Another Genius Appointment By Bush

[No Limit]

Can someone explain to me what the hell is wrong with Bush? In his campaign he promised to work with the united nations and to fix ties with other countries. It seems that nothing has changed and Bush continues to insult the world community. His most recent example of complete disrespect to the UN is appointing John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Here are some fun quotes from Bolton on the UN:

"Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system."

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

This guy is not a diplomat and never has been. So why the hell would you appoint someone that wants to get rid of the UN to be our main diplomat to the UN? How are countries supposed to work with this guy if he doesn't want to work with them? So again, I ask, what the hell is wrong with Bush?

 

[jondy]

Freaky.

 

[gh0st]

Nothings wrong with Bush. In fact, he's doing a good thing by limiting our dependance and our exploitation by the UN. Uh oh... he doesnt like the UN. Nobody does but liberals who want to see our country run by Kofi, and our army stolen and used by european powers. I'm all for him.

 

[Bodacious]

Oh yah, like there is nothing wrong with the UN. Maybe this guy can actually fix the UN and be tough with them.

Defending Bolton

The trouble with many U.N. defenders is that they refuse to see this fundamental problem, and demand a constantly expanding role for the United Nations without explaining how its lack of democratic accountability is to be addressed. The trouble with many U.N. detractors, in Congress and elsewhere, is that they see the corruption and nothing else. But there is a role for U.N. institutions -- in Afghanistan, or in international health -- as long as that role is limited in time and cost. And there is a desperate need for U.N. reform. In defense of John Bolton: He may, if he can get confirmed, be one of the few U.N. ambassadors who has thought a good deal about how to set such limits and make such reforms. And if he isn't invited to a few cocktail parties along the way, at least he won't mind.

A Bolt of Good Sense

The Oil-for-Food scandal becomes more appalling with each new revelation of self-dealing, malfeasance, and moral turpitude. Blue-helmeted peacekeepers are found to have engaged in rape and other criminal activity in the course of their humanitarian missions. Corruption appears to be pervasive. Proliferators of weapons of mass destruction are enabled and excused. And, the mob rule that performs much of the organization’s decision-making continues to legitimate and otherwise protect despicable tyrants.


The United Nations’ apologists tend to respond to this litany of complaints by arguing that there is nothing wrong with the institution and its current leadership that a little “reform” won’t fix. They seem to think that an investigation here, a resignation there will suffice — if only the United States redoubles its commitment to the organization, pays its disproportionate share of membership dues and other costs (e.g., those of peacekeeping operations), and plays ball with the U.N.’s lowest-common denominator agenda: Maintaining the status quo, even where it is at odds with the United Nations’ own charter guaranteeing freedom as a basic human right.

President Bush, however, recognizes that — if the U.N. is to survive and be useful — it is going to have to engage in not just cosmetic reform, but in a significant course correction. In order for the institution to deserve, let alone enjoy, the generous support of the American people, it must live up to its founding principles.

 

[jondy]

Nobody does but liberals who want to see our country run by Kofi, and our army stolen and used by european powers.

If you think that's what the UN is there to do, then dig your head out of the sand and take a sodding look around. Christ.

 

[Bodacious]

If you think that's what the UN is there to do, then dig your head out of the sand and take a sodding look around. Christ.

The UN doesn't do much else besides what gh0st described.

 

[GhostFox]

I think there is a lot of corruption in the UN, but I don't really know how this will solve it. And I think that corruption *cough* Kofi *cough* is the main challenge faceing the UN. If the UN doesn't reform soon it will be irrelevent anyway, so I don't know how much this appointment can screw things up. Maybe he can actually shake things up a bit and get the UN back on the right track. Who knows.

 

[blahblahblah]

If you look historical at the stance the US has taken on such organizations as NATO, UN, and League of Nations, it has always been a negative one. The US constitution prohibits us from being controlled by someone outside of the president, congress, and the judicial system. There have been very few instances where the US has whole-hearted supported multi-national coalititions. Most of the time, the US agrees to join but doesn't cooperate in the spirit of the law.

