Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Sorry Dan,

It seems to me that Bush had given up on diplomacy a long time ago. Bolton will serve nothing in the UN other than a clear sign from the US that we are no longer interested in listening to, or working with, the rest of the world. He will represent us as a belligerent bully and that is how the world we view the US.

The next time we have a 9/11 the worlds response will be the same as Bush’es to the vistims of the tsunami… “Sorry, I was on vacation. Here’s a dime, now go away”

Dave

the U.S. was a major donor to the tsunami relief and our navy ships were essential. You might want to make fun of President Bush, but don’t downgrade your country’s response.

What an embarrassing nomination. In the ongoing ‘politics of personal destruction’ I suppose this qualifies as one more entry. Yet it does seem rather remarkable that so many people would step forward and, basically, call Bolton an ass.

Bolton’s superior, the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, will not endorse this guy. Most people would not receive a promotion if their boss refused to back them.

After throwing out claims unsubstantiated by intelligence about WMD’s in Cuba & Syria, Richard Armitage insisted Bolton run any future pronouncements through him first.

To paraphrase, Bolton is the poster-boy of everything a diplomat should not be.

Despite this, I’d be inclined to let the nomination through. If the President wants Bolton as his Ambassador to tht UN, give the President what he wants.

But really, what an embarrassing nomination.

It seems to me that having Bolton as the UN ambassador is equal to completely withdrawing the US from the UN. Bolton, like Bush, will not compromise, negotiate, or do anything that will help the world community at the expense of American hegemony. Alienating the other members of the UN will do nothing to gain support for any American cause. If Bush really wants to continue his “freedom-spreading” campaign, then he needs someone to represent it in a proper manner. America cannot change the world alone, let alone a single country like Iraq. If we are to continue this campaign, we need the help of Europe, Russia, China and the other powerful countries in the world. Having Bolton as the United States’ UN ambassador will not encourage anyone’s support for any American cauyse.

Jack:

It is hard not to downgrade the US response to the tsunami. Exactly, how many BILLIONS did Bush give in Aid to tsunami victims anyway?

Aldous and Jack,

More important than money, what did we do to help in the reconstruction and recovery of the tsunami affected regions? Not all that much… We made sure they got water and some other essentials, and that they knew it was Americans doing it, but that was where it stopped. Much more valuable a thing to have given than our money would have been our time and technological capabilities, neither of which was given in meaningful amounts.

Oh yeah, and Bolton is the perfect example of the type of person that wouldn’t understand this. I have no idea how anyone could consider him a diplomat and similarly I have no idea why they would send him to the UN (despite the fact that not much happens there anyways).

“The picture is one of an aggressive policy-maker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view.”

This is NOT a good trait in a diplomat. Diplomacy requires skill in negotiation, mediation, and compromise. It requires someone who can hear and understand the opposing point of view as well as his own.

Teddy Roosevelt is famous for his “speak softly and carry a big stick” quote. Bush seems to understand the big stick part, but has completely missed the speaking softly. That’s what diplomacy is all about — not just warding off enemies, but actually making allies.

Bush must speak loudly, because Iraq has sapped his limp wimpy stick to the extent that it has to be put to bed by 9 O’clock every night to function at all the next day, or, at least that is what I think Laura said.

I just listened to Voinovich’s testimony, sounds to me like an honest, rational and logical speech. I can see why some Republicans here want to denigrate such integrity.

“That is precisely the kind of a leader we need in the United Nations, not some Casper Milquetoast.â€

Absolutely right. I knew Casper Milquetoast and John is no Casper. He is not the friendliest ghost you know.

I know that John will carry on the good works of the Bush Administration. He will almost certainly ensure that North Korea remains so preoccupied with building nuclear weapons that it can’t possibly join forces with dangerous South Korea in challenging America’s refrigerator magnet manufacturing industry. I’ve little doubt he will make sure the U.S. continues to isolate Castro, who stands as a potent symbol of American power in its own hemisphere.

John will of course make sure the U.S. vigorously appeases China, which now owns so many dollars that it can ruin the nation if it, say, asked the nationalistic autocracy to stop aiding North Korea. And I virtually guarantee John will continue to maintain the historic trend of underfunding the UN, whose current scandals dwarf any international faux pas such as invading an oil-rich nation under false pretenses.

Yes, John Bolton will carry on the proud traditions of the Bush Administration. We all salute you, John.

I find it interesting that Boxer from CA said in an interview on Fox today that “Bolton almost fired someone “What about Hilary, not an elected official at the time, firing the travel office staff?

The out of control UN must be brought back into shape or we must save our 2 Billion per year and get out. And by the way get it out of the US. We waste so much on security of those officials that come here under diplomatic immunity but so many of them hate Americans.

Dave

“The out of control UN must be brought back into shape or we must save our 2 Billion per year and get out. And by the way get it out of the US. We waste so much on security of those officials that come here under diplomatic immunity but so many of them hate Americans.”

So should you have to love America to be a member of the UN? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for a neutral international body to me….

You’re right. The UN is out of control and needs to be brought back into shape. No one nation can do that alone. It will take diplomacy and leadership to do it. That’s where Bolton and Bush fail.

True leadership involves rallying people behind you, not just charging blindly ahead and expecting people to follow.

Rob,

“So should you have to love America to be a member of the UN?”

No, but the fact that they resent (even hate) us reveals something about our diplomacy wouldn’t you say?

Bolton’s nom is Embarrassing? To Who? Aren’t you embarrased for the UN right now? The UN is a complete train wreck! It cannot be trusted to police itself, to intervene on behalf of the truly afflicted, to face down terrorism, to run a peace-keeping operation, or to do much else beyond sending limos to escort “dictator diplomats” to expensive NYC dinners on someone else’s dime.

I would be embarrassed to send someone who the UN said was appropriate! Anyone who believes the UN has any serious credibility to operate as a WORLD BODY is delusional.

Bolton’s nom sends this message: The USA does NOT agree that the status quo of the UN is acceptable, or in anyone’s best interest, and particularly not ours. So to Ryan’s concern actually, yes we are withdrawing from the UN as it CURRENTLY exists, because it is a dysfunctional group that cannot be cured through “Speaking softly”.

And we’ve tried the “Speak softly” way for DECADES. What has it accomplished, and for who? It didn’t stop 9/11 from happening, it didn’t stop the Cole from being hit, it didn’t keep North Korea from betraying the KING of Soft Spokenness Prez Carter, and it certainly did nothing for Rwanda, Darfur, and the Iranian Nuke situation.

Bush is sending the right signal with Bolton’s nomination — resolve, strength, dedication, and a home-teamer. He’s NOT being sent to “win the approval of thousands in the state department diplomatic corp”, he’s being sent to do a job, and if they cannot or will not help him do that job then THEY should step away from the deep end of the pool.

Maybe Bolton can’t order off the diplomatic wine list. So what. Sign him up.

miguel:

I would be embarrassed to send someone who the UN said was appropriate! Anyone who believes the UN has any serious credibility to operate as a WORLD BODY is delusional.

I agree. The UN does look like the bar scene from Star Wars.

Craig

Ryan — we don’t send reps to the UN to gain support for “American Causes”. The problem with the UN is that they are failing at “World causes”, and America is the only one willing - and able - to make a difference.

