John Bolton

[superskippy]

John Bolton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think he will make a good Ambassador and give the U.N. the kick it deserves, or is he just not the right man for the Job.

A straight up yes or no answer, give a reason if you please under the condition it does not turn into a degenerative ranting post against the current American Administration. This is about the characteristics John Bolton has to be U.N. Ambassador, not about Bush's Administration.

 

[shuamort]

I'll vote for hidden option #3, wait and see.

 

[ascott]

The previous poster is correct. "Wait and see" is the true answer, but he should at least be given an opportunity. Bush's picks haven't always been so predictable.

 

[Aaron]

I'd have to say yes because the toughest critic of something is the best solution. It gives you the thought's of people who don't like the UN it shows them what they need to adjust on.

 

[shuamort]

I'd have to say yes because the toughest critic of something is the best solution. It gives you the thought's of people who don't like the UN it shows them what they need to adjust on.

Then again, the toughest critic on W. Bush has been Michael Moore and I don't think he's the best solution for anything.

 

[Aaron]

Then again, the toughest critic on W. Bush has been Michael Moore and I don't think he's the best solution for anything.

Well That is because Michale Moore is a lunatic who really dosen't know what he is doing is making things worse. In some cases the toughest critic is the best solution.

 

[Mikkel]

Well That is because Michale Moore is a lunatic who really dosen't know what he is doing is making things worse. In some cases the toughest critic is the best solution.

And a guy with anger problems and a history of mistreating his subordinates is that much better?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Anyone at the UN who has problems with Bolton already knows that Bolton's a lame duck. All they have to do is wait him out.
Apparently the assessment in the WH is that Bolton wouldn't have survived an up or down vote in the Senate. So, his home country does't even have enough confidence in him.
No one in the UN will take him seriously because they don't have to andhe's unlikely to persuade them to.

He will definitely not be a force for reformation or change. He's a pre-gimped lame duck.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

I hope hes a big a piece of crap as bush is. Any of you black people like Bolton? Just curious as to how he tried sending the Blacks civil rights in reverse under Reagan. I dont think that someones views should be grandfatherd that long after the civil rights movements. I just want all you to know that bolton is a big a piece of crap as bush and that he hates black people.

Hope that pisses of the african-american people as much as it does me. But then again americans like bush so I hope he causes the world to nuke us. or at least nuke the south.

 

[superskippy]

You really don't have a lot to contribute do you? At any rate I stated to not make this thread about Bush or his Administration only about Bolton's qualifications which should have been easy enough parameters for you to follow.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

Actually Im not adding anything about Bush or his Administration. I am saying I personaly think Bolton is as much a piece of **** as Bush and his Administrators.

I did although have something to add contrary to your belief. I added the fact that he iether hates African-Americans or he loves them as slaves. Bolton is a Segregationist. In Reagans years he worked hard to try and erase the Civil Rights that the African-Americans (and white-americans) died and fought for. I do believe I added something.

 

[scottyz]

I think Bolton was a mistake because he goes in with a bias against the U.N. that everyone is aware of. If he disagrees with anything they'll just say " he was against us from the get go! why listen to him?" Plus they all know that he wasn't actually elected.

 

[superskippy]

Actually Im not adding anything about Bush or his Administration. I am saying I personaly think Bolton is as much a piece of **** as Bush and his Administrators.

I did although have something to add contrary to your belief. I added the fact that he iether hates African-Americans or he loves them as slaves. Bolton is a Segregationist. In Reagans years he worked hard to try and erase the Civil Rights that the African-Americans (and white-americans) died and fought for. I do believe I added something.

Bolton is a white supremecist eh? Care to back that up with some link's?

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

Bolton is a white supremecist eh? Care to back that up with some link's?

No I do not care to give you nor any other republican any links debating a repug is liek debating a computer. they have not thoughts of there own. Do your own homework.

