Let's review previous winners:
1919 - Woodrow Wilson for his crucial role in establishing the League of Nations. The committee must have forgotten his role in aiding the allies financially and then with men, prolonging the war. The committee also failed to note that the US never joined the League of Nations. Key point though is that the
1925-1927 - Austen Chamberlain, Charles Dawes, Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann, Ferdinand Buisson and Ludwig Quidde all received Peace Prizes for work on the Locarno Treaty, the reparations plan and helping Germany and France reconcile after WW1. This was the same post-war settlement that destroyed Germany economically, fostered ill will throughout the German population, and did nothing to stop a sequel to WW1 roughly twenty years after the end of the first.
A running theme for peace prize recipients from 1919 through the next 75+ years was that a recipient did work for the establishment of supranational organizations, the League of Nations and its reboot, the UN. It is as if the committee wants people to believe those institutions are effective.
1964 - Martin Luther King for his civil rights crusade. One must search for how this is a peace prize moment, but some kind liberal nominated him and the Nordics rewarded him.
1973 - Henry Kissinger + Le Duc Tho for the cease-fire in Vietnam. This would be the cease fire that removed American troops, because the North Vietnamese waited for their removal and the end of financial and military support for the South Vietnamese to restart a conventional war.
1982 - Alva Myrdal + Alfonso Garcia Robles for work on disarmament negotiating at the UN. This would be the disarmament that was followed up by a surge in US military spending, creating the military powerhouse of the last 20 years.
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War for raising awareness on the horrors of nuclear war because video and photographic evidence of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not enough. This group did nothing to stop the Pakistanis, Iraqis and North Koreans from developing nuclear arms programs.
1989 - The Dalai Lama received it for being telegenic and always answering NGO phone calls.
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev received one for his work on ending the cold war because that was a one sided deal that he should only be spotlighted for because in no way did anyone in the West work with him to end the cold war.
1993 - Nelson Mandela received the peace prize as the third black South African working aganst the evil, horrible system of apartheid. His history of terrorism and violence were overlooked due to having a nice smile.
1994 - Yasser Arafat worked hard for another phony peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians that he would follow up with an intifada.
2001 - Kofi Annan and the UN worked hard for a better organized and peaceful world. This would be another self back patting award for the elite. In the decade prior to 2001, there were conflicts in the Middle East, the Balkans, Asia and sub-Sahara Africa had some rough conflicts with hundreds of thousands if not millions killed.
2002 - Jimmy Carter received it because the liberals hated Bush. If it truly were for his Camp David Accords work, they would have given it to him in the '70s.
2007- Al Gore received it for his work on raising awareness about and fighting global warming. A different view of this would be that Gore could claim the AGW crowd has a Nobel Prize backing up their side, so low information citizens do not know it is a peace prize and not a science prize. Gore is also not the hated Bush.
2009 - Barack Obama received it because the liberals hated Bush. He had no achievements or acomplishments at the time, but liberals said he would grow and work to earn it. Stop laughing.
2012 - The European Union received it because enough rumbling is coursing through Europe that nationalist parties are rising and the eurocrats need some propaganda to support their case for existence.
These are just lowlights. A simple glance at the list shows how empty or idiotic the award is. It is a publicity and propaganda tool for the interntional elite to use against the commoners to sway opinion and spotlight special, progressive crusades. For the decades of awards to anti-nuclear weapons crusades, no one mentions the obvious positive to nuclear weapons. Then just a general, but President Eisenhower said that the massing and preprations for the D-Day landings would never be repeated with the invention of nuclear weapons. No war would be large enough with big enough combatants to amass such forces with the knowledge that one bomber could wipe out the force. As David Stockman has recently written, the mutually assured destruction that the US and USSR submarine forces would have wrekced on each other were enough to deter large actions and massive conflict. This is never brought up because like the boogeyman of many left-wing crusades, the opponent must be purely evil with evil motives and no positives.