Rwanda’s genocide, Darfur, Iran and NK nukes — these aren’t “American Causes” that we need to rally support for. These are worldwide crises.

Look, if JIMMY CARTER and the consummate diplomatic skills of Bill Clinton and the vaunted French aren’t enough to dissuade Iran and NK from continuing their Nukes (without blackmail and bribery of security council members…), then the remedy isn’t soft-spoken diplomacy.

Craig,
“The UN does look like the bar scene from Star Wars.”

Good line! There’s some truth behind the humor. The UN is an organization which brings the countries of the world together in a common forum, and it definitely takes all kinds.

Some countries are rich; many are poor. Some countries advocate the rule of law. For some countries, nepotism is routine, corruption a given in business. Many countries barely even function as national entities.

For better or worse, the UN reflects this diversity.

And the richest, most militarily powerful country in the world is the US. Not so long ago, the US exerted moral authority. We were leaders not only because we had might, like the USSR, but because we sided with what was right. That moral authority and respect have been diminished in the eyes of the world.

The US is still the richest, still the most militarily powerful country in the world. Now what?

Miguel, remember the League of Nations? Someone said history repeats itself; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Most of us would agree that the UN needs structural re-organization, improvements to prevent corruption, enhance peacekeeping, and so on.

But we cannot withdraw from the world. WWII made the concept of isolationism untenable. In addition, the US benefits more from international trade & ‘globalization’ than any other country in the world.

Also, we’re utterly dependent upon foreign countries to support our debt. Too bad, so sad. The Bush administration placed our economic security into the hands of China, Japan, & South Korea. We’re stuck with it. Doesn’t matter who likes tax cuts and who doesn’t. The decision was made by the Republicans to run up deficits, the deal was done, and now we have to live with it. Period.

Like it or not, we’re interdependent. International cooperation is of paramount importance to US national security. And the UN represents the primary worldwide organization for fostering cooperation.

To imagine the rest of the world will respond to a bullying, arrogant imposition of US policies in a positive way is foolish.

But we’re in agreement; it seems a bullying, arrogant imposition of US policies is exactly what Bolton represents. That’s not an effective diplomatic approach. That’s not an effective way to lead.

It is, however, what the Bush administration is all about.

The Bush administration placed our economic security into the hands of China, Japan, & South Korea.

Our economy security was already there before Bush came into office, although Bush has only made our dependancy worse.

We all realize the UN has problems. phx8 is correct. We need the rest of the world now. Over half of our debt is held privately (meaning it’s not sitting as T-bills in another government fund). Half of the debt held privately is held by China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Germany, France, and an number of other countries. Many are slowly moving some of their investments into euros. It can’t happen quickly or the world economy will crash.

I digress…the topic is the UN and Bolton. I tend to agree with whoever it was that quoted Theodore Roosevelt. That’s the type of “leading” we need to do. Our bullying attitude will not accomplish anything at the UN. Why do these people despise us to begin with? It has a lot to do with our arrogant, bullying attitude. After GW retires as president he should write the book “How to Win Friend and Influence Countries”.

The UN issues are WORLD issues…but, as stated previously, we are now intertwined with the world. If nothing else because they are carrying a bigger and bigger part of our debt. It’s very ironic in a way. We borrow from the Chinese and Tiawan and turn around and import their cheap goods like they are going out of style. Not only are they receiving interest on their loans backed up by the good faith of the US government, we turn around and further reward them by purchasing their goods as fast as they can make them. SO YEAH, WE ARE DEFINATELY TIED TO THE WORLD.

It is in our interest to see that stability in other parts of the world and disputes/disruptions are handled quickly and efficiently. We obviously can’t afford to go this alone….just look at our federal debt now. We must reform the UN and make it a useful tool. We can’t do that alone either, and supplying a loud-mouth bully will only exacerbate our UN problems.

I agree we shouldn’t send some weenie to the UN. However, someone who can lead by example and not lose one’s temper when things don’t go as planned….that would be nice. I hope this guy has changed from some of the things we’ve heard about him because we really need a reformed UN now more than ever. A UN with a clear mission that’s fully funded with oversight.

Siris,
“Our economy security was already there before Bush came into office, although Bush has only made our dependancy worse.”

True, but I don’t want to distract people by dragging in deficits run up by Bush #41 & Reagan.

The current Bush administration & the Republican Congress made the choice to lower taxes, grossly increase government spending, as well as the choice to invade Iraq.

We have no choice. US economic security depends upon China, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and so on, supporting our debt.

Adopting a ‘with us or against us’ mentality with the rest of the world is the height of foolishness, but that’s where we are, and that’s what Bolton will represent.

Let’s face it. The opposition to John Bolton is nothing more than another way to critize President Bush. Over the years John Bolton was approved by the senate for important diplomatic positions. Calling him an abusive boss because he berated an underling who went behind his back and lied about it, pins the needle on the laugh meter. Wow, he actually put his hands on his hips when he did it. All this silliness isn’t about Bolton. George Bush won 81% of all the counties in the United States last election. Minority Democrat party liberals just can’t seem to get over it.

All nominations from either party wants the best. They want all to be perfect. FYI, there was only one person that was perfect and we ain’t HIM

The UN most certainly needs to be utterly revamped or the US should withhold funding from it yet again. We need to make sure the UN always follows America’s excellent lead. How dare it prevent World War III for the last 60 years. How dare it give even the smallest nations a voice in world affairs. How dare it try to raise questions about about a preemptive strike based on false pretenses. How dare it try to create programs to end world hunger or spread the notion of human rights for all humanity. This stuff is for sissies. I say a corporate buyout is necessary. Some privately held corporation either buys it and runs it the right way or we should get the heck out. Turn the building in a condo with a grand view. Let the UN try to live without us. It is, after all, all about US.

Ok… let’s try a different approach. We all seem to agree that some form of change is necessary at the UN. The question is whether Bolton is the right man to make it happen.

So…

BLUE TEAM: Who would you recommend, if not Bolton, to encourage the needed changes in the UN? Why?

RED TEAM: Do you believe that Bolton can correct ever-worsening international opinion of us, regain lost international alliances, and restore international cooperation? If so, explain how? If not, then what should his agenda be?

Jack,
The aid that the U.S. has given towards the Taunami relief is not at all what it should have been. We gave what was called tied aid, which means the money we gave to the victims must be spent in the U.S. (so the money could go back into the U.S. economy) this may sound like a good deal, but the U.S. has some of the highest priced goods in all the world. If a devistated country needs to buy food, such as rice and whatever else is in that countries diet, they wont be able to buy that food in the U.S. because we dont produce it, and even if they did buy it…it would be at huge costs. Dave, however, has a good point. What did we give 300 million? That is great, but considering we are the country with the biggest economy in the entire world, 300 million just dosent cut it. There were other countries who gave a much bigger precentage of relief money in comparision to the economy. And what have we spent on the war in Iraq? 3 BILLION or something like that?

Zane

It’s not a Blue or Red team’s choice, they can only approve or reject. No matter what, in the end it’s still Bush who choose who gets sent before them. So let’s stop the bull and decide. And if rejected, Bush will send you another one of his choices, not one of yours.

