Reply #22: Sorry, I have to say that I'm still a sceptic

[swilton]

Two things that to me seem unexplained -

She failed to reconcile the difference between the Feb '08 nomation which was based upon Obama campaign promises - admittedly very lofty goals given the alternative to John McCain and the previous Bush Administration, ala John Bolton, Condosleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, et. al. and the panel's actual vote which must have taken place fairly recently. There were other worthy candidates in competition with Obama. So why did the Nobel panel vote for Obama given the disconnect between so many promises and the actual practices (escalating the War in Afghanistan, failure to close Guantanamo, et. al.) Yes, to talk about eliminating nukes is a worthwhile goal - but as many of you have pointed out - the process will be formidable. What about the nukes that Israel has? Actually having the will to follow through with such a goal and to take actions to achieve same would make a stronger case. Analogous to this is for the US to make some fundamental headway on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Obama ran on a lot of promises - I would like to see more action behind those promises than I've seen.

The second thing Rachel failed to do was reflected in Obama's acceptance speech when he pointed out that there were many behind him work for peace. I just fail to see how soldiers deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan or other areas where US presence is felt overseas, are bringing peace.

:crazy:

Thanks for listening -