BTW - Bush has received some praise for his attempts at reconciliation during his Europe trip.

PS - Link to sources. Credibility is everything.

 

[Calanen]

I hate the UN. Its a corrupt spineless body that is beholden unto the massive votes provided by the corrupted nations that make up the bulk of its voting blocks. It provides 'jobs for the boys' for people to take bribes, and it is not checked on or monitored properly by anyone, nor able to be.

Koffi Annan refuses to provide documents relating to the oil for food scandal. There has been scandal after scandal within the UN. Zero accountability. And the African nations who make up a major voting block don't want to see assistance for people being oppressed or subjct to genocide so the UN dithers while people die.

President Bush needs to appoint someone who puts Americas interests first. Americas. Not Europe's or anyone elses. And the whole Anti-US club that has been built up within the UN, (remember the stingy comment after the Tsunami re America and other countrie's aid?) needs not to be cowtowed to by the people that represent the United States of America.

America will and should in all of its appointments appoint people that represent its interests. And if that means that they are not going to be subservient apologists to the United Nations then tough.

 

[Bodacious]

I think there is a lot of corruption in the UN, but I don't really know how this will solve it. And I think that corruption *cough* Kofi *cough* is the main challenge faceing the UN. If the UN doesn't reform soon it will be irrelevent anyway, so I don't know how much this appointment can screw things up. Maybe he can actually shake things up a bit and get the UN back on the right track. Who knows.

The appointment of Bolton is a step in the right direction at the very least.

 

[Korgoth]

this logic is very strange to me...

Iraq violated UN resolutions, we must attack them for it.

The UN is useless, corrupt, and all around evil, we must not listen to them...

How does this all fit? I almost bet saddam himslef had the very same things to say about the UN being a corrupt organization

 

[Calanen]

this logic is very strange to me...

Iraq violated UN resolutions, we must attack them for it.

The UN is useless, corrupt, and all around evil, we must not listen to them...

How does this all fit? I almost bet saddam himslef had the very same things to say about the UN being a corrupt organization

The only reason there were any resolutions at all was because the USA dragged the UN kicking and screaming to the table to get them. And I doubt that privately Saddam had much of a problem with the UN, as they did allow his oil for food scandal to go not only unchecked but with the participation of UN officials in the fraud!

The idea of the UN is a good one. Let me make myself clear, I am talking of the UN bureacracy. Not every member of the UN is bad. Of course. And it has done a lot of good. But the current UN, the people who staff its bureacracy are more useless than evil, and rife with corruption and ineffeciency.

But putting that to one side - the Bolton guy is there to represent America. Not to be some UN puppet in awe of their blue helmeted majesty. He needs to bash the UN around from time to time. Its the only way to wake them up, and even sometimes that does not work.

 

[No Limit]

And I think that corruption *cough* Kofi *cough* is the main challenge faceing the UN.

Can you cite one example of proof that Kofi participated in any corruption? I would love to hear actual facts behing these Fox News talking points.

Sorry I am slow to reply to everyone's posts, I will probably have to do it tomorrow. I got 2 hours of sleep last night and have a crap load of work to complete before I leave today.

 

[Calanen]

Can you cite one example of proof that Kofi participated in any corruption? I would love to hear actual facts behing these Fox News talking points.

Sorry I am slow to reply to everyone's posts, I will probably have to do it tomorrow. I got 2 hours of sleep last night and have a crap load of work to complete before I leave today.

You keep saying that I get this from FOX news which of itself is no big deal except I have neither FOX cable nor a television! How about Kofi's son happening to coincidentally get a job with one of the UNs contractors? And then Kofi's son have expenses paid from him by the UN? Little stuff sure - but its harde to pin down the old Kofi, he doesn;t like anyone seeing the documents, which he was had to be wrestled to the ground kicking and screaming to handover.

 

[No Limit]

You keep saying that I get this from FOX news which of itself is no big deal except I have neither FOX cable nor a television! How about Kofi's son happening to coincidentally get a job with one of the UNs contractors? And then Kofi's son have expenses paid from him by the UN? Little stuff sure - but its harde to pin down the old Kofi, he doesn;t like anyone seeing the documents, which he was had to be wrestled to the ground kicking and screaming to handover.