Lets see what the so called blue team (AKA DNC) really has to gain or lose, of course I think of them as the yellow team, this color best fits the DNC in its present state of non action other than to delay and harass anything that the Majority Party in power desires to do.

I have two questions :

1. Who was the last US representative to the UN who did any good at all and, what was it.

2. What is the argument for having a UN to begin with. What does it do other than distribute the world’s money (mostly US money) to help “victims” of war and conflict that was caused by outsiders who had no business being part of the conflict to begin with. Granted they do help somewhat on natural disaster aid but, there has to be more of a reason than that to justify it’s existence.

We need someone like Bolton who (it is alledged) has no tact or, for that matter any positive character traits, who is willing to whack somebody in the head if need be to get our point across. Too bad Attila the Hun is not alive, he would serve us well. Since Attila’s resurection is not possible, Bolton will do nicely.

Albright had iron teeth and wound fighting a successful little war in Europe without U.S. casualites and almost without any notice by the U.S. public. But she was obviously without the instinct for the truly big screwup. No, I think Attila’s also a wonderful choice and would likely be considerably better than Mr. Bolton, being dead and all.

And, gosh, what is the UN good for? Don’t you just hanker after the good ole days of the early 20th century when countries duked it out however they wanted. Killing fields all over Europe and all that. Wonderful stuff. Miss it immensely.

Reed Sanders, your first post had me rolling on the floor. It’s so sad that you’re so right.

I saw a couple people dissing the tsunami aid. I know first-hand that the Indonesians, at least, stopped bad-mouthing America so much as soon as help finally arrived. Despite the late start, it actually did regain some of our lost soft power here in SE Asia.

As for Bolton, I’m with Dave who made the very first post in this thread. President Bush wants an asshole like Bolton at te UN, so let him have the guy. It’s not like Bush’s second choice was Bill Clinton.

I never did hear a convincing argument - other than that he’s a prick - against sending Bolton to the UN. Unless Biden thought it was necessary to further embarrass President Bush, I’m not sure what the point of that whole circus was, and I said so here before.

Reed,
The early twentieth century when countries duked it out was terrific. I am very pro duking it out when you (country) are operating in such a way as to jeapordize me (country) and my security/way of life, economy, etc. My first step would be very diplomatic, I would ask you nicely to stop, even offer a tradeoff of some kind, try to find middle ground if you will. Failing that, I will leave a big hole where your country used to be. No need to involve the rest of the world, have meetings, worry about who represents me at the meetings, etc. If we had a few more holes we would have less problems.

steve, you sound like a guy whose country never experienced the thill of hosting a modern war.

From all I’ve heard, Bolton is exactly the kind of cowboy we need to shake things up as our U.N. Ambassador. Ambassador guys - that means someone that will represent the interests of the United States at the U.N., not placating the whims of the French and Germans, not excusing the likes of Sudan, Cuba, and China, and certainly not reflecting the out of touch views of the far left Democrats in the Senate.

Miguel,

In case you didn’t notice, our American operation in Iraq is not the great success that was planned in the year before the war. If you think that the Iraq operation has been a success, then Bolton is the right guy for you. But I assure you that if the UN had approved this war effort, we would be much further on the road to peace in Iraq.

America cannot change the world alone. If you can’t take the Iraq case as proof of that, which I guess Bush and his friends haven’t, then this country and world are going in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, Iraq is simply one operation right now. It seems that North Korea and Iran are increasingly becoming the target of Bush’s military sights. If you think that America can pull off three military operations against these countries at the same time, without the aid of the UN, then Boloton is your guy. But I think that recent history has shown that America can’t do it all alone. It needs allies. Bolton will not get us allies, but only lose them.

1st, I’m not the homonym Dave. I never watch Fox news, except for the bad humor that is… I’m the 1st poster. Now for the rest of the story (Sorry Harvey):

I like that Dan dismissed Voinovitch as “RINO.” Talk about cannibalism. Fortunately it examples what will bring the end of the hateful venom the far right has injected into what was once an intelligent and respectable member of a two patry politic.

Also, we need to remember that the UN ambassador has a rank of cabinet member. Sounds like Bush is making another great choice for his front line advisors. (Sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell)

A three-front-war failure by America would be great news for the rising power of China. It would be the final curtain call of the American military power in the world. (probably a good idea)

American Pundit,

If by modern war you mean one that has or is being fought with weapons/technology developed since the early 1940’s, and by hosting you mean bombs exploding around me, planes strafing the streets where I live, soldiers coming to my house and taking me prisoner and/or killing my family, people starving, unable to get medical attention, etc., no I have not.

Blowing up a building in Oklahoma City is the use of “modern” weapons and technology and is “hosting” a disaster.

I would catagorize planes crashing into civilian and governmental buildings as “hosting” if only for a brief period. I would suggest that the increased security we now experience in our daily lives, traveling, attending sporting events, concerts, etc. is a result of the terrorists living among us whom we are “hosting”.I believe that living under the constant threat of a terrorist act, of opening a letter that has some deadly chemical inside, etc. is mental and/or psychological “hosting”.

I can?t believe that you are all so naﶥ that you believe the various factions of the world are impacted by the bullying acts of America. What are you children in a schoolyard? Each country has its own goals and plans when they deal with the World Body. China is busy going through there own version of the Industrial Revolution. Their goal is to maintain the current financial growth they are experiencing under quasi capitalism. They buy US dollars because this fits that goal. They know that any slide back to the failed five-year plans of the past will mean a major revolution and the final end of communism. Thus they push for status quo in the World Body. Russia is in the painful process of trying to create a capitalistic based economy from a failed communist system. The Russian leaders are reverting to the old favorite of strict state control. They are pushing to keep the UN out of their internal politics and from looking too closely at their backslide from democracy. Europe is embroiled in its own battle for the control of the new union. France and Germany have joined forces against Britain to take control and mold the emerging entity to their benefit. With the power of the new union they see that they can compete with the US in world influence. France and Germany will often oppose US interests from now on no matter how we conduct ourselves. They are positioning themselves for just that - to be the alternative power to the US.

I recently heard a hearing on CSPAN that included the US UN representative on the Oil for Food program. He expressed his frustration held by the Americans and the British at being charged with overseeing the program and being blocked repeatedly by the other members of the oversight committee. He basically said they did what they could within the political circumstances. I think a Bolten type resistance to the status quo may have brought the issues in the program to the surface. Old style diplomacy didn?t seem to bring the corrupt officials from the UN and other countries out to admit their crimes because we were such a nice country. In spite of our diplomacy this program helped fund the Hussein government, undermined the sanctions and contributed to events that brought about the war. No wonder, the UN wasn?t taken seriously by Saddam for 12 years. He knew how many UN representatives he had in his back pocket.

The purpose of the US ambassador to the UN is very simply to represent the US interests in areas that the UN has influence. In the past this representation has been poor as the above example exposes. The US must pick ambassadors that will see that the US interests will be represented and implemented. The other countries aren?t there to represent the US or come together for a happy world party. They are there to progress their interests in the world. The US needs do the same or acquiesce to others interests.

The early twentieth century when countries duked it out was terrific.

Alas, Steve, you were born into the wrong period in history, long after the days your spiritual forefathers died horrible deaths in trenches for your right to publicly malign international bodies devoted to trying to keep the peace. I too wish you might have had a chance to partake in that terrific era.

