Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

It’s a crap shoot. Some people grow into a position. Perhaps Bolton shall as well. His past was certainly no recommendation of his talent for persuasion. I mean, it is not like he can fire members of the Security Council. If he uses past style as in berating delegates with impunity as he has with previous persons, serious repercussions will follow as he shoots America and Bush’s hopes for reform in the foot.

Nathan,

Ironic- comparing Democrats to five-year olds, then suggesting the US should take its toys and go home because the UN does not do what the US wants.

What do you think is the purpose of the UN?

Are you proud the president replaced the temporary UN ambassador with a temporary appointment in the person of Bolton?

Do you seriously believe Bolton forgot to mention his FBI interview on the application?

A useless organization? Come on.
Here are some of the UN’s accomplishments:

” Ending Conflicts. The U.N. has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements, helping bring about an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war in El Salvador, and withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

· Peacekeeping. In El Salvador, Cambodia, Macedonia, Mozambique, Namibia, Cyprus and Haiti, to name a few, U.N. peace operations have helped uphold ceasefires, conduct free and fair elections, monitor troops withdrawals, deter violence, create free countries, and aid political stability.

· Preventing Nuclear Proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency has helped minimize the spread of nuclear weapons by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors and facilities in 90 countries. The U.N. has also advanced arms control through international agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

· Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere.

· Universal Immunizations. In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year.

· Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty. The U.N. has provided famine relief to millions of people. The International Fund for Agricultural Development had developed a system of providing economic credit for poor and marginalized groups, benefiting over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries and building longer-term hunger relief.

· Helping Refugees. In 1997, 22 million refugees, mostly women and children, receive food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

· Environment. Through international treaties, the U.N. leads efforts to protect the ozone layer and curb global warming. Forestry action plans help limit deforestation and promote sustainable forestry practices for 90 countries. The U.N. has helped provide safe drinking water for 1.3 billion people in rural areas, and has on-going efforts to help prevent over-fishing and clean up pollution.

· Improving Female Literacy. U.N. programs to help promote education and advancement for women helped raise their literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990”

Quoted from:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/action/whyun$.htm

Suggest the UN should be reformed or restructured? Great idea. But that’s not what the post recommmends.

yeah…damn that UN…don’t they know it’s all about the USA!

screw all them uther places where people live and stuff….

damn furiners….

bout damn time we put a psycho in office who can make some noise…let em know we mean business….

I find it disturbing that Nathan Melton in particular and the Republicans in general regard the UN as “useless” because they don’t bark like a dog when the US says so. This fits the pattern of past Republican behavior. France and Europe are “useless” until Iraq explodes then Bush begs them for help. Heh. Talk about selective memory.

‘Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere’

I though the UN was worthless too, until I found out they cured Smallpox and Polio.

What about that great program they had where they would buy oil from Iraq and the money would be used to give Iraqi’s food? That was a great accomplishment.

How about the great job avoiding genocide in Rwanda?

I really don’t understand how Bolton thinks he can improve on this wonderful organization.

Peter,
The oil-for-food scandal and institutional corruption in the UN deserves to be investigated, and it deserves to be condemned.

And- bad news. The UN consists of 191 nations, and in many of those countries, corruption & graft are SOP.

Does that mean we should refuse to participate in international organizations? Of course not. We must be vigilant, and do as much as possible to discourage corruption, graft, bribery, and so on.

We’ll always have to be on guard against corruption, but given the make-up of this international forum, that problem will constantly rear its ugly head.

Iraq, for example, is notable for corrupt practices. Do I need to go into the history of the Iranian spy, Chalabi, or the $8.8 billion that disappeared from the CPA?

“How about the great job avoiding genocide in Rwanda?”

Tut, tut, blaming the policeman for the criminal’s act.

But point taken. Rwanda represents a failure on the part of the UN, as well as the entire international community. Generally, countries are loath to intervene in the internal affairs of one another. Generally, international borders are respected, despite detestable practices. But no doubt, the UN failed the Rwandans in their hour of need.

Yet more often than not, the UN has succeeded. The organization has “helped uphold ceasefires, conduct free and fair elections, monitor troops withdrawals, [and] deter violence.”

Perhaps Bolton will be a terrific ambassador. It’s possible. But based on past performance, a performance poor enough to repel Republican Voinovich, and based upon the lack of respect he commands in the international community, and taking into account a personality which, if true as described, seems distinctly undiplomatic, it seems unlikely he will represent our country well.

