Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but people are awarded the prize based on what they've done, not based on what they might do in the future.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
Obamas was explicitly given as a hope for the future
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
Ideally, we would accept the recipients as being of “certified good character”. But the stability of this pattern shows chronic lack of basic insight into the awardees, IMO.
No, ideally you'd understand under what basis the prize is handed out, and then draw your conclusions from that (or avoid thinking something specific will happen in the future based on the prize itself).
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
Obama didn’t actually do anything but get elected and said nice things. When he got the Peace Prize, people all over the world were confused and thought it was a joke.
He then went on to become the longest-serving war president [1]:
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
He mananged to convince the most powerful country on earth to vote for international cooperation rather than a guy who sang a parody song with the lyrics "bomb Iran". Obama notably worked out a denuclearization deal with them so there's that.
It's okay if a non-voting member of the Nobel org 'regrets' other peoples' decision because Obama didn't immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and pardon Bin Laden. Maybe he can take some solace in the fact that he let Putin take Crimea and shoot down MH17, trading peace in 2014 for war in 2022.
At least they had fun with it, remember "Terror Tuesday's"? And once he even apologized when they accidentally bombed a hospital full of white people. Cheney's situation room was probably like Dr.Evils lair. Obama and Hillary Clinton was more like https://youtu.be/dDJa1_fLVeA vibes.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.