The purpose of the US ambassador to the UN is very simply to represent the US interests in areas that the UN has influence.

That’s true. It’s the system under which the UN works. Sometimes you get your way, sometimes not. It’s all about international negotiations, which is why we ask that diplomats work there. Let’s get the best person who is a combination of toughness and diplomacy we can find, someone who goes into the UN with confidence and credibility.

Rob:
“BLUE TEAM: Who would you recommend, if not Bolton, to encourage the needed changes in the UN?”

If I could pick from someone I thought would do a great job, it’d be Bill Richardson (currently governor of New Mexico).

“Why?”

Because he’s smart, tough when he needs to be, and yet truly understands what diplomacy is. He’s also been the Ambassador to the UN before (and we had a hell of a lot more respect worldwide during that time).

Steve:
1. Who was the last US representative to the UN who did any good at all and, what was it.

I’d say the one of the most important and impressive of actions would had to have been executed by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Stevenson stood up on the floor of the UN and very forcefully asked the Soviet representative (I think the guy’s name might have been Zorin?) whether his country was installing missles in Cuba — giving him the chance to be truthful, but not being wimpy about it. The Soviet then lied by completely denying they existed, whereupon Stevenson whipped out our photographic evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were indeed there.
One day later, Kruschev made a deal to withdraw the missiles in return for a promise by the U.S. that we would not invade Cuba, or support an invasion of that country.
Very effective — but in the days leading up to that display of force, Stevenson had made sure to give the Soviets every diplomatic chance possible.

“2. What is the argument for having a UN to begin with.”

Because we are part of the World community. We should try to gain respect and garner worldwide cooperation among all nations, rather than stirring up enmity and causing our nation to be universally reviled through arrogance. It really is that simple.

I sent Voinovich a nice letter;

Dear sir,

If you are unsure which party you belong to,
please take a look at Jumpin-Jim Jeffords, setting in the corner with the dunce cap on, he didn’t know where he belonged either.

Yes, you can’t have any indepedent thinkers in the GOP. That would just spoil the stereotype.

Adrienne, that was an excellent and educated post. It shows how real diplomats can display genuine strength tempered by wisdom.

Thanks to Beagle for his letter to Voinovich:
“If you are unsure which party you belong to,
please take a look at Jumpin-Jim Jeffords”

It just proves my point that as disention is unacceptable within the GOP, and it makes people leave that party, then soon the “Know Nothings” will be all they have left. The GOP will become so marginalized as to be pointless, I wonder who will take up the slack.

Dave,

You’re right, how simple of me to forget the cheers that Zell Miller recieved from the DNC after his speech at the Republican convention.

And with all the pro-life and pro-gun speakers the Democrats had at their convention, they truly must be the party that welcomes all opinions.

I may just have to return to that party.

Beagle,

The difference is Democrats (I’m an Independent by the way) don’t generally go running around shouting down dissenters as DINO’s and traitors. That party tries to represent most of it’s members and allows discussion and disagreement in a public forum.

Zell Miller is borderline nuts and is a poor example. Remember, he spoke at the RNC convention, that’s a far cry from dissention. In war time, that would be viewed as traitorous as Fonda was when she went to North Viet Nam. If he had spoken at the DNC convention instead, he would have been looked at as a looney who needed help, not expulsion. Instead, he acted more like a defector.

In the end, I’m sure you’d be welcomed to the DNC despite your rather rightest views.

Dave,

I’m sure the DNC would welcome my “vote” back, along with the 100’s of 1000’s like me that left the party over the platform and issues.

Both Arnold and Rudy( quite left on social issues) were invited to speak at the RNC convention, was Zell invited to speak at the DNC convention?

You say that Jane Fonda was a traitor, I agree with you there, however, I thought I saw her in the crowd at the DNC convention?
I classify Mike Moore the same, I KNOW he was there, sitting next to the peanut farmer!

Reed,
Excuse my bitterness but my spiritual forefathers, in fact I am a direct descendent of the first persecuted people to defend their small patches of land from the people who first killed them for it, then stole it from them, then imprisoned them and took away most of their rights. These would be of course, the American Indian.
My forefathers died honorably in defense of their property and way of life. Taking never more than what was needed, giving always what was fair. Few if any of us that remain are pacifists or bleeding heart liberals. Given the chance, every one of us would still fight for our country in spite of the fact that most of us have been herded into impoverished communities and are far worse off socially and economically than any other group of Americans.

Ryan:

“But I assure you that if the UN had approved this war effort, we would be much further on the road to peace in Iraq.”

Are you sure? I’m not sure how adding the French, Germans and Russians would have made a great deal of difference in the “boots on the ground” portion. But I am interested in how you feel the UN approving the action would change where we are today.

Reed:
“Yes, you can’t have any indepedent thinkers in the GOP. That would just spoil the stereotype.”

Right. Marching in lockstep is now not good enough, instead, every single one of them has got to mindlessly goosestep to be considered a “Good Soldier”. Oh, and these days they’d really prefer them to be Evangelical Christian’s, as well.

“Adrienne, that was an excellent and educated post.”

Thank you, Reed! :^)

“It shows how real diplomats can display genuine strength tempered by wisdom.”

Absolutely. And I’d say it’s a given that this is far from what we’ll be getting from a character like Bolton.

As for Adlai Stevenson, I’ve always though of him as an underrated American statesmen, because people tend to forget about him for some reason (most only know of him as a guy who made a failed run for the presidency). And that’s really a shame, since the way he handled himself during the Cuban Missle Crisis was nothing short of brilliant — by making America appear extremely forthright, yet equally shrewd in the eyes of the world.
Sure could use a guy like him at the UN right now.

I think of Adlai Stevenson as someone with a hole in the bottom of his shoe. Was it only once he failed in a run for the presidency?

The question was raised in several ways, What or when is the last time or times that the UN served the good of the people of the world.
Ok, Let me think.
Wait a moment I am still thinking.
I have been busy researching this question.
Just give me a moment more.
Ok. Here is the answer.
Never and nothing.

Chi Chi,

I dissagree, If the French were with us we would have an exit plan…SURRENDER !

tom, damn you are slow! Took me 15 seconds to come up with the following:

1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections

4. Development - The system’s annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion.

5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.

7. UN Conference eon Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on bio-diversity and climate change.

8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90.

9. Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.

10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.

11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

15. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.

16. Promoting Women’s Rights ­have supported programs and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries, including credit and training, marketing opportunities, etc.

17. Providing Safe Drinking Water ­ Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

18. Eradicating Smallpox ­ through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.

19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis ­ has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.

20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.

22. Promoting investment in developing countries ­promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.

23. Reducing the effects of natural disasters ­early warning system, which utilizes thousands of surface monitors as well as satellites, has provided information for the dispersal of oil spills and has predicted long-term droughts.

24. Providing food to victims of emergencies ­ Over two million tons of food each year. 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance last year.

25. Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.

26. Protecting the ozone layer & global warming­highlighting the damage caused to the earth’s ozone layer. As a result there has been a global effort to reduce chemical emissions of substances that have caused the depletion of the ozone.

27. Preventing over-fishing

28. Limiting deforestation and promoting sustainable forestry development ­in 90 countries.

29. Cleaning up pollution ­encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, and Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50% of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.