I think this was a modest victory for the Democrats. Bolton will arrive at the UN with an asterisk, and he will be limited to a year (?) or so without confirmation. The Dems were able to show the world that not all Americans believe in Bush’s “my way or the highway” approach. It is a shame that the US cannot present a unified foreign policy front, but Bush made his choice.

Folks, there are a lot of crappy choices you can make and still have them be constitutional. There’s nothing in the bill of rights against running a deficit, nothing against losing a war (not on purpose, of course), and nothing against incompetence.

The constitution, thank God, allows your average American to protest boneheadedness without the fear of getting shot or thrown in jail.

So let me say that the preferable option was a moderately conservative candidate without baggaged, and that was a choice your president didn’t have. He didn’t have a second choice. Aren’t you getting tired of a president who doesn’t have a backup plan he can fall back on in a dignified way? Aren’t you tired of winning fights, but having your leaders look like bullies and powermongers all the time? I mean, did you guys ever wonder how Clinton won 1996? He won because he could always point at the Republican strongarm tactics, and say “I can be more reasonable than this.”

We were being quite reasonable. We simply wanted to know who Bolton had eavesdropped on by the NSA, and why. It is because Bush chose not to be forthcoming about this that even his Republican compatriots wouldn’t push matters.

Aren’t you folks tired of not being able to ask real questions of your leadership? Don’t you want a president who can be honest with you, without bombarding you with a years worth of talking points to get you pushing their line?

5 year olds ya
get over it he’s got 2 1/2 yrs left then you get another chance at it maybe youll do better this time with Hillary he he

By the way
Be a little closser to free
Join the family Tree

ROVE FOR UN AMBASSADOR

As conservative Democrat, I believe that President Bush made the wrong choice in appointing Bolton to the UN. The UN is all about world politics. Bolton is just an ass-wipe. Now, Rove on the other hand is a political pro. Imagine Rove in the UN setting up dirty tricks against those countries leaders and ambassadors who go against the Bush agenda. Where Bolton will merely intimidate Rove will sabotage. Where Bolton will merely follow the party line, Rove would be creative in dealing with our political opposition. I certainly don’t want to see Iran on the Security Counsel. Rove could convince them that they wouldn’t want to be in, anyway. Enough with the expenditure of millions of bucks to keep totalitarian regimes as our friends. What we need are some good, old fashioned dirty tricks at the UN. Rove fills the bill.

Just a few comments, mostly on phx8:

1. The list of UN accomplishments is really overblown, starting with the claim that the UN got the Russians out of Afghanistan. As a practical matter, the UN flag has been useful in some situations to save face for one of the parties. However, real UN action/influence has mattered only in countries no major power was willing to intervene directly, e.g. Namibia, Rwanda,.

2. The UN failed terribly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Somalia.

3. The UN has still not managed to agree on teh criteria for defining who may be described as a terrorist.

4. The UN has been by and large hostile to US interests for decades now. It won’t hurt to have an ambassador who will speak up for America. Most of the delegates at the UN probably won’t listen, but it will probably make many Americans feel better. There really isn’t much at stake: the UN is not where serious matters are decided.

Charles Kovacs

I also find it humorous that the Democrats are acting like little children and saying that they will not support Bolton in his role.

A number of Republicans have come out against the nomination too.

Nathan,
“The United Nations is one of the most worthless organizations in the world. You can never be sure of the intentions of other nations and there is an anti-U.S. cabal within the organization. The best thing that the U.S. could do would be to remove itself from the U.N. and form another organization that consists of other democracies around the world, instead of countries like Syria and Libya.”

This is the exact arrogance that caused the “anti-U.S. cabal” in the first place.
Did the President do anything outside his legal rights? NO
Did he once again prove to the American people he will reward his buddies that helped gather and promote fake intelligence to get us into the war in Iraq? YES

The UN is now seeking to gain control of the internet, whats up with that?

Is it because the terrorist websites are getting zaped and removed?

Its being reported that the Brit.’s are doing that. Jolly good job!

There was an excellent post a few days ago showing the number of recess posts of several presidents. They all use them and, in surprisingly high numbers. The recess post option is there for a reason. As are tactics such as fillibusters, etc.

