A suprise choice but reading up on what they have done i'm impressed and think it's a good choice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6047020.stm

I remember reading about his program years ago. I thought it was wonderful. Horray!

It's a good choice. The Nobel Peace Prize has gone to some great people and organizations. However, there have been two peacemaking awards that are not credible in 2006. One was for improving relations with North Korea, the other for mid-east peace (Yasser Arafat). The 2006 award is unlikely to backfire.

While I don't doubt that this guy is deserving of high accolades...I truly fail to see how his actions, noble as they were, fall under a catagory of promoting peace.

Well, good question. Although I think that nations prospering with free enterprise fundamentals tend to be more peaceful than ones with rampant poverty. But other than that, I have no idea.

I think most of the peace initiatives around the world have floundered so they had the opportunity to give an unsual award. Can you name anyone who clearly missed out?

I see no reason why they have to award a nobel peace prize if they cant find someone worthy.

While its certainly better then some of the awards in the past, imo awards like this diminish the stature of the nobel peace prize. (not that the person selected isnt doing a good thing, but its not worthy of the prize imo)

Humanitarian efforts have always been a significant consideration in the award of the peace prize. Hence the awards to, for example, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, The Red Cross, and UNICEF. I dare say such awards enhance, not diminish, the stature of the award.