marriages at the time, everywhere
5. Anna - blame many and especially the US for not going into Rwanda. THey got burned in Somalia. Dont congratulate the French either.
6. Atomic Agency - wasnt worth it but their cause is peaceful and their failures are not only their own.
7. Obama - he didnt change the world.

"Indeed, the Nobel seems to have been given to candidate Obama ... rather than President Obama, better known for the Afghan surge, a massively expanded drone war, military intervention in Libya, and the extrajudicial killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden." Three out of four items on your list occurred after Oama was awarded the Nobel Prize, so the Norwegian Nobel Committee certainly didn't consider them in their decision.

However, these additional defenses of freedom/war crimes depending on your preferred narrative) shouldn't remain unnoticed by the Committee. The Committee really should consider these additional defenses of freedom/war crimes. They alone may qualify Obama for a second peace Prize. If they are not sufficient, the Committee will just have to wait until Obama starts another war.

The Committee may not have to wait long. Insider reports are saying that it is only a matter of time before we commence hostilies with Pakistan. The Obama administration won't call it a "war"; we can count on that. Re-branding the term "war" is one thing the Obama administration is really good at. They will probably just recycle whatever they are presently calling the Libyan War.

However, even if it is not called a war, attacking an ally of the U.S. should be good for double credit toward a second Peace Prize for Obama. After all, European intellectuals believe that the allies of the U.S. deserve misfortune much more than Islamic "freedom fighters" do. These chattering classes would love to honor Obama a second time, especially if it was for reminding the world that, as Henry Kissinger used to say, while it can be dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, to be a friend is fatal. They would certainly see as a major contribution to world peace an act that damaged a country misguided enough to ally itself with the U.S. and at the same time dishonored the reputation of America.

The great Nobel Committee has squandered an opportunity to give a posthumous award to General George Armstrong Custer :
"For validating and providing employment for minority Native Americans. His outreach program provided a major boost in helping the Lakota and other tribes realize their goals."

I like this article. I may disagree on some details on some of the individuals, but I heartily concur with the inappropriateness of each one, and agree without reservation that the Nobel prize is sadly tainted.

In fact, in learning more of history, and in particular the history of the Nobel prize, I have come to believe that it was corrupt from the very first.

Alfred Nobel created the prize as a legacy from his great wealth. But it was an act of guilt-drenched moral cowardice, last and most extreme of such acts of moral cowardice on his part.

He professed to be very anti war; a good 19th century scientist, believing in Progress (in normal usage I would not capitalize the word, but to this day there are people who do, treating it as a proper noun which deserves respect)...Progress, i.e., that modern enlightenment could fix the world as never before. It's no coincidence that so many scientists have held this view. It allows them to indulge their amoral pursuit of knowledge and power and prestige and,yes, wealth, all the while assuring themselves and others that in fact they are heroic leaders and pioneers of Progress because, of course, all scientific Progress must, in the long run, make the world better.

Albert Einstein, God bless him, admitted near the end of his life that he had clung to that belief most of his life and had to admit that, no, science would not automatically make the world better.

Alfred Nobel took on the problem of high explosives. Nitroglycerin was the only one really available, and had limited use due to its legendary touchiness. It's almost as volatile as Barak Obama being challenged in a news conference. Nobel's own brother remarked that scientists tend to be very vain, and love to pursue dangerous research because their egos are challenged by the prospect of gaining control over such things.

Nobel made a vast fortune from dynamite and other high explosives, and whined and squirmed in tortured shame and doubt as more and more of his vast income came from selling explosives for military munitions. Of course, at no time was his doubt and shame ever allowed to interfere with expanding his huge fortune.

He even gave out with that sad old rationalization, that he was not making war worse, but making it impossible, because with high explosives of course it would be so terrible that nobody would fight a war. Holland said the same thing about his invention of the first modern military submarine. Wilber Wright said the same thing about the military use of aircraft. It's a common rationalization. With a common result.

Anyway, Nobel was horrified when after a premature report of his death, an obituary revealed to him that he was known by many as the "Merchant of Death." Did he abandon his (incredibly lucrative) high explosives business, give all his money to antiwar activists, and publicly repudiate his life's work and its huge contribution to making mass killing and destruction cheaper and easier? No, he stayed wealthy to his death and instead tried to buy off his conscience by leaving the Nobel prize as his legacy.

As with most things in human affairs, it was of course not an "either/or" situation; the Nobel has in fact at times encouraged art, science, and even working for peace. But it has also given cachet to people whose activities should have been subject to more criticism. I wonder if it has been, overall, more harmful than useful to humanity. Certainly I would not be distressed if it was abolished tomorrow.