Bolton deserves a chance before he is condemned on past actions. I wonder if he will take off his shoe and bang it on the table?

Steve Smith,

I saw Dick Morris (former Clinton advisor) on TV yesterday. He predicted that within a year John Bolton would be so popular in the US that nobody would dare vote against him when the next congress starts.

By the United Nations own documents they are not peace keepers, but are peace enforcers. A huge difference. As far as seeking peaceful resolutions the UN has a dismal record. In the last fifteen years they have interjected themselves into the nations of Angola, Namibia, Nicaragua, Western Sahara, El Salvador, Cambodia, Yugoslavia (including the break-away states), Somalia, Mozanbique, Georgia, Liberia, Haiti, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East Timor, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Macedonia, Chad, and Ethopia. I probably missed some. That comes to an average of one country every nine months. In all those cases the UN was an abyssmal failure.
Another reason the UN is a failure is when you look at two of the signatories for the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, Yalta and Bretton Woods is it any wonder the UN is a failure. The two persons I refer to is Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss. Is the world any better off after spending billions of dollars and peoples lives to assure a better world. I think the evidence and facts speak for themselves.

Beagle,

I read somewhere that swampland in Florida is a great investment.
IMHO, Bolton will be laughed out of the UN w/in 6 months. Which is probably what Bush and the other isolationist and unilateralists want anyway. “With us or against us,” just like a great republican democracy should be!

tom,

Yes, the facts do speak for themselves. It’s too bad Bush etc… don’t listen.

For a long time the UN has displayed a marked bias against Israel and the US, in favor of non western countries.

Another organisation that respects our values and rewards our true allies sounds like a good idea. Easier said than done, though. Our true allies are the British and most of the English speaking world, Israel, Mexico, and most of central and south America. A true ally stands by you and is there to give as well as take. Can you say that about the UN or even most of its members?

Monica

Dave,

Its a lil off topic, but swampland or marshland in Fla. or anywhere else, is a good investment.

Its good for wildlife and the enviornment. They clean and filter the water we drink, provide homes for many forms of wildlife, and have valuable uses for recreation.

Because so few people can see the value of those areas, in a capitalist society those lands sell quite cheap. Its easy to get tax diferments based on land-use, and money can be made by those with the forsight to see the enviro-friendly uses of those lands that will turn profits.

I’m impressed that you also see the value of those lands.

We agree on something.

Beagel,

Good reply, my hat’s off… (although I think there’s a difference between swamp-land and wet-land)

Monica,

Who said we all have to be friends and allies? The world is a much smaller place than it used to be and we need to find a way to get along and control our baser instincts, or at least try not to kill each other.
The UN is Version 2.0 of a solution. Maybe we need something new, but Bolton is a destroyer, not a builder or a modifier. What’s wrong with having a V2.1? And, we’ve certainly seen nothing about V3.0, what will BushCO bring to replace it?

Slightly off-topic, but has anyone else noticed the interesting relationship between this topic and the previous one?

The previous topic talked about the “Newspeak Nighmare”. This topic starts with a classic example of “Newspeak” in referring to the Bush League’s Bolton appointment as the “Constitutional option”.

Dave,

“(although I think there’s a difference between swamp-land and wet-land)”

To be classified swampland it needs large mature trees growing in it. ie; cedar, cypress, and mangrove are good examples of those types of lands. It must also be flooded most of the year.

Perhaps our good friend David Remer could start a thread to debate the value of those lands?
He does seem to “lean green”, and this mean ole Republican likes that!

Beagle,

This is more fun than ‘on-topic’.
I though wet lands provided the enviromental benefits you listed and swamp was, well, just swamp?
To clarify, to me each ecology has it’s own benefit, whether I/we know about it or not. Pro-diversity in nature and society!

Unlike Bolton, heh?…

Charles,
You might be surprised that I agree with you, at least to some extent. The UN’s chief accomplishments have come through WHO, UNICEF, humanitarian relief, and so on.

It’s serves a role as a peacekeeper, or enforcer of peace, but there are unquestionably failures as well as successes. In the case of Afghanistan, the Mujahideen never really accepted the cease-fire. To paraphrase a quote about the cease-fire, one Mujahideen said ‘we’ll keep killing the Russians until they leave.’

Some of the hostility towards the US is generated by our protection of Israel through vetoes. But, as the country with the largest economy & most powerful military, we’re bound to confront resentment & envy anyway.

