US UN ambassador: conflict of interest?

[CptStern]

"President Bush named Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton yesterday as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a surprise choice that would send an outspoken critic of the world body's effectiveness to its inner councils. "

"He said he has consistently stressed in his writings that "American leadership is critical to the success of the U.N., an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers."


"He spearheaded U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, declaring that the day he signed the letter withdrawing the U.S. signature on the treaty was "the happiest moment of my government service." He was the force behind Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition designed to halt trade in nuclear materials that bypassed the United Nations. And he pressed the administration's unsuccessful campaign to deny a third term to Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "

"Bolton also frequently riled European allies with his uncompromising stands -- and his disdain for their fledging efforts to secure an agreement with Iran to end its nuclear programs. "


source


it's kind of like letting the fox into the chicken coop. The US will continue to undermine UN efforts which is especially visible with this latest appointment

thankfully some people are not sitting idly by

Bolton's Fitness for UN Post Challenged at Hearing

 

[jondy]

Christ, it's like the ****ing League of Nations all over again

 

[gh0st]

Bolton isnt anti UN, he's just anti-the-way-things-have-been. Nothings wrong with his admittance, except a few radical protesters and bitter democrats dont want him in office.

How is this ANYTHING like the League of Nations. We werent even IN the League of Nations.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Bolton isnt anti UN, he's just anti-the-way-things-have-been. Nothings wrong with his admittance, except a few radical protesters and bitter democrats dont want him in office.

Agreed.

How is this ANYTHING like the League of Nations. We werent even IN the League of Nations.

They are both failures. It just took the UN a little longer.

 

[CptStern]

radical protestors? huh?

anyways. bolton is a harsh critic of the UN, a republican mouthpiece if you will ...and we all know how well the republicans respect the mandates of the UN

 

[seinfeldrules]

anyways. bolton is a harsh critic of the UN, a republican mouthpiece if you will ...and we all know how well the republicans respect the mandates of the UN

You're right. The US would be far better off sending some peaceloving hippy who merely throws money at problems the UN doesnt fix. Bush and Congress have the right to propose whoever they want. That is a domestic decision, not an international one.

 

[gh0st]

anyways. bolton is a harsh critic of the UN, a republican mouthpiece if you will ...and we all know how well the republicans respect the mandates of the UN

You dont acknowledge the short comings of the UN? Perhaps to a country like Canada, Germany, France, etc, the UN is a great thing. Put yourself in our shoes, and think critically: how does the UN benefit America? Its not about "the world" its about watching out for your own hide first, then donating the most of any country in the world to disaters.

I cant believe im citing common dreams, but http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0411-16.htm yes, radical protesters.

 

[CptStern]

that's your problem ..isnt the whole goal of the UN to carry out the policies of it's members? why should the UN benefit ANY country?

 

[gh0st]

that's your problem ..isnt the whole goal of the UN to carry out the policies of it's members?

Actually no, its not our problem. We've made it such that that problem isnt there anymore .

 

[seinfeldrules]

that's your problem ..isnt the whole goal of the UN to carry out the policies of it's members? why should the UN benefit ANY country?

It isnt the UN's job to blow American taxpayer dollars on problems it doesnt solve.

Actually no, its not our problem. We've made it such that that problem isnt there anymore

:thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

You're right. The US would be far better off sending some peaceloving hippy who merely throws money at problems the UN doesnt fix. Bush and Congress have the right to propose whoever they want. That is a domestic decision, not an international one.

what about sending someone who will actually try to work with the UN instead of against it?

"peaceloving hippy " ...what an utterly ignorant statement ...it's like debating with kids

 

[seinfeldrules]

"peaceloving hippy " ...what an utterly ignorant statement ...it's like debating with kids

Its no worse than the rhetoric you use Stern.

what about sending someone who will actually try to work with the UN instead of against it?

Again, we can send whoever we want. Its not your decision in anyway. The UN needs fixing, and sending people who agree with its current state will not change anything.

 

[gh0st]

Again, we can send whoever we want. Its not your decision in anyway.

What!!?? They arent allowed to tell us who to vote for!? THIS IS MADNESS! :dork:

 

[seinfeldrules]

What!!?? They arent allowed to tell us who to vote for!? THIS IS MADNESS!

Heh, and the world calls America arrogant.

 

[Tr0n]

what about sending someone who will actually try to work with the UN instead of against it?