30. Protecting consumers’ health ­have established standards for over 200 food commodities and safety limits for more than 3,000 food contaminants.

31. Reducing fertility rates ­ Family planning programs. Women in developing countries are having fewer children ­ from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. In the 1960s, only 10% of the world’s families were using effective methods of family planning. The number now stands at 55 percent.

32. Fighting drug abuse ­Reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.

33. Improving global trade relations ­ The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to obtain special trade preferences for developing countries to export their products to developed countries with fair prices.

34. Promoting economic reform ­ Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.

35. Promoting worker rights ­worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, setting worker safety standards, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labor.

36. Introducing improved agricultural techniques and reducing costs ­Resulted in improved crop yields, Asian rice farmers have saved $12 million on pesticides and governments over $150 a year in pesticide subsidies.

37. Promoting stability and order in the world’s oceans ­global agreement for the protection, preservation and peaceful development of the oceans.

38. Improving air and sea travel ­Setting safety standards for sea and air travel, making air travel the safest mode of transportation.

39. Protecting intellectual property ­Protection for new inventions and maintains a register of nearly 3 million national trademarks. artists, composers and authors worldwide.

40. Promoting the free flow of information ­free of censorship and culturally unbiased, aid to develop and strengthen communication systems, established news agencies and supported an independent press.

41. Improving global communications ­ Regulated international mail delivery, coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfettered flow of information around the globe.

42. Empowering the voiceless ­recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making such as the aging, children, youth, homeless, indigenous an disabled people.

43. Establishing “children as a zone of peace” ­ From El Salvador to Lebanon, Sudan to former Yugoslavia, provide vaccines and other assistance desperately needed by children caught in armed conflict.

44. Generating worldwide commitment in support of the needs of children ­more than 150 governments have committed to reaching over 20 specific measurable goals to radically improve children’s lives by the year 2000.

45. Improving education in developing countries ­60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.

46. Improving literacy for women ­Raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1990.

47. Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites ­protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.

48. Facilitating academic and cultural exchanges encouraged scholarly and scientific cooperation, networking of institutions and promotion of cultural expressions, including those of minorities and indigenous people.

Steve,

I’ve no problem with your bitterness. I’m certain I’d feel it as well in your circumstances. But, as you may know, more than 44,000 Native Americans saw military service in WWII. They certainly paid part of the price for the insanity of the early 20th century.

Also consider this possibility: if the UN existed at the time of those rancid actions to which you allude, there might well have been an international outcry and perhaps even concerted action against the genocide. The UN’s record here is fairly shaky (ask Rwanda) but it’s considerably better than the historic record of the U.S. At least there’s now a special advisor on the prevention of genocide in the UN. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find that position anywhere in the U.S. government.

Truth is, without some international coalition to keep everyone relatively civil, countries become much more likely to become internally monstrous. Perhaps this even helps explain why democracies have flourished since the UN was founded.

I agree with Tom. I would add only to his statement “What or when is the last time or times that the UN served the good of the people of the world” TO THE SATISFACTION OF ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

Never is an excellent answer.

Reed,
The rancid actions that I refer to were committed by, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Mexicans and the “white man” (for want of a better description)to name a few. They made no effort to form a UN and address the genocide.

David,

You sure wasted 15 seonds listing 48 points. That’s 3.2 seconds per point for thought and typing. You should consider taking a course in speed reading as well.

steve, love your blinders, very fashionable the way you completely ignored my post abiove which answers the good the UN has/is doing for humanity.

The role of the UN in international relations has changed substantially from the time of its founding. This much is obvious. But the fact that the UN must now compete with the WTO to retain legitimacy is evident in documents such as the Global Compact. Big business, such as the member firms of the WTO, are, in my opinion, far more responsible for the creation of democracies world wide then the UN ever will be. Democratic individualism is essential for capitalist enterprise; so why wouldn’t business seek democratic regimes if it wants a sustainable consumer base? The WTO has far greater powers of enforceability than does the UN, at least in the current international climate. This is not an argument either for or against the UN, but merely an admission of the facts.

This brings me to the role that Bolton can, and must, play as the US ambassador. Whether or not he has been a bully to his underlings, or whether or not he has a recommendation from Colin Powell, does not necessarily take Bolton out of the game. The UN needs a man like Bolton, not because he will make the UN better per se, but because Bolton will shake up the UN and the member nations will have to make the UN stronger if only to prevent more Bolton’s being necessary. This will have the effect of marginalizing the US, with or without our funding.

In essence, the UN must move from a state of responsibility to accountability. This includes the accountability that the US has for not obtaining a true world-wide consensus on pre-emptive measures taken against essentially weak or defenseless countries (which is to be distinguishd from terrorist networks operating outside the steretypical nationalist paradigm). In the end, Bolton is the evil necessary to achieve a greater good.

Beagle:
“I dissagree, If the French were with us we would have an exit plan…SURRENDER !”

chuckle, chuckle

A bit too much, but I won’t disagree. After all, though we have not found WMD, we did find out who our friends really are, regardless of whether you support the effort or not. Every one involved has alterior motives—some more worthy than others.

“Reed Sanders, your first post had me rolling on the floor.

Thanks, American Pundit.

I would add only to his statement “What or when is the last time or times that the UN served the good of the people of the world” TO THE SATISFACTION OF ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

But that’s the point. No one is ever satisfied with everything. That’s exactly why it works a lot of the time. Kinda like democracy. Thanks making that point, Steve.

This has been an interesting discussion. There are obviously a wide range of philosophical differences on the issue. The posts range from politically motivated “missives” to “thesis” like dialogue and on to short, crisp statements.
Some have presented “facts and figures”. In order to accept these at face value one must trust that the origin of the information (probably a government or institutional publication or announcement) is accurate. In the end I suggest that most respondents are rendering opinions (in many cases supported by some referenced fact/material) but they are indeed opinions.
Every discussion is an education into itself. I will take away elements of information, theories and facts from my participation. Possibly the best way to say it is that many of us have agreed to disagree.
May the bluebird of happiness drop candles on your birthday cakes.

Hay Dan Spencer,
I love you “BIG TENT” republicans call people like Ohio’s Sen. Voinovich RINOs, republicans in name only. It has not been that long ago that the Go P embrased different views. Our President has been the greatest divider of this nation since the civil war.

When are the real Republicans taking back their party from the ultra right churches, neocons, and the ultra rich who own mega business.

chi chi, I love it. One shoots another man’s brother and when the brother hails epithets back, one says, the shooting was a good thing since now one knows who one’s enemies are? LOL! The question is, were they friends before, turned ememies after? Truth lies more there in the question than assessing friends after committing an offensive act.

steve, sure hope you don’t teach math either. 15 divided by 48 = 3.2 ?

ROTFL!!!

David,

I apologize, my bad on the math. Obviously the answer is .3125 seconds per point. .3125 sec/point X 48 points = 15 seconds. You are truly the fastest gun in the west.

AP:
“Reed Sanders, your first post had me rolling on the floor.”

Yeah, I really enjoyed that too. But it was the little comment that David casually tossed out that completely cracked me up this morning:

“Bush must speak loudly, because Iraq has sapped his limp wimpy stick to the extent that it has to be put to bed by 9 O’clock every night to function at all the next day, or, at least that is what I think Laura said.”