Yet the US benefits more from international relations, trade, & globalization than any other country in the world. On an emotional level it might be comforting to become an isolationist Fortress America, or only talk & coordinate with allies. Unfortunately, that approach is impractical. It goes both ways; we interact with the rest of the world, spreading western culture, technology, & power; and, as 9/11 demonstrated, the world interacts with us, whether we like it or not.

Should issues like corruption at the UN be addressed? Of course. Should restructuring be considered? Sure. But if the UN didn’t exist, a similar organization would have to take its place.

As for Bolton: a confrontational approach can work, but it’s not the way most diplomats do their job. We’ll see.

Nathan
Neither Congress nor the Bush Administration had shown sparkles of proficiency lately. The problem of John Bolton as our UN Ambassador is not whether President Bush has a right to choose his own man – he does – but whether the appointee would do a good job. In other words, can John Bolton, the undiplomatic diplomat, be effective?
A recent Harvard Business Review article (June 2005) by professors Casciaro and Lobo, notes that Competent Jerks are mostly avoided. In an informal hierarchy, they take third place after the Lovable Stars and the Lovable Fools. The point is not whether President Bush has a Constitutional Right, rather why did he choose a Competent Jerk, not a Star?
The pundits would say, but Colin Powel was a Star that didn’t have the President’s ear and he failed, Bolton has, and he will succeed. I hope so, because the appointment is important. It won’t hurt for President Bush (The CEO President) to listen to a business theory every now and than.

Dave,

The term “wetlands” is very broad and covers many things.
Its kinda like defining all political partys as the same in terms as politics. If both involve politics, or involve water, they could be classified the same?

Lets save that for another thread.

As for Boulton, if he does nothing more than piss-off the UN, it was a good choice and will express my feelings tward that collection of turd-world countrys, in $4oo suits,debating why nothing should be done about anything.

Beagle,

So you think the UN is a waste. What would you suggest to replace it?

Dave,

“So you think the UN is a waste. What would you suggest to replace it?

Posted by Dave at August 3, 2005 03:04 PM “

How about a parking lot?

Beagle
Considering that parking in Manhattan is a problem, I’ll second the motion. Only I would add one more step to accomplish it. Use eminent domain.

Beagle, tom,

So you agree with the Bush doctrine of “our way or we the bomb the crap out of you” Munroe move over, we have a new weinner.

This is quite a topic. I don’t know anything about wetlands, but let me add the the following to the international aspects:

1. Should we withdraw from the UN? Of course not, that won’t solve anything. However, we should try forminga new association of countries that subscribe to a common set of values, including freedom and democracy. The OECD is something like this on economic issues, this could be its political equivalent. We are doing something like this with regards to the Kyoto Treaty, although that’s more of a single issue association.

2. The difference between peace keeping and peace enforcing escapes me, but the UN has usually failed at both. This has been often its members’ fault because they voted for a vague mandate, and because of the general notion at the UN that it should be neutral and not use force against either side except in self-defense. This of course has made both peace keeping and peace enforcing quite impossible.

3. Re Afghanistan, the Afghans were perfectly right and justified in fighting the Russians, since the Russians were there as invaders. The UN had nothing to do with their departure; that was accomplished by the fanatical resistance of the Afghans supported by the US. The provision of shoulder-launched SAM’s by the Reagan Administration was critically important.

4. For phx8: The UN agencies, such as WHO, UNICEF, are a mixed bag. Some do a good job, others, are hopeless and raddled with corruption. All of them are bureauratic and not a good value for money even by public sector standards.

The hostility against the US is partly due to US support for Israel, but Israel is more of a convenient touchstone than anything else. If it did not exist there would be surely something else. The mere existence of the US is an affront and a threat to non-democratic, and even etatist, regimes.

The UN is actually against most aspects of free trade and globalization. Globalization, by the way, is “just” the free movement of people, trade and investments. That has enourmous consequences and has brought incredible prosperity to the world. The US has been one of its proponents even since Bretton Woods and there is no question of returning to a Fortress America. However, I would not characterize 9/11 as a Third World interaction. It was a disgusting crime by a group of middle-class Third Worlders, but the Third World as a whole has benefited greatly from globalization, vide the growth of Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., or for that matter Bahrain, Dubai, Turkey, Chile, etc.

