US UN ambassador: conflict of interest?

[seinfeldrules]

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:

And its amazing the lengths that the libs around here will go to bash him.
I could post a commondreams.org article:

Bush singlehandedly saves 500 children from a fire.

Your response: "What the hell? Bush didnt save 600, nor did he offer to donate 12 billion dollars to the UN fire response team! Bush sucks!"

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

I think it served a better purpose back then.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

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

Never said that, I don't know much about Negroponte himself except who he is, anyhow so I can't talk about someone I know little about. Selecting Bolton to follow him puts someone who won't do that in there though.

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

We helped create the League, but didn't join it. The latest actions of the UN (in the past few decades, I'm talking) seem to undermine some of the guiding principals of US Foreign Policy.

PNAC puts it best: American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

 

[CptStern]

PNAC puts it best: American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

surely you must be joking? your track records proves otherwise ...most of the world isnt going to accept your kind of "leadership"

 

[Korgoth]

Also, anyone care to explain this logic to me:

Un is useless, we don't have to listen to them, they are corrupt

---

Saddam didn't listen to the UN!!!! We should destroy them because the UN is right...

 

[gh0st]

Also, anyone care to explain this logic to me:

Un is useless, we don't have to listen to them, they are corrupt

---

Saddam didn't listen to the UN!!!! We should destroy them because the UN is right...

I dont know who in particular you are quoting.... probably no body. I dont have that mindset. I'm all for leaving the UN, which would utterly devastate it, and going on our own. I dont see the need for UN justification for anything we do. Unfortunatly, our President does, and though he does whats best for HIS COUNTRY (what a thought!), he is still participating in the UN.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm all for leaving the UN,

Same here, unless it is somehow fixed by the end of Bush's tenure.

 

[CptStern]

so let me get this straight ...you dont want to be a part of the organisation you helped create because it no longer bows to the whims of america? I'm convinced some of you have no clue as to what the UN is

 

[Bodacious]

so let me get this straight ...you dont want to be a part of the organisation you helped create because it no longer bows to the whims of america?

No, because it is corrupt and ineffective.

I'm convinced some of you have no clue as to what the UN is

hahah, give me one reason why I should care what you think.

 

[CptStern]

No, because it is corrupt and ineffective.

:upstare: it's as corrupt as it's members ...you should be very familiar with that seeing as how you've made vetoing a competitive sport

hahah, give me one reason why I should care what you think.

because I'm often right? ...actually I dont care if you listen to me or not ...it's pretty apparent you arent exactly the most open of people

 

[Bodacious]

:upstare: it's as corrupt as it's members ...you should be very familiar with that seeing as how you've made vetoing a competitive sport

All the more reason for the UN to be disbaned, or at least get America out of it.

because I'm often right?

Hardly. You constantly, repeatedly, and intentionally misconstrue or selectively quote your so called "facts." Even when proven wrong you either change the subject or quit replying to save face.

 

[CptStern]

All the more reason for the UN to be disbaned, or at least get America out of it.

because you lead the charge in corruption ...on second thought, maybe it would be best that you left

Hardly. You constantly, repeatedly, and intentionally misconstrue or selectively quote your so called "facts." Even when proven wrong you either change the subject or quit replying to save face.

ah but so can the same be said of you

 

[Bodacious]

ah but so can the same be said of you

Prove it.

I can prove that you do it. You cited the flawed lancet survey as fact, for one.

 

[CptStern]

flawed? in who's opinion? Sorry but I'll take the medical communities predictions over yours anyday.

btw should I point out where bliink proved you wrong about not being part of that "glorifying the sniper" thread?

 

[Absinthe]

hahah, give me one reason why I should care what you think.

Your feigned apathy has grown tiresome, Bodacious. Give it a break.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I see the United Nations as a piece of playdough. The human element is filled with inperfection and corruption similiar to weeds which infest a potenial fruitful and successful garden. These inperfections need to be weeded out of course. If we mold something undesirable we don't throw away the piece of playdough, we remold it. We remove the weeds from the garden. We seperate the weeds from the fruit. The weeds shall be thrown into the oven while the fruit shall be enjoyed. We need the gardener. We need an architect. An architect of peace.