"peaceloving hippy " ...what an utterly ignorant statement ...it's like debating with kids

Well...they are kids you know.

So that kinda explains it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well...they are kids you know.

So that kinda explains it.

How old are you bud? I probably outage you.

 

[Tr0n]

Well if you act like a kid that needs to grow up and see reality then you are one.

Thats what stern is trying to get across.

Stop using terms like "commie pinko" or "hippy"...those terms are dead guys.

Oh and I'm 17...and whats funny is I'm more mature then you.

 

[Absinthe]

I retract my comment.

 

[gh0st]

Debating with kids. Stern you're no better.

 

[Tr0n]

I believe we shouldn't even send a UN advisor....I say screw the UN.

Untill the UN is reformed or a new organization replaces it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh and I'm 17...and whats funny is I'm more mature then you.

Ahem ...

WTF?! :O

Hmmmmm...UK politics is boring.




/ me runs

I revel in your superior maturity. It really shows.

 

[Bodacious]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74841

This topic has a thread already dedicated to it.

What is this place coming to when someone nearing 8,000 posts isn't aware of the search feature?

 

[Tr0n]

It's called joking you know?

You know what joking is?

Saying WTF isn't being immature for one.

So again act your age sein and stop calling stern a hippy or pinko commie. (examples)

 

[Absinthe]

This pissing contest blows.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So again act your age sein and stop calling stern a hippy or pinko commie. (examples)

And you act yours by not making comments that a five year old would normally make. Many of your posts have little if any point. I can use that terminology if I so choose, it wasnt referring to you or anybody on this board. Now, go 'joke' somewhere else and get off my back.

 

[Tr0n]

And you act yours by not making comments that a five year old would normally make. Many of your posts have little if any point. I can use that terminology if I so choose, it wasnt referring to you or anybody on this board. Now, go 'joke' somewhere else and get off my back.

Oh so saying WTF is what a 5 year old would make...well damn I must behind the times.

So if you can use an terminology you want...then I can't say WTF or make a funny comment to a thread?So what?Kill me.

 

[gh0st]

Oh so saying WTF is what a 5 year old would make...well damn I must behind the times.

So if you can use an terminology you want...then I can't say WTF or make a funny comment to a thread?So what?Kill me.

Calm down, you know, you more than anybody else here has derailed this thread. Your contribution to the actual discussion here has been virtually nil, leave your damn social commentary and antics at the door.

 

[Tr0n]

Calm down, you know, you more than anybody else here has derailed this thread. Your contribution to the actual discussion here has been virtually nil, leave your damn social commentary and antics at the door.

Sorry...my fault.

 

[jondy]

How is this ANYTHING like the League of Nations. We werent even IN the League of Nations.

If you knew your history, you'd have figured that was my point entirely.

 

[gh0st]

If you knew your history, you'd have figured that was my point entirely.

Your 'point' is completely incorrect though, not that I'm very surprised. I actually happen to know my history; you appear to cite an organization that Wilson was an advocate of, but the American people never supported. Nowadays we are completley opposite that. We helped create, and are currently a member of, the UN. There are zero parallels in your analogy, so you are cmopletely (oops! another typo! I hope you can understand this post ) wrong.

Somehow you think that a man who is against the way the UN operates currently relates back to the League of Nations "all over again"? Somehow I get the feeling I'm not the only one who understood your post, probably why it was completely ignored by everybody else.

 

[jondy]

Your 'point' is completely incorrect though, not that I'm very surprised. I actually happen to know my history; you appear to cite an organization that Wilson was an advocate of, but the American people never supported. Nowadays we are completley opposite that. We helped create, and are currently a member of, the UN. There are zero parallels in your analogy, so you are cmopletely (oops! another typo! I hope you can understand this post ) wrong.

Somehow you think that a man who is against the way the UN operates currently relates back to the League of Nations "all over again"? Somehow I get the feeling I'm not the only one who understood your post, probably why it was completely ignored by everybody else.

First of all, cool off. This is a discussion forum, don't get worked up, it's only teh int0rweb.

Secondly, the American people were actually quite up for the League of Nations working, until the opposition seized upon an isolationist policy that, coupled with Wilsons death, went down quite well, as there was no more champion of the organisation. After this, they let it bomb.

The American people today, of which you are shining example of, don't particularly like the U.N.

If America withdraws its support or undermines the U.N by appointed said representatives, then it is effectively bailing on the organisation in the same way the American people did in the 1920's.