On restructuring the UN: sure,but the current proposals are the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It does not matter whether the Security Council has five or seven or 11 permanent members as long as there is no international consensus on what the UN should be doing. It was conceived as a core for world government, but in 1945 there were fewer than 50 sovereign states. We need to go back to square one, try to agree on a new charter and then go on from there.

Charles Kovacs

I think that there is one thing that we are all forgetting. The UN was designed as only a forum for the world to get together and try to fix things. I for one believe that for what it was orginaly intended, it has succeded. We need to be able to fight for something other than who blames who. The UN has no power in the world other than to let ocuntries decide for themselves what they are going to do, I like it that way and I think that we should keep an eye on the funds, the US alone is paying over 25% of it and there needs to be aide for countries which face genocide. We jsut need to remeber that the US became the model for the world to follow and if we put a man who has no problem with speaking his mind, will not box to demands, and will stand up for the fact that there is an oganization in this world that has vowed to take us down becuase we are evil in the sight of ahlah. Then just maybe we will see some of the things that people want to happen on both sides.

To phx8,

While your comments regarding the “U.N.” are correct, what you are lacking is the fact that in those many successful and fruitful missions, the United States provided from 65% to 95% of the money, equipment and manpower required to get the U.N.’s job done. They’ve just always taken the global credit. One of the things we’ve done recently to tick the U.N. off was to demand U.S. flags and labels on all aid and materials we’ve provided to assist other countries so that those countries would know where the help is REALLY coming from.
But I also don’t think we should pull out of the U.N., either. We need to stay in to keep an eye on things so to speak…

Something else to consider about the idea of using a “star” might be this: the world is sick of “stars”. Europeans used to be proud, once, to know an American. And this was when we were much more proud, arrogant, and ‘in-your-face’ if you will. We were loud and boisterous, and took up too much space. We were that kind but annoying uncle who’s temper could really flare up. But they still respected us. Many of them loved us. Why?
Because we kept our word. When we shook on it, it was going to get done. We did what we said we were going to do. We were strong and brave, and knew when to stand together.
Even now, as the world is shown the whinier side of the U.S. by an all-to-Democratic media (who seems to still love that Jane Fonda traitor), people throughout the world still want to come here. People all over the world still want to come and get to know America. Not for its “stars”. Not for the pretty little faces we can put up on display to play some “welcome-to-the-party-princess” roll. Rather, they come for our freedoms and ideals. We NEED to stop being the “everyman” that liberals think we should be when dealing with others. The “everyman” is a liar and a false image. We need to be ourselves. This is true of every level of interpersonal communication.
Also, I’ve got to say to you people with the ‘Bush intentionally lied about WMD’s just to getr us over there’ people one thing… You’re idiots. For an entire YEAR we watched as truckload after truckload of ‘unknown materials’ was moved out of Iraq into Afghanistan. Now, one of the terrorists main weapons sources is Afghanistan. Let’s put two and two together, shall we? Besides, and I say this as a VETERAN of the Persian Gulf war, the basis for all of this anti-war argumentation has always supposedly been ‘for the troops’; but WE NEVER ASKED FOR THAT KIND OF HELP! We knew what we were doing when we signed up. We supported the first war, and we support this one. And until some of you provide some service to your country, I’d like you all to please respectfully sit down and be quiet. I don’t want to hear it any more. All you’re doing is giving the enemy hope. Just ask some of those Viet Nam vets that little Jane Fonda went to visit about giving the enemy hope. They’ll tell ya all about it. At least the ones that survived will…

Drew,
“I’ve got to say to you people with the ‘Bush intentionally lied about WMD’s just to getr us over there’ people one thing… You’re idiots. For an entire YEAR we watched as truckload after truckload of ‘unknown materials’ was moved out of Iraq into Afghanistan.”

Well, that’s quite a trick, since Iraq does not share a border with Afghanistan. Were these magical trucks? Or did they drive through Turkey or Iran? Source? Link?

I served as a volunteer, so I feel quite free to express my opinion. People who have not served are equally entitled. Sorry, dude, but soldiers protect civilians, and soldiers sacrifice their own rights, and more, to make sure civilians have their rights, which includes freedom of speech, among other things.