 

[Bodacious]

flawed? in who's opinion? Sorry but I'll take the medical communities predictions over yours anyday.

All you have to do is look at how the survey was conducted.

Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7])

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

The survey is flawed and misleading and you quoted it as fact.

btw should I point out where bliink proved you wrong about not being part of that "glorifying the sniper" thread?

Go ahead, I will point to the post in that thread where I conceded my mistake and challenged anyone to find a post congratulating the sniper's actions. My challenge was not met.

 

[CptStern]

All you have to do is look at how the survey was conducted.

well apparently you didnt look to hard because the lancet predicts IRAQI deaths not civilian deaths ...anyways shall we continue this idiotic pissing match? or shall we go back to the issue at hand?

 

[jondy]

I see the United Nations as a piece of playdough. The human element is filled with inperfection and corruption similiar to weeds which infest a potenial fruitful and successful garden. These inperfections need to be weeded out of course. If we mold something undesirable we don't throw away the piece of playdough, we remold it. We remove the weeds from the garden. We seperate the weeds from the fruit. The weeds shall be thrown into the oven while the fruit shall be enjoyed. We need the gardener. We need an architect. An architect of peace.

We need..... lots of metaphors!

But I get your point.

 

[Bodacious]

well apparently you didnt look to hard because the lancet predicts IRAQI deaths not civilian deaths ...anyways shall we continue this idiotic pissing match? or shall we go back to the issue at hand?

(despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion",

See, what I said holds true. You constantly, repeatedly, and intentionally misconstrue or selectively quote your so called "facts." Even when proven wrong you either change the subject or quit replying to save face.


Thanks for proving my point.

 

[gh0st]

because you lead the charge in corruption ...on second thought, maybe it would be best that you left

Hold on. We veto things. That makes us corrupt? Ever hear of this little gem?

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260

 

[CptStern]

yes but I'd take that over this any day

 

[gh0st]

yes but I'd take that over this any day

Well thats relevant. Not sure what that has to do with the current discussion but, yes, you certainly can regurgitate the same garbage over and over. I applaud you for it!

 

[CptStern]

so what exaclty does "corrupt" mean to you? you'll rant and rave when someone else commits crimes yet turn a bind eye when you do the same or worse

 

[GiaOmerta]

I think a leader (president, king, ect) should be a father figure. The people are as his children. The father does what is in his children's benefits. Takes care of his children. Any good father places his children first, before his own personal gain. The father helps insure and prepare his children for the future. You get the idea.

So...

Children before Father = Good
Father before Children = Corrupt

 

[Kebean PFC]

Omerta i like your posts!

Now Stern and Bod, please stop this idiotic match. Niether of you will/can win, so stop trying!

so what exaclty does "corrupt" mean to you? you'll rant and rave when someone else commits crimes yet turn a bind eye when you do the same or worse

Now what i consider corrupt is when a world organization demands funds from america to go into "rehabilitation" programs and there is no result.

The last part of your comment is purely opinion, which, as you have stated in other threads, there "is no room for opinion, only cold, hard facts." The facts which you seem to place out of context or ignore.

 

[Calanen]

Bolton's the best person for the USA to have in the UN. Means they won't get steamrolled by the Euroliberals - he is there to represent the USA's interest at the UN, not do whatever the UN wants him too.

Its a sad day that 'Certified UN Apologist' is seen by some as a must have criteria to represent your country at the UN. It would be far more of a conflict of interest if he did support the idiocy of the UN, as his first duty is to the people of America and to represent their interests.

There is no conflict of interests. Just anger by some people that he does not share their views. Well tough.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare: I'm convinced some of you have opinions solely based on gut reaction. ...this guy isnt exactly very diplomatic ...but you're correct, he'll push US agenda no matter how unethical and conniving:

"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."

...in other words he helped ensure that no american would ever be tried for war crimes ...no matter what they did. They also attempted to bully other countries into not signing the treaty.


that's not only counterproductive to the spirit of the united nations it's decidingly revealing of how far the US will go to ensure that their actions go uncriticised and unchallenged. Leaving the UN would pretty much give the US carte blanche to do as they please ...then again that's pretty much what they do now anyway


oh KebeanKFC I'm not going to bother answering your unwarrented flamebait ...if you'd like to remain in perpetual ignorance go right ahead

 

[Bodacious]

...if you'd like to remain in perpetual ignorance go right ahead

Looook! Irony!