That's all. It's an analogy, nothing more. Few analogies are perfect. There's no need to pick at it.

I'm going to bed, so I won't be here to answer for the next couple hours or so. Sorry. PM me if you want

 

[gh0st]

Secondly, the American people were actually quite up for the League of Nations working, until the opposition seized upon an isolationist policy that, coupled with Wilsons death, went down quite well, as there was no more champion of the organisation. After this, they let it bomb.

Not really. The only person who wanted the a League of Nations was Wilson. Congress struck down the 14 points. Think of it this way: Europe had just obliterated itself, the American people had never been proponents of relationships with Europe (Monroe Doctrine, and so forth).

The American people today, of which you are shining example of, don't particularly like the U.N.

Thats not necessarily true.

If America withdraws its support or undermines the U.N by appointed said representatives, then it is effectively bailing on the organisation in the same way the American people did in the 1920's.

Ah. But America does support the UN. Its evident in our participation in that organization. America NEVER supported the League of Nations (show me some proof that we did, I will be surprised). I fail to see how this nominee would undermine the UN... if I recall correctly most Americans favor participation in the UN, just would favor a big reform of how things are done there.

 

[Hapless]

Just so I have this straight:

Bush appoints people to his Cabinet who agree with him and potentially offer no dissent=bad

Bush appoints UN Ambassador who will offer dissent in the UN and not always agree with the UN=bad

Is there anything Bush could do to make you guys happy? Besides resigning, of course...

 

[Sprafa]

Just so I have this straight:

Bush appoints people to his Cabinet who agree with him and potentially offer no dissent=bad

Bush appoints UN Ambassador who will offer dissent in the UN and not always agree with the UN=bad

Is there anything Bush could do to make you guys happy? Besides resigning, of course...

Bush offers the SDI to Russia = good
Bush turns to the UN in the first place isntead of a last resort = good
Bush starts some real investigation on the widespread abuses all over Iraqi & Afghanistani prisons = good
Bush stops trying to sell Iraq to people and admit he was wrong about the WMDs and how he put the case to the people = good
Bush goes to The Daily Show = good
Bush accepts an interview with Michael Moore = good
Bush forces some REAL interagency counterterrorist cooperation (maybe even globally) = good


if it happened

 

[CptStern]

actually I admire bush:

hehe ...well, I thought it was funny


anyways I'm convinced I could pretty much start saying random words and people would still say I'm blaming america for something or other:

Ketchup!!

"you're talking about blood arent you!?! ..those boys died for their country you'd better have the glint of patriotic overzealousness in your eye when you say that..."

 

[Korgoth]

Man its amazing to what lengths the reps around here will go to, to stick up for bush.
I could post a fox news article:

"Bush admits to beating his children"

Seinfeld/ghost respond:
Well they used to be radical democrat protesteors, if you ask me he did the right thing when he used that bat, it made them see the error of the ways. I mean they violated his mandates for years, they just got what was coming to them...

 

[Korgoth]

Oooh I think i know why you guys like this Bolton cat so much! He also likes to lie about intellegence on weapons to make his point! (like a few others in the administartion that we know, but i won't name any names)


http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YVMHEOB1SOVHGCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=8161267

 

[Kebean PFC]

I don't like this Bolton guy, but the UN needs some major overhauls. You have to realize the only reason the UN has any power at all is becuase of the US and her military. Why?

The UN has no military, and embargoes and such do not always work. In fact, they rarely do. So to reduce it, the UN is just a bunch of guys in suits, what makes it powerful is the US and some of her allies. Would... Could any country right now take up America's burden?

And please lets stop the flaming/pissing fights... we are all just a bunch of talking heads. Most of you won't change your mind, so there is no point for an argument. Keep it civil.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

radical protestors? huh?

anyways. bolton is a harsh critic of the UN, a republican mouthpiece if you will ...and we all know how well the republicans respect the mandates of the UN

It is not a bad thing to have a critic in there. This is where Bolton may shine. Someone who will sit down and just go along with however the organization is falling apart isn't needed. If there's a problem with the system, why not get someone who actually acknowledges it, rather than someone who will blindly hail the UN as infallible.

 

[CptStern]

are you suggesting his predecessor Negroponte was "Someone who will sit down and just go along with however the organization is falling apart..."?

what is it with some americans and the UN? it's like you'll jump at the chance to undermine the UN ...which is ironic cuz you helped create the United Nations