Man, that is so damn funny! :^D

To Ant,
Your homage to Bolton was well written. Yes, the U.N. needs to have a good shake, but not demolished. Thanks to our President the majority of the world worries about this bully in the White House who is really a spailed brat of wealth.
When I was 10 or 11 I remember some local ultra conservatives with bumper stickers that said,”THE U.N., OF THE COMMIES, FOR THE COMMIES AND BY THE COMMIES. HELP US GET OUT.” Having Bolton as ambasador to the U.N. would be the beginning of the destruction of a potentially world saving organization.
The Go P, led by Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., distroyed the League of Nations by refusing our entry into it. Do you remember what happened just a couple decades later. World War 11, it made all the papers.
Please, just think about the damage that John Bolton could do to our country and the U.N.

I’d suggest doing some reading on what Bolton was up to on cherry-picking and arguably fabricating intel and accusations, including about Cuba having a biological WMD program, before villianizing any Senator for scrutinizing Bolton. There is evidence he was involved in pushing the false Niger-yellow cake argument even after it was discredited. Why reward this seemingly dishonest conduct? Frankly, if you want someone to go to the UN and be all tough, fine, but find someone else. Surely you could find someone with a lot more respect, sway, gravitas, who could carry out such a mission. Plus, I haven’t heard one word about how Bolton would “reform” the UN, such that Bolton is the only one who can carry out the desired goal.

Frankly, if we really wanted to grab the UN and World’s attention that we mean business at the UN, I’d get Bush Sr. or Clinton to be the ambassador and turn them loose. Bolton will command no respect there and thus will likely get nothing accomplished.

By changing just a few more numbers.. we could all have pi’…sorry, bad joke.

James Meister, spot on! With all the press Bolton has received, why would anyone in the UN do anything more than pay him courtesy while discounting anything he has to say when his back is turned? What, are we going to pull out of Iraq to make our troops available to back Bolton up? I don’t think so, there’s oil in them thar sands.

David:

James Meister, spot on! With all the press Bolton has received, why would anyone in the UN do anything more than pay him courtesy while discounting anything he has to say when his back is turned? What, are we going to pull out of Iraq to make our troops available to back Bolton up? I don’t think so, there’s oil in them thar sands.

You obviously oppose Bush on his ideas on the UN. What would you do different? Or do you believe the UN is fine the way it is??

Craig

No, I don’t oppose Bush on his goals to reform the UN, especially since he has not delineated what those goals are.

I just don’t see how Bolton is the person (based on past behavior) with the diplomatic skills to convince others of change.

To all of you whose world view consists of believing that American political, economic, and military dominance of the whole world, I suggest the book Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky. Not only will you realize that America’s dominance is based on fighting by the same means that we abhor (terrorism, a.k.a. “counter-terrorism”), but you will also realize just how destructive America’s hegemonic goals could be for the entire human race. Granted, the book is written by a biased author, but its message is well-founded and profound.

That said, to all of you who see the UN as simply a body of countries, favored by the left wing, that is meant only to stand in the way of America’s dominance, I ask, what right does America have to dominate the world in such a way? Is it because we are the richest country? Or because it is our destiny? Or because we are the mostly morally right of all the countries? Or is it because we have “God on our side”?

This is only my opinion, but America’s pursuit of global dominance will only lead to increased world-wide hatred for our nation. Factions will continue to rise in every corner of the globe that will fight to the death to keep America out of their affairs, as seen in the current stage of the Iraq conflict. This pursuit of global dominance will only end with the exhaustion of America’s forces and the victory of our “enemies”, or in complete mutual destruction.

Therefore, to me, the United Nations is perhaps the most important global body for negotiation and administration of international affairs. A continuation of America’s diplomatic disregard for other countries’ positions will only lead to disaster. John Boloton is the candidate for the American UN ambassador who will continue that road toward disaster.

Beagle;

Mea culpa. I sunk to the level of the GOP by letting the argument degrade into irrelevency.
What happened to talking about the courage of Voinovich and the broad opposition to a lousy choice for America’s face to the world?

Dave,
Do you think the our President gives a rat’s hind end what people think. Just as long as he has his “toadies” around him, Gee Dubba honestly thinks he is the greatest. He doesn’t read newspapers, books and I just wonder if he reads the reports sent to him.

David:

So what do you think should be done with the UN?

Craig

Bolton is too obvious. If he can’t keep control of his emotions what the hell use is he as a diplomat? He’ll be Dr. Heckle and Mr. Snide, and nobody will much care for him or listen to him, unless they have to. How effective can a diplomat be when his presences is calculated to offend? I think Bolton is supposed to be one more step in Bush making the UN irrelevant.

In short, another example of this president trying to force a change that people woul probably not like, if it was presented to them straight.

I’m collecting crows. I figure I’ll get rich selling them to all you who are condemning Bolton. When you purchase your individual crow, it will be numbered and a certificate of authenticity will be issued. Of course, that is all you will have left after you eat the crow.

Craig,

“…Gee Dubba honestly thinks he is the greatest. He doesn’t read newspapers, books and I just wonder if he reads the reports sent to him.”

Come on now. You might as well call him poopy-pants. Just because you disagree with a persons reasoning does not mean they’re stupid or don’t read.

I can read the same passages that you do and come up with a conclusion completely opposed to yours.

For example, you say “…distroyed the League of Nations by refusing our entry into it. Do you remember what happened just a couple decades later. World War II.”

That’s quite a stretch. I’d say WWII happened because Hitler wanted more space for the racial core of Germany. He’d have made the decision whether the League of Nations was there or not.

By the way, Germany and Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933. Are you saying that if America were a part of the League that Germany and Japan wouldn’t have withdrawn? And the League of Nations transferred all assets to the United Nations in 1946. We joined that world body and it did nothing to prevent Stalin or Mao, men responsible for killing millions of innocent people.

Now, does that mean I can say you don’t read?

I’d say you just misinterpret the information.

Craig Holmes, to understand my answer, I first have to lay out the choices.

Choice 1 - tell them to change or we will withdraw support. That is a false choice since that will leave a UN in greater hands of those who would oppose our interests. Also sets a dangerous precedent for our allies. The last thing the US and freedom loving people need is a United Nations Against The US (UNATUS), despite the fact that it 3/5 of the way already exists.

Choice 2 - Go in demanding changes and backing those demands up with threat. In the end, this choice has the same outcome as choice 1 above.

Choice 3 - Send a representative to the UN who will demonstrate to the world that the US will lead by example, doing what we ask others to do, and promising only what we can back up with integrity and actions. And a representative who is as much like PT Barnum as we can find.

Now the problem with choice 3 is we do not have leadership in government that is willing to do what it asks of others. We initiated the Kyoto agreement and then refused to sign on. We ask others to dismantle nuclear capability while we make public our development of ever newer nuclear capability (star wars and low yield bunker busting nukes). It really doesn’t matter what Ambassador we send if the government he/she represents lacks credibility and integrity in the eyes of the rest of the world.