A CBS News poll on Wednesday said 55 percent of Americans did not approve of the way Bush was handling the Iraq war, compared to 41 percent who approved.
Forty-six percent of Americans believed Bush should decrease the number of U.S. troops there, and 59 percent said the war has not been worth the cost in lives and money.
Bush said U.S. troops would remain in Iraq until Iraqis are sufficiently trained to defend themselves, as usual giving no timetable for this other than to say troops would return as soon as possible.
“It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap - his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong,” said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. “Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.
“The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country,” Dallek said
The first President Bush stood by to the end as his old Texas friend, Sen. John Tower, fought on futilely against Senate opponents who said his drinking made him unfit to serve as secretary of defense.
Iraq war costs will exceed $200 billion in the next year.
Bush’s loyalty raises doubts about his political judgment - from baseball to the middle east. War? What War? By Madeleine Begun Kane
The war on terror’s going bad,
So what’s a Prez to do?
He simply calls it something else.
The “struggle” has debuted.
Bush starts a war without a plan.
A needless war, to boot.
And when it fails, his course is clear:
Just name it something cute.
Dub’s PR folks work overtime.
Their mission’s crystal-clear:
To alter views with words, not deeds.
Orwellian days are here.
Instead of Bush disinfo moves,
The truth would be quite nice.
But honesty we’ll never hear
From Bush or Condi Rice.

Once again, “Birds of a feather” Lie together Annie

Drew

“One of the things we’ve done recently to tick the U.N. off was to demand U.S. flags and labels on all aid and materials we’ve provided to assist other countries so that those countries would know where the help is REALLY coming from.”

You know the funny thing about charity is that it shouldn’t matter if the recipient knows where it comes from. America should be helping with this not because someone will recognize that it came from America, but because it is the right thing to do.
Only a child makes sure his gift is recognized as his.

Drew,

“Also, I’ve got to say to you people with the ‘Bush intentionally lied about WMD’s just to getr us over there’ people one thing… You’re idiots. For an entire YEAR we watched as truckload after truckload of ‘unknown materials’ was moved out of Iraq into Afghanistan. Now, one of the terrorists main weapons sources is Afghanistan.”

So what you’re saying is it was a brilliant move for us to move the bulk of our troops into Iraq when all the weapons were going to Afganistan.

Perfect!

Saddam Hussein may not have been trucking to Afghanistan, but there was certainly a lot of traffic into Syria from 2002 onwards. We tried to get international consensus and UN action against the Iraqi violations for nearly a year and that was ample time to dismantle and remove potential evidence and production facilities.

Charles Kovacs

in those many successful and fruitful missions, the United States provided from 65% to 95% of the money, equipment and manpower required to get the U.N.’s job done.

Sure, the UN is always more effective when the US leads it. Too bad President Bush isn’t up to the job like his old man was.

Just wondering if Bolton has reported to work yet. I am assuming not because the Democrats and Liberals have not yet blasted him for screwing up as they have predicted.

No news is good news.

Re American Pundit: The US is not leading in the UN, just paying. The structure of the UN makes it almost impossible for the US to accomplish anything.The money we give the UN could be much more effectively spent even via US AID, not to mention outsourcing more of the jobs to US charities and serious NGO’s.

Meanwhile, Oliver North has a very good column on the UN at www.townhall.com

I don’t agree with everything he wrote, but it’s worth a look, even if one disagrees with him.

CK

We desparately need some new thought and realism in political dialogue of late.

Bolton’s an rare Bush type “republican” for a State Department bureaucrat. He’s a jerk but so what? Bush ignores the UN except when he wants something from it and then lies to get it, eg Iraq’s WMD.

Has anyone considered that Harry Reid was being really smart by getting all of Bolton’s shortcomings out on the record and letting Bush and Bolton hang themselves. Realistically how much damage could anyone do at the UN?

I have to hand it to Condi Rice who managed to get Bolton out of her hair and her way by getting him into the UN.

So bottom line for this liberal is I’m FOR BOLTON AS UN POTENTATE whatever——He can’t hurt and there’s an outside chance he might help something. So go fo it!

IMHO

I don’t think leaving the UN is a good idea, so what might be a better idea?

How about seperately meeting with like minded nations before the UN debates a hot item. Debate the issue among this group and present a united front for a solution to the problem at the UN. If carried out in a dignified and diplomatic way, it could actually make the UN do reasonable things in a reasonable time frame. It would also de-escalte the rhetoric(sp)being used.

This assumes we would be willing and capable of negotiations. Could Bolton do that?
wildduffy

First, I apologize for the Afghanistan/Iran mixup in my previous comment. Lack of sleep. Thank you for pointing that out, though.