First off, I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting GhostFox. Kofi participating in corruption is a talking point fabricated by fox news and there is no evidance to back any of this up. Here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160007

As far as I am aware he handed over all the needed documents to congress. Sure, he didn't go infront of congress to testify but that is not his job and he certainly doesn't need to do it. If Canada called Bush to testify on war crimes in Iraq he also wouldn't have to do it, correct? Also, I find it odd that you would try to criticize Kofi for not releasing documents when you are the one that supports the Bush adminstration who is suspected of withholding key documents from the 9/11 report until after the election for their own personal gain.

 

[kmack]

This appointment is a not so subtle gesture to the U.N. that changes must be made.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The UN is useless. It's doing badly today in even humanitarian efforts.

All the invested money into the UN, if put into humanitarian organizations that could become independent due to the funds going straight to them, would serve to get the needed far better.

The security council has been proven useless. It was semi successful in '91, but due to the fact that it was a UN operation Saddam could not be taken out fully then, as the fear was losing Arab coalition members. Rwanda was a horrible massacre left untouched. Darfur went straight to hell before it was finally touched. It's not working for what it was designed for, at all.

U.N.American.

We need a phasing out the UN and taking care of things with our mutual allies outside of a "world body" that puts nations like Libya in charge of the human rights issues.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Can someone explain to me what the hell is wrong with Bush?

I thought he just appointed a genius?

This guy is not a diplomat and never has been. So why the hell would you appoint someone that wants to get rid of the UN to be our main diplomat to the UN?

Because the UN wants to support the United States into Globalization. I say, hell no! The UN is'int asking China.

 

[kmack]

The UN is useless. It's doing badly today in even humanitarian efforts.

Source?

We need a phasing out the UN and taking care of things with our mutual allies outside of a "world body" that puts nations like Libya in charge of the human rights issues.

Our mutual allies? like the ones standing by our side in Iraq, ya the UN of Poland, the US, Britain and Italy, that'd be just great.

 

[gh0st]

Source?

Common knowledge doesnt need a source

Our mutual allies? like the ones standing by our side in Iraq, ya the UN of Poland, the US, Britain and Italy, that'd be just great.

Doesnt matter. Just because they dont support us in Iraq doesnt mean they dont support us in general. France, for example, hasnt voted against the US's vote in the UN for a decade. No reason to say they arent our allies, relations are strained because they are cowards, but we are still allies.

 

[kmack]

Common knowledge doesnt need a source

Sorry, but I like to debate facts. I know you don't but I see it as the proper way to debate.

Doesnt matter. Just because they dont support us in Iraq doesnt mean they dont support us in general. France, for example, hasnt voted against the US's vote in the UN for a decade. No reason to say they arent our allies, relations are strained because they are cowards, but we are still allies.

Or maybe it is because we are ignorant bigots?

Do you perhaps have a source on the entirity of France being "cowards" or is this just some more "General knowledge" that is really a bunch of opinionated bullsh*t

 

[CptStern]

Common knowledge doesnt need a source

you'll have to do better than that

Doesnt matter. Just because they dont support us in Iraq doesnt mean they dont support us in general. France, for example, hasnt voted against the US's vote in the UN for a decade. No reason to say they arent our allies, relations are strained because they are cowards, but we are still allies.

you ....cant be serious?

 

[kmack]

He just called the French cowards.
racism (bigotry)

And defended not having sources.
ignorance

Anywho, the U.S. is really not as incredibly powerful as we like to think, in a throw down with china, we would need the U.N. We need them, more than they need us. Simple fact is, the world would frown upon our departure, and it would make little strategic sense seeing as leaving allies is historically a poor decision, its nice to have friends, and frankly, especially now, a lot of our other relations are strained (French not likeing war, Italy upset with friendly fire incident, Russia rebuking bush's comments on democracy.)

 

[GhostFox]

you ....cant be serious?

About the allies part or coward part?