It is one thing for the administration to PR its way into office, quite another to try to PR the wool over the rest of the world’s eyes. Consequential evidence that we are losing face in the world was last weeks meetings between Arab Nations and S. America, and the uphill battle Bush is fighting to negotiate with Central America, and China’s statement that there is no credible evidence of N. Korea’s creating new nuclear weapons, (whether in fact they are or not). Other nations aren’t taking our word for it anymore, even if American voters still are.

The US has first to regain some credibility in the world before it is going to be able to lead positive changes in the UN. Scolding the UN while our own house is in such disarray is not going to move the UN one inch closer to our vision of what it should be.

I would start by announcing an end to star wars R&D, (we can’t afford that black hole for money anyway). Announce a halt to all further nuclear weapon development by the US, would help a great deal (we have enough end the human race already, that should be enough).

I would follow up with concrete and indisputable legislation that would put our financial future back on solid ground. To the rest of the world, our out of control national debt constitutes a threat to other economies in the world over the next couple decades. Let’s show some integrity about world economics by taking real steps to insure a sound future American economy upon which other nations both will and want to rely upon for stability in their own nations.

Finally, I would announce that our efforts in the war on terrorism will be waged directly with terrorists and not innocent men, women, and children in the nations in which those terrorists may be found. Where incursion into other nation’s borders will be required, announce that we will do so only with the cooperation of the UN security council.

That would be a good start for Christian President. Do unto others as one would have them do unto you. Put an end to this, ‘we will because we can foreign policy’ which simply widens the chasm between us and other nations as well as us and our own goals.

David,
Bravo. That was beautifully said.

Ryan,

I agree with your opinions also.
And I would have to add that I’m fully aware of how our reputation in the world has already been dealt many serious blows by this administration — and that it is going to take a long time and great deal of astute diplomatic work to set things to rights.
I say I know this because of conversations I’ve had with my relatives in Scotland. Truth is, over in the UK they watch this country far closer than some of us here might imagine, and they’re growing increasingly worried, angry, and yes, frightened by the men leading our nation (as well as baffled by the unwavering support they seem to be getting from so many of our people).

When I speak to these family members on the phone, they are now unable not to heap sympathy on me (they are aware I voted for Kerry), and then follow that up by launching into scathingly vitriolic diatribes about Bush & Co.
This has never happened before in my entire life, and it’s been quite surprising to me, because before Bush entered office I’d never had even a SINGLE discussion about American politics with a few of these folks.
The worse thing to me about all of this is the fact they’ve always been the kind of people who’ve shown nothing but graciousness, kindness and hospitality towards American’s, but now suddenly they seem to be questioning whether they should do so unreservedly — and this makes me consider it quite an alarming indicator of just how far America’s esteem is falling.
With John Bolton at the UN I believe that things could easily become even worse. In fact, I fear that his extremely undiplomatic temperament may utterly destroy every chance we ever had to repair the damage that has already been done.

Btw, I’ve read that book you recommended and liked it, too. But you must realize, don’t you, that some of the conservatives in this column (the ones that read books and magazines anyway) will behold the name Chomsky and a fine red mist comprised of scorn and rage will immediately overtake them? :^/

The UN needs a person like Bolton!Its about time we got tough on the UN..Peace thru strenth works even at the UN And democracy is the best hope for world peace and the improvement to all humans on our planet.Bush is a good man and so was Ronald Reagan.Certain people need to slam both these men because they cant stand the fact that they are doing something instead of compromising on and on and actually acomplishing nothing!We see how compromise works just look at how it worked with North korea.Clinton gave them 2 reactors for a promise not to persue weapons.What a great compromise that was.The truth is you just cant trust countries that are not democratic!

Dave - the one who posted a response on at May 12, 2005 04:38 PM - is your classic flame throwing ‘Way Left Liberal’. Distorted facts and poorly constructed opinions continue to be their mantra. The belief - if repeated often enough - is the left will pick up some “believers”. As usual, this is short term in nature and well…stupid. Responses such as Dave’s are ‘good news’. Why? We need more morons like you to because the rest of the country will eventually catch on to the “act”. Flame throwing liberals will be like dinosaurs - extinct.

For some on the left to understand why many on the right have no use for the UN, you need only read their stated goal of “ban private ownership of ALL firearms worldwide”.

You may say ” thats great” or “big deal, one issue”, or even “that could never happen here”.

Now exchange that goal for “ban all abortions, or ban ALL gay marriage/unions”.
How much money do you wish to give them now to further those goals?

How about if there was a statue at the UN building of two gays engaged in sex that said “outlaw these sinners”, or one made up unborn children that said “stop the murder”, how much would you love them then? (Be honest)

The UN DOES have a GIANT statue made up of bent and twisted guns of ALL kinds to proclaim their mission to ban them all for private citizens worldwide !

Its much like Adrienne’s VERY thoughtfull and preceptive post, about how some might view an endorsement of a book by Noam Chomsky,(I have read some of his work), If I suggested a book by Ann Coulter I’m sure I would get VERY negative comments from those on the left.

It always works both ways when the issues are atomic.

jimi,

“The UN needs a person like Bolton!Its about time we got tough on the UN..Peace thru strenth works even at the UN”

And your reasoning for this is…? As far as I can tell, the idea of unilateral diplomacy has not worked in the past decade, or otherwise in history. I have no idea why you think it will work now.

“And democracy is the best hope for world peace and the improvement to all humans on our planet.”

Not really, it’s the best hope for the majority to squash the minority, and that doesn’t really sound like peace to me.

“Bush is a good man and so was Ronald Reagan.”

This is sounding more and more like political propaganda/endorsement rather than something important.

“We see how compromise works just look at how it worked with North korea.Clinton gave them 2 reactors for a promise not to persue weapons.”

Yep, definitely propaganda. What Clinton did was make it more difficult for North Korea to produce nuclear weapons (or at least the plutonium needed for them). Bush, on the other hand, has the brilliant idea that you are advocating which is: “no compromise!” I would remind you that it is now, under the Bush administration, that North Korea has become a threat and that Bush’s strategy has done little more to North Korea than make them feel cornered and therefore more hostile.

“The truth is you just cant trust countries that are not democratic!”

Democratic countries like ours? Well, as our history shows, we are most certainly not trustworthy on either a foreign or domestic level.

Pat,

Thank you for your well written and thoughtfull reply.

President Bush has admitted he doesn’t read books or newspapers. No, I do not think the President is stupid, I believe he is just lazy. Someone who brags about his C average does not inspire me. I want a President who is much smarter than myself, someone who is not afraid of different views, well read, diplomacy skills and leadership. I feel that historians will say that George W. Bush was a spoiled child of wealth who could not accept critism,

The League of Nations was doomed from the lack of participation of the U.S. Wheather or not Germany or Japan would have continued membership is a great topic for a weekend discussion group.
I need to research your excellent ideas and wheather my 59 year old brain has fogged the details, i.e. the League being alive in 1933 or transfering assets in 1945.

Pat, I tip my hat to you. You have made this old liberal expand his thoughts and I LOVE IT.

