This war had nothing to do with Obama's grand sense of morals it was because he didn't know what to do same was as he had not known what to do about any or these regional uprisings. In Iran in 2008 he said nothing, In Egypt he decided to call for a long standing US ally to go, In Libya it took him over a week to even personally condemn Gaddafi and call for him to go... he was the last leader in the western world to call for him to go then he sat back and did nothing while Gaddafi was bombing people whilst the British & French were calling for military action and it wasn't until the Arab League called on him to impose a no fly zone he was finally made his decision. He has know idea what he actually intends to achieve in Libya long term because its unlikely he can get rid of Gaddafi with air power alone, providing support to the so called rebels means getting involved means taking sides in a civil war and neither the American people or the UN gave him a mandate to do that. As for Obamas Nobel Prize, thats the biggest joke of all. Nominations for the Nobel Prize closed about 10 days after Obama's inagurattion as president and when the winner was announced he hadn't done anything. The man got the Nobel Prize because his name was not George W Bush. If I was Obama I would be ashamed of my Nobel Prize because what it says is people reward me for doing nothing whilst other recipients have to earn it through their actions. The messianic Obama craze is wayning even amongst the left in the US... his policy has been I want people to like me.
Western-backed Syrian rebels say kill foreign Islamic State (Reuters)
from the article: The only thing worse than going to war is losing