Too bad Nobel did not fully repent. Maybe he could have established a prize for those who stand up against the blind worship of Progress. Instead, I fear his legacy has helped encourage the same moral cowardice, selfishness, and wishful thinking that he never overcame in his own life.

Jay Maupin

How can anybody even COMPARE........ Arafat was an EVIL person, a THIEF who stole billions from his OWN people (his wife now living lavishly in Paris, the MOST hated person among Palestinians themselves...), a real CON-ARTIST who conned both his enemies and his friends, a VICIOUS MURDERER and a CHILD MOLESTER.

"and Syria and Iran are believed to have made significant progress toward gaining them"

Believed by whom? Those that want regime change in and civil destruction of both countries.

Evidence: Zilch. Iran has well-monitored facilities (by the IAEA) and they are having great difficulties reaching 20% enrichment let alone 95% needed for nuclear weapons (think StuxNet written by Israel (?)). Syria - a building bombed by Israel before it could be inspected. Why didn't Israel get an inspection? Because it knows no evidence is needed, just its say-so. After all, Israel could have bombed the building minutes after Syria rejected any inspection request. Conclusion: Israel didn't want the building inspected as there was no concrete evidence of nuclear activity.

I haven't read many articles in FP. Is this article really representative of the quality of FP?

Joshua Keating doesn't seem to know much about the IAEA and its inspection activities during the buildup to Bush's Iraq conquest, including during the Clinton administration. The agency did a remarkable job, given the severe interference in its activities by the Clinton and Bush II administrations.

Mohammed El-Baradei, as well as his predecessor at the IAEA and others who worked in the inspections of Iraq's nuclear program have written extensively about this. These people include Richard Butler of Australia, Hans Blix of Sweden, and Scott Ritter of the United States.

Iraq was disarmed by the U.N. inspection teams, the first time that nuclear disarmament was realized under international auspices. In 1998, charges were made that the U.S. was using the inspections for espionage. In December of that year the U.S. told the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq and began a massive and deadly air attack, "Operation Desert Fox." Contrary to U.S. government propaganda at the time, the Iraqis did not kick the inspectors out. Clinton was heavily preoccupied with scandal. This incident, among many others between 1992 and 2005, was a great blow to the concept of international inspections. It was essentially what the Russians claimed would have happened had they accepted the Baruch Plan back in the 1940's.

The U.S. has never been an effective advocate of nuclear disarmament; quite the contrary, as it leads the world in producing, planning for, and threatening the use of nuclear weapons-- including in the Obama administration's nuclear policy statements and budget requests.

Keating did, however, get it right on Obama's premature (at best) Nobel Prize and those of the other Americans in his list.

He got the Nobel prize for, not making peace, rather for NOT fighting.

It is this: did they carry out the tasks for which they were awarded?

Under that criteria there is very little point in pointing out OTHER things that they did either before or since, precisely because they were not awarded their prize for those acts.

I can't see much wrong with most of the people on that list except for Obama, who seems to have been award a Nobel Peace Prize for having a nice pearly smile.

Arafat: He won it in 1994 for signing the Oslo Accords, which is pretty fair in my book.

Kissinger: Dude, did he or did he not get bums on seats and signatures on paper in Paris?

Roosevelt: Sunshine, a war between two world powers. He did negotiate the end to that war. No Mean Feat.

Wilson: Heck, he got the LoN up and running even though the USofA didn't want to join it. Deserved.

Annan: Look, you simply aren't going to know how many world wars the UN has prevented, but just consider what a world without the UN would look like. Oh, that's right, we don't need to: it would look like the world as it existed pre-1945.

ElBaradei: The dude is a legend, and deserves the award for being the only man of decency and integrity when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

Obama: OK, you got me here. I have no idea what they were smoking when they decided that Smiley Face gets the gong.

Where is Menachem Begin in this Nobel Prize winners list?

If you prefer to honor someone else, endow your own award.

If you really want to award the prize for keeping the peace and preventing WWIII then give the Nuke a Nobel. 10's of millions saved and counting.

I just noticed that every single person on the list provided are people who has served and plays a big part in any war or any kind of killings. Is that what you really call peace? Is that how we really award people and get the Nobel Prize? Although some of the men listed above draws a clear line of bravery. However, we cannot deny the fact that some of the men from the list is not highly deserving of the prize, they may deserve systemic enzymes, since we all know that the peace agreement that was made by most of them are on hold.

Perhaps the most idiotic peace promoter in the world, Gandhi was never a winner of Nobel prize. The Nobel committee has acknowledged the political considerations behind the exclusion seslichat of Gandhi. The reason is that Nobel prize is not won, but awarded. When it is awarded, politics certainly come into play