As to allies, relations have been as bad with France before. They'll survive and the US will remain close allies.

While I don't think "coward" is the correct word for it, Europe suffered during WW2 on a level no one in NA can comprehend. As a result it seriously altered the psyche of many nations involved, chiefly France and Germany among them. They have in turn moved towards a view of modern isolationist millitary "peacekeeping". The US clearly went the exact oppisite direction, moving further and further away from isolationism after the war. This has lead to the US becoming the defacto UN "long arm of the law", resulting in many of the contoversies and problems we see today.

 

[Calanen]

First off, I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting GhostFox. Kofi participating in corruption is a talking point fabricated by fox news and there is no evidance to back any of this up. Here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160007

As far as I am aware he handed over all the needed documents to congress. Sure, he didn't go infront of congress to testify but that is not his job and he certainly doesn't need to do it. If Canada called Bush to testify on war crimes in Iraq he also wouldn't have to do it, correct? Also, I find it odd that you would try to criticize Kofi for not releasing documents when you are the one that supports the Bush adminstration who is suspected of withholding key documents from the 9/11 report until after the election for their own personal gain.

Does Canada pay US taxes so it can demand accountability from the US government for its representation? No.

Does the US pay a *lot* of money in the UN, so it can, and should demand accountability from the UN for its representation? Yes.

Does Canada sit on a security council in the US? No.
Does the US sit on a Security Council as a permanent member in the UN, Yes.

Kofi wont appear fine, thats to be expected. But he has even blocking access to key officials so the USA can find out what the hell happened in this Oil for Food Scandal. Given the billions that the US contributes to the UN, it has a right to know what they were doing in Oil for Food. Either that, or the money stops. Looks like the second one is going to happen.

So comparing Canada, a separate nation charging Bush with war crimes trials (you could call it Salem Revisited and Michael Moore could do another documentary) and making him appear is not ever the same as the US rightly asking the UN, what are we getting for our money, you show us.

And as for documents, the United States government has to keep some documents secret for reasons of national security. Does the UN say it should keep Oil for Food documents secret for Global security of the UN corruption machine?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

He just called the French cowards.
racism (bigotry)

And defended not having sources.
ignorance

Anywho, the U.S. is really not as incredibly powerful as we like to think, in a throw down with china, we would need the U.N. We need them, more than they need us. Simple fact is, the world would frown upon our departure, and it would make little strategic sense seeing as leaving allies is historically a poor decision, its nice to have friends, and frankly, especially now, a lot of our other relations are strained (French not likeing war, Italy upset with friendly fire incident, Russia rebuking bush's comments on democracy.)

Look at the recent humanitarian missions. A good deal have been failures. Somalia comes to mind foremost.

Don't you realize the problem is that nothing can get done in today's UN. The UN would not be with us pertaining to China. Latin America is entrenched too much with them and depends on them, can not afford to get on their bad side. Others would not like to sever connections. What's right is not what the UN follows anymore, each nation simply votes in it's best financial interests, regardless of what totalitarian regime, murderer, etc it helps. Resolution threats are not followed through with. It's ineffective.

Sums it up pretty clearly, I leave you with a cartoon.

 

[CptStern]

nah you got it all wrong

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

nah you got it all wrong

Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear abilities as the despotic government cannot be trusted.

And the UN is doing very little and being very ineffective in dealing with this- that's a fact, and it's not a new trend in situations like this.

 

[CptStern]

Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear abilities as the despotic government cannot be trusted.

And the UN is doing very little and being very ineffective in dealing with this- that's a fact, and it's not a new trend in situations like this.

yes it is

although I think this is closer to the truth

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

yes it is

Oh really? Maybe if you consider new to be years and years back.


U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/933288.stm

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/04/rwanda.congo.probe/

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke!
http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF021258.html

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058398.html

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola.
http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too.
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html

 

[Calanen]

Rakuraitenjin,

I actually laughed out loud when I saw the cartoon with the Ayotollah fixing the ICBM. Classic.

 

[kirovman]

Rakuraitenjin,

I actually laughed out loud when I saw the cartoon with the Ayotollah fixing the ICBM. Classic.