 

[Korgoth]

Corruption huh? Well theres a tricky beast... Everyone seems to have a different definition for corruption these days...

Call me old fashioned, but my idea of corruption is yourself and everyone in your administration becoming multi millionaires through oil, and oil deals.... Gaining power in government, then attacking, or excuse me, liberating some of the most oil rich countries on the planet... All the while, more needy people suffer, if only they had some of that black gold TEXAS tea.... And allowing NO BID contracts for your former employees, who even after overcharging your tax paying public for which you're supposed to serve MILLIONS, you keep them there, un questioned.

 

[gh0st]

Corruption huh? Well theres a tricky beast... Everyone seems to have a different definition for corruption these days...

Call me old fashioned, but my idea of corruption is yourself and everyone in your administration becoming multi millionaires through oil, and oil deals....

Fair enough; so in your opinion, working in the oil industry equals corruption? Whew! You libs sure have high standards of people.(?) By the way, this Halliburtan thing... can you prove it? I dont see whats wrong with using a corporation trusted by the government to do the governments business. Who am I kidding, you'd find fault with anything.

 

[Kebean PFC]

I dont see the flame bait in my post... and perpetual ignorance... now that is some bait which i wont take...

 

[Korgoth]

Fair enough; so in your opinion, working in the oil industry equals corruption? Whew! You libs sure have high standards of people.(?) By the way, this Halliburtan thing... can you prove it? I dont see whats wrong with using a corporation trusted by the government to do the governments business. Who am I kidding, you'd find fault with anything.

You don't consider no bid contracts to a company the vice president used to be CEO of, even when a dozen other outfits much like haliburton with proven track records have came forward and said they could do the same job much cheaper than what halliburton is chaging... Then finding out in recent months that we, (the tax payers) have been overcharged MILLIONS of dollars by halliburton, and that millions have went unaccounted for by halliburton... you mean you don't consider that the least bit fishy?

And excuse me for having high expectations for our elected officials. If you ask me, there is a certain level of ethics that should apply to them. Like not having conflicts of interest when it comes to buisness and politcis, because money and power will always win over human decency.

And if the above makes me a raging liberal, then i'm proud as hell to be liberal, you like that?

 

[gh0st]

You don't consider no bid contracts to a company the vice president used to be CEO of

No, I consider them fine. Paying a company the government trusts is wrong? Oh, and also, can you PROVE beyond a doubt that paying halliburtan is benefiting Dick Cheney? I'd just like to see your proof, I've never seen any so it would be interesting if you werent just making shit up.

Funds not being accounted for is very possible when theres tens of billions of dollars being thrown around in a warzone and the general chaos of rebuilding the country. I'd say, let federal auditors deal with it - the truth comes out. Though you appear to be probing in the dark since you cant prove that these "millions" are going into Dick Cheneys pocket. You only assume it because you cant prove it and your contempt for him shows.

And if the above makes me a raging liberal, then i'm proud as hell to be liberal, you like that?

Oh yes I love it. You told me!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

:upstare: I'm convinced some of you have opinions solely based on gut reaction. ...this guy isnt exactly very diplomatic ...but you're correct, he'll push US agenda no matter how unethical and conniving:

"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."

...in other words he helped ensure that no american would ever be tried for war crimes ...no matter what they did. They also attempted to bully other countries into not signing the treaty.

We should never join any foreign court that will at will pick up citizens and try them outside of our laws. It's against what this nation was founded on. We do not dip our flag to anyone. If people commit crimes, we'll try them for it in accordance with our laws.

that's not only counterproductive to the spirit of the united nations it's decidingly revealing of how far the US will go to ensure that their actions go uncriticised and unchallenged. Leaving the UN would pretty much give the US carte blanche to do as they please ...then again that's pretty much what they do now anyway

The government's actions are some of the most openly, and freely/encouraged criticized on all levels for simply anything it does from any side (someone's always going to be unhappy) of any in world history. We won't have foreign powers deciding what we do, but our Congress- that's what decides what we do and don't. No kangaroo foreign courts.