Second, the point of labeling our U.N. donations is not for U.S. glory, but so that the U.N. could no longer use our donated resources as a means of gaining recognition while damning us for “not doing enough.”

Third, while I agree that people should be able to speak their minds freely, I also think they should be able to do so honestly. Don’t sit there and tell me you’re worried about the troops when you simply don’t like the administration. Don’t use our service to our country to advance your non-related goals. Don’t say you care while voting NO on protective equipment for G.I.s (J.F. Kerry), only to turn around and acuse others of doing that very thing. I guess that I think that if you’re going to speak your mind, then have the courage and dignity to speak your REAL mind. Don’t hide behind some convenient ‘humanistic’ arguementation…

By the way, doesn’t anyone have anything to say about my “star” comments, or can I take the silence for agreement?

Thank you Drew for your service. We need a lot more like you.

Drew,

“Europeans used to be proud, once, to know an American. And this was when we were much more proud, arrogant, and ‘in-your-face’ if you will. We were loud and boisterous, and took up too much space. We were that kind but annoying uncle who’s temper could really flare up.”

You mean that asshole that demands that everyone pay attention to him while he makes fart noises with his armpit? That guy that kept asking you to pull his finger?

Nobody appreciates a fool except to laugh at him. It’s high time we realize that.

I don’t believe that I made any bathroom-humor references in my last statement. By boisterous and a little loud I mean to say that we were a little more free with ourselves, such as laughing loudly and speaking with authority. Sometimes we were a little too ‘short’ in such ways as cutting a handshake too short (some cultures maintain a handshake throughout a whole conversation). I meant to say that we were bigger-than-life.

But then, I thought adults were speaking here. You’re speaking of childish things, and I’m sorry if someone you know did something like that in front of you in a foreign country, but no one I knew did any such thing.

Then again, I did hear of some very offensive behavior from a couple of my fellow Naval personnell due to the effects of some rather severe inebriation. But they were dealt with harshly, I can assure you.

Drew,

My bathroom references were to point out that Americans are for the most part rude.
We expect that in any country we visit, the locals should speak English, and when we find that they don’t we will generally speak louder and slower, as if that will help them understand us better.

What’s even more appalling is that we treat each other the same way. This is a coarse society. It’s cool to be rude. We demand respect, but give none. If others have the audacity to disagree with us, we insult them. It is pervasive in our culture. It’s the same on both the left and the right.

From the neocon right’s point of view, the left are all traitorus communists, the left thinks that the right are all nazis. The really sad thing is we bring all this on ourselves and then say we didn’t know any better.

IMHO, if we would drop the false bravado and actually treat the Europeans, to use your point of reference, the way we want to be treated, it would go a long way towards mending some of our diplomatic fences.

I guess I’d like to know if you’re basing your statements on opinion gathered from stories heard, or fact from personal witness. I say that because I’ve never seen a majority of individuals behaving in those ways when I’ve traveled. People that rude were not only a minority, but also tended to be very young (20 years or less). I’m sorry to say it, but your descriptions of American behavior abroad sound more like negative generalities than descriptive realities.

Annie

I can’t help it. I have to say it. Your last post is indicative of one of the greatest problems we have in this country. You qoute others to make YOUR point. This means you’re just spewing out what someone else has told you because it fits your current mindset.
And once and for all, the administration didn’t lie to get us to go over there, they were misinformed as to some of the minor details.
That’s right, I said MINOR details. The whole WMD thing is small potatoes compared to over 10 years of noncompliance with U.N. treaties.

Does no one remember how Hitler began his little crusade? He started with small actions and noncompliance. Europe just sat back and took it while threatening to do something about it the next time Hitler made a move. They threatened themselves right into a hole while Hitler built up enough strength and industry to become a real threat.

Success only came when Britain put up a new Prime Minister (Churchill), who was proactive, and the U.S. joined in the fight.

I guess that I’m saying, in short, that your poem quotations and liberal media news exerpts are nice and all, but they pale in comparison to fact applied to lessons learned from the past…

Drew,

I have traveled extensivly, I have been to Europe, and also spent a lot of time in Asia and SE Asia. I have seen the attitude of our soldiers in Korea, for instance.

The “American” attitude has been a well documented fact since Americans started traveling abroad.