Shifting the accountability for North Korea and nuclear weapons to the Bush administration is purely showing someone is in the state of denial.
The nuclear problem in North Korea was escalated by the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration gave the ability to North Korea to do anything they wanted with nuclear products.
How to approach North Korea in the diplomatic arena is another problem. When you deal with people with power that continually do things that seem to be so abnormal as to be crazy, then extreme caution should be used. Kim Jung is too unstable to go to any length to appease him. You must deal with him from a postition of power. He is rogue, ruthless, and risky.
Democracy is still one of the worse approaches to a stable government. It is inefficient and costly. It does not serve the needs of the citizenry. One of the major reasons we have so many unresolved situations in this country is that too many people are trying to treat the USA as a democracy instead of a republic.

Adrienne,

“I’m fully aware of how our reputation in the world has already been dealt many serious blows by this administration — and that it is going to take a long time and great deal of astute diplomatic work to set things to rights.”

Wow, you know one guy, related to you that shares your same political beliefs. I bet I could find one person in Scotland that would agree that we’re doing the right thing.

Apparently that’s enough to say we have an impeccable reputation throughout the world.

Pat:
“Wow, you know one guy, related to you that shares your same political beliefs.”

Wrong. I’m first generation American on my father’s side of the family. I’ve got tons of relatives (we’re a large clan and Catholic to boot)in Scotland. Some of those I keep in touch with are Labour Party, some are Conservative, all of them absolutely loathe Bush & Co.

“I bet I could find one person in Scotland that would agree that we’re doing the right thing.”

Aye, no doubt you could. Unfortunately, he’d probably be a soccer hooligan wi’ a pint in his fist, pissed out of his wee brain (which is about as bright as a small appliance bulb even before he swaggers inside the pub).

To the guy that listed 48 good things about the UN……You forgot two very important areas….
Oil and Sex for food.

Oh yes, How about the countless resolutions that were not acted upon concerning Iraq? And please let us not forget the endless support of countries that support terroism.

Dave

tom,

“[Kim Jung Il] is rogue, ruthless, and risky.”

Perhaps, but I see his actions as simply an attempt to continue his regime in his own country while the United States tries to consolidate all military power into its own borders. I do not agree with Kim Jung Il’s domestic policies, but his foreign policies are completely expected in the nuclear age. America’s quest for military dominance of the world is only causing these “rogue regimes” to proliferate more nuclear and bio/chem weapons. No overt military or economic threats to North Korea will solve this problem. They will only cause him to increase his arsenal. The only solution is a good-will destruction of our own weapons and a decreased sphere of influence. Once North Korea got nuclear capabilities, regardless of who is to blame, the possibility of military intimidation disappeared. The only possible (safe) way to solve the problem is through good diplomacy because a regime that is “rogue, ruthless, and risky” will not back down to a military threat (it will be seen as an opportunity for more internal N.K. propaganda) but it will much more likely succumb to diplomatic and economic compromise.

powering down to the enemies level is assinine. So, we get rid of “X” number of our nukes and North Korea is going to say, I think they mean business. Now, to interpret the North Korean statement of meaning business. They (the Americans) are affraid of us. Let us dominate the nuke business. Let us terrorize everyone. See the Americans aren’t going to do anything.
MAS under Sec. McNamara didn’t work then and we should not power down now to be on the same turf as North Korea. You would not understand the rational of David and Goliath, but there is some lessons to be learned from it.

The problem with the logic of putting somebody in the UN to light a fire under their asses is that we can’t get the populations behind those leaders to sway in our direction.

Additionally, the head-busting rhetoric and hostility did not work wonders when the President and his cabinet members were employing it before the Iraq War. How is it supposed to work now? However much we push the Oil-For-Food controversy on them, they can point to much greater oil sales made to our allies in the region with our knowledge, as well as our utter failure to get the facts straight on the WMDs and terrorists. And we sure as hell can’t rake them over the coals about sex scandals in Africa, when we got the U.S. Military making pyramids of naked Iraqis in Abu Ghraib.

Fact is, this is about trying to tear down the UN, not reform it.

Dave,

“To the guy that listed 48 good things about the UN……You forgot two very important areas….
Oil and Sex for food.”

Wow, that’s the best you can come up with? The U.S. has a far worse failure-to-success ratio than that…

Today on all the sunday news programs even the Dem. pundants predict that Boulton’s nomination will pass. He will even get some Dem. votes.

Voinovich did little more than prove that “politically” he is nothing more than a horses ass.
If he had said “Boulton is qualified but wouldn’t be my first choice”, he would get little political heat and would still have made his point.

NOBODY respects a stool pidgen or a traitor, not those useing them or those being used.

Welcome to the “Jeffords” club Mr. Voinovich, I hope you enjoy your stay !…please follow the SRG. at arms, he will direct you to the room where you will be fitted for your dunce cap.

Pat,

Take a good look at the members of the League of Nations and the later members. It was a guard dog with not much of a bark and no teeth. With those disablilities, the League had no power to stop Stalin and Hitler. The League did turn over its assets, like you said, in 1946. April 18 to be exact.

Info found through the net. Thanks again for having me do some checking and thinking.

I still maintain that “poopie pants” want to disassemble the U.N.

Beagle,

You are barking up a tree. You are again proving the Bush’s “big tent” has only room for those who must not question him or his policies. Bolton is to diplomacy as Hitler was to world peace. (No I am not calling John Bolton Hitler)

Craig,

Every party should have a big tent, but if someone is trying to burn it down from the inside, let them sleep in the rain unless someone wants them in THEIR tent.

Beagle said:” Voinovich did little more than prove that “politically” he is nothing more than a horses ass.”

NO, he did a lot more than that Beagle. Bolton will go before the Senate without Committee Recommendation. That says a lot to the American people. It says our politicians are appointing candidates who are not the best they can be for the job.

Second, Voinovich demonstrated that conscience and and personal conviction and integrity still exist in the Congress in some politicians. The horse’s ass is the one who votes party line for years on end. Representatives are sent to Represent their constituents, ALL of their constituents, NOT their political party. That is what’s wrong with our two party system, the parties are represented before the American people in their respective communities in far too many cases.

David,

“That is what’s wrong with our two party system, the parties are represented before the American people in their respective communities in far too many cases.”

I see that as a problem with our “democracy” (the two party system that is). All of a sudden, people are forced to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. Actually, that’s a generalization, but I’m fairly sure that’s how many of you feel. So while the people are appeased with a “choice” they really don’t see the sort of progress for which they hope. In short, the politicians are allowed great leeway in how much they can let down their constituents before they actually have to start paying for it.

Zeek, agreed.

David,

The key word in my ” horses ash” comment was “politically”, you must take it the context that it was presented in.

I was only talking politics, what could he gain?…nothing, what could he loose?…money, support,ect.ect.

BTW, I have NEVER voted a straight party ticket, the one button/handle voteing machines should be outlawed everywhere.

I live in a mostly Rep. area, every election a rep. runs unopposed in a local race, every time Donald Duck gets one write-in vote!

Beagle,

“I live in a mostly Rep. area, every election a rep. runs unopposed in a local race, every time Donald Duck gets one write-in vote!”

I think the sad thing here is that Donald Duck would be a better choice than many that run for office.

The more things change, the more they remain the same…

Beagle; As much as we disagree on Voinovich it’s interesting to note that the first person I ever voted for was Donald Duck (for Mayor of Philly)

Dave,

Thats great, reguardless if we ever agree on anything politically, if you don’t vote like a sheep,goat, or even a duck, thats a start.