 

[Pogrom]

No, I consider them fine. Paying a company the government trusts is wrong?

You are missing the point. But I thought America was a capitalist country. What happened with Halliburton is not capitalism; it is cronyism. Halliburton was given special treatment that no other military contractor got, and there is no apparent reason apart from their relationship with Cheney.

Oh, and also, can you PROVE beyond a doubt that paying halliburtan is benefiting Dick Cheney? I'd just like to see your proof, I've never seen any so it would be interesting if you werent just making shit up.

He does not have to prove Cheney is getting the money. In all probability the money is not going to Cheney, but to his buddies who still work at Halliburton. Which brings us back to the first point - Halliburton and the administration side-stepped capitalism when they gave the contract to a company that is overcharging as well as misplacing funds.

We should never join any foreign court that will at will pick up citizens and try them outside of our laws. It's against what this nation was founded on. We do not dip our flag to anyone. If people commit crimes, we'll try them for it in accordance with our laws.

Your nation is rounding up people from other nations and trying them outside of the laws of their home country.

Why is it alright for Americans to prosecute criminals from other countries but not alright for other countries to prosecute Americans?

Don't you believe in democracy? Democracy doesn't just end at your border. Democracy on a global scale means the USA has a vote in how things work along with every other nation.

 

[Calanen]

Halliburton contracts get a major run from the Left - but the US government had a good relationship with Halliburton prior to Cheney going into the White House. It knew that pretty well the only company that good deliver massive amounts of fuel throughout Iraq would be Halliburton. It was too important a contract to gamble on unknowns.

Cheney, Bush - knew that there would be far more political fallout if their tanks ground to a halt because they had no fuel, which outweighed by a longshot the predictable calls from the Left that it was some shady deal because Cheney used to work there. It just meant he knew for certain that this company had the ability to meet the defence forces needs, not just what was in the spin of the proposal - he had inside knowledge.

He did not get paid anything from Halliburton for getting the contracts either, nor is he on the Halliburton payroll. He is receiving payments from his deferred compensation plan, in his salary package, which he was entitled to when he left Halliburton no matter where he went or what he did.

 

[CptStern]

We should never join any foreign court that will at will pick up citizens and try them outside of our laws. It's against what this nation was founded on. We do not dip our flag to anyone. If people commit crimes, we'll try them for it in accordance with our laws.

you dont seem to understand the nature of the tribunal ...more often then not the leaders of nations are charged not civilians. They're not trying to protect their citizens they're trying to protect themselves from prosecution. They dont want a repeat of this

The government's actions are some of the most openly, and freely/encouraged criticized on all levels for simply anything it does from any side (someone's always going to be unhappy) of any in world history.

if that were true they would have been brought to justice for this

We won't have foreign powers deciding what we do, but our Congress- that's what decides what we do and don't. No kangaroo foreign courts.

...but you get to decide what court foreign powers should be tried in? Pure hypocrisy. Saddam should be tried in the International warcrimes tribunal court not in iraq. His crimes extend beyond the borders in iraq. He has crimes against humanity to answer to ...crimes that were perpertrated against iraqis but also the kurds and iranians. This is why the tribunal was set up ..to bring criminals to justice who have offended in many countries, not just their own

 

[Bodacious]

Your nation is rounding up people from other nations and trying them outside of the laws of their home country.

I like this, it jsut proves the US can do no right.

Bring criminals here and try them and we are wrong. Enact rendition to send them home and we are outsourcing torture.

Nothing is ever good enough. For 1 decade I wish the US would be militarily isolationist, just to show the world how valuable we really are.

 

[Absinthe]

Nothing is ever good enough. For 1 decade I wish the US would be militarily isolationist, just to show the world how valuable we really are.

Your value exists primarily in cleaning up the shit you've spilled on the world.

 

[Bodacious]

Your value exists primarily in cleaning up the shit you've spilled on the world.

I agree, we should have let Hitler overrun Europe long ago.