It's almost exactly the same joke as in Team America: World Police, where Hans Blix tells Kim Il-Jong to allow them to inspect the WMD or "we will be very angry and write a letter to tell you how angry we are"

 

[kmack]

Look at the recent humanitarian missions. A good deal have been failures. Somalia comes to mind foremost.

sounds like maybe.... Iraq.

And I guess that's the conservative way of saying, "no I do not have a source, but instead I will just say the exact same thing in a different way while not providing a source"

what a waste of time.

 

[Calanen]

Providing a source for everything that is said ie President Bush, prove he is the President, here is his a picture of his inauguration, is just tedious. If something is clearly contentious or arguably did not happen then it can be. But sourcing stuff all over the place like Professor Google just wastes everyones time. No1 ever reads the sources I post anyway.

 

[kmack]

Providing a source for everything that is said ie President Bush, prove he is the President, here is his a picture of his inauguration, is just tedious. If something is clearly contentious or arguably did not happen then it can be. But sourcing stuff all over the place like Professor Google just wastes everyones time. No1 ever reads the sources I post anyway.

ya, if its fact thats fine, but he is just giving his opinions and presenting them as fact, I have every right to attempt to discredit him by asking him to verify the information on which his argument is based. If he refusses or cannot find a source, I don't want to waste my time reading some punk kids opinion.

 

[Bodacious]

And I guess that's the conservative way of saying, "no I do not have a source, but instead I will just say the exact same thing in a different way while not providing a source"

Take a look at post #30 on page 2 of this thread. There are many sources listed.

what a waste of time.

Indeed, I don't know why RakuraiTenjin and I bother.

 

[No Limit]

Kofi wont appear fine, thats to be expected. But he has even blocking access to key officials so the USA can find out what the hell happened in this Oil for Food Scandal. Given the billions that the US contributes to the UN, it has a right to know what they were doing in Oil for Food. Either that, or the money stops. Looks like the second one is going to happen.

Can you please cite some examples, it's hard to have a valid argument with someone when I don't know what exactly you are talking about.

 

[No Limit]

I love this whole the UN is useless argument. Lets start with the most recent example of when the UN was u seful, 12-26-04. Do any of you still remember the tsunami by any chance? Every nation in the world, including Bush's America, wanted UN to manage the crisis. They got together all the available forces and aid was sent in almost instantly. Thanks to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, formed by Kofi in 97, they were able to do this quickly.

Lets look at Iraq which is a huge mess thanks to our invasion. It turns out the UN was right in claiming there were no WMDs. For some reason because of this people on the right have a huge problem with the UN because of this. Again, they were right we were wrong. But lets get past that. When Bremer wanted internation help to run the country, who did he turn to? The UN.

When we wanted to run a election in that country who did we turn to? The UN. Why did they do this? Maybe because the UN has ran 92 other elections around the world.

In Iraq's post election the UN will also play a vital role in helping get Sunnis in to the process to help keep peace.

As for the corruption. Sure, The Oil-For-Food scandal has been a huge problem. However, Kofi has been doing everything to get to the bottom of this. He appointed Paul Volcker to do an investigation and that investigation proved to be a success. I am still waiting for a single shred of proof that Kofi did anything illegal or corrupt.

 

[kirovman]

Useless things have a good habit of disappearing quickly, since they serve no purpose, nobody needs them, etc.

The UN on the other hand has been around an awfully long time, and it's a far sight better than that League of [Extrordinary!] Nations bollocks.

 

[Razor]

Nothings wrong with Bush. In fact, he's doing a good thing by limiting our dependance and our exploitation by the UN. Uh oh... he doesnt like the UN. Nobody does but liberals who want to see our country run by Kofi, and our army stolen and used by european powers. I'm all for him.

Dependance and exploitation? Bah, the US has been pretty much running the UN for the past 30 - 40 years. Anytime a policy that America doesn't like comes up that would "hurt" their foreign allies that are buying arms from them...*Vetoed*. According to UN law, one of the main culprits of violating human rights is America.