 

[superskippy]

So be default you admit you have no evidence to such claims by refusing to display them. It's not a good idea to make a claim and then refuse evidence about it, I don't have to do homework once you make a factual assertion you bear the burden of proving it to be true. Especially in such an extreme accusation.

No I do not care to give you nor any other republican any links debating a repug is liek debating a computer.

Just so you know I'm not a republican nor am I an American. I'm an Israeli currently at Qiryat Gat, and a supporter of the Likud party in many respects.

 

[ascott]

Actually Im not adding anything about Bush or his Administration. I am saying I personaly think Bolton is as much a piece of **** as Bush and his Administrators.

I did although have something to add contrary to your belief. I added the fact that he iether hates African-Americans or he loves them as slaves. Bolton is a Segregationist. In Reagans years he worked hard to try and erase the Civil Rights that the African-Americans (and white-americans) died and fought for. I do believe I added something.

What are your sources? Trying to argue a point with no evidence is just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What are your sources? Trying to argue a point with no evidence is just wasting everyone's time.

That's about what i was gonna say.

If you have the balls to make the argument, then you should have the balls to back it up.

Otherwise, we'll have to listen to stories about the Loch Ness monster and alien abductions of Elvis's secret, three headed love child.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

 

[Fantasea]

Now, who else would the Texas Sheriff in the White House pick for a deputy to go kick some ass at the UN? Some pansy? Hell no! :cowboy:

 

[akyron]

Now, who else would the Texas Sheriff in the White House pick for a deputy to go kick some ass at the UN? Some pansy? Hell no! :cowboy:

I agree. The pansy approach has failed.

"Most recently the Oil-for-Food scandal showed Saddam Hussein siphoned off $6.7 billion in revenue, either under the UN’s not-so-watchful eye or with UN assistance.
Oil-for-Food enriched 270 individuals, companies, and political entities around the world including a former French interior ministry official, Russia's Communist Party, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The program’s executive director, hand-picked by Annan, is implicated receiving bribes from Saddam.
Annan’s son, Kojo, continued to be paid by the contractor hired to monitor the UN Oil-for-Food program for almost five years after his employment had ended.
Of the $21 billion Saddam skimmed and otherwise connived, it is believed at least some funded terrorists killing U.S. troops in Iraq today.
Meanwhile Annan undermined the U.S. Iraqi war effort, calling it “illegal,” despite 17 enabling UN resolutions.
UN officials have failed to halt genocide of tens of thousands in Darfur, Sudan.
Similarly, the UN’s peacekeeping wing, at the time headed by Annan, failed to heed pleadings to prevent the genocide of 800,000 in Rwanda in the 1990s. When asked about it, Annan responded, “We all made mistakes.”
Gross human rights abuser Libya was chosen to chair the UN’s Human Rights Commission, and despotic Syria was made a commission member.
UN sex scandals continue unabated, the latest involving rape, child abuse, and prostitution by UN personnel in the Congo.
Annan personally acquitted a high UN official accused of sexually harassing an employee, prompting the near-passage of an unprecedented no-confidence vote by UN employees.
The UN continues to condemn Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East, while consistently siding with Palestinian terrorists."

 

[BWG]

I agree. The pansy approach has failed.

"Most recently the Oil-for-Food scandal showed Saddam Hussein siphoned off $6.7 billion in revenue, either under the UN’s not-so-watchful eye or with UN assistance.
Oil-for-Food enriched 270 individuals, companies, and political entities around the world including a former French interior ministry official, Russia's Communist Party, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The program’s executive director, hand-picked by Annan, is implicated receiving bribes from Saddam.
Annan’s son, Kojo, continued to be paid by the contractor hired to monitor the UN Oil-for-Food program for almost five years after his employment had ended.
Of the $21 billion Saddam skimmed and otherwise connived, it is believed at least some funded terrorists killing U.S. troops in Iraq today.
Meanwhile Annan undermined the U.S. Iraqi war effort, calling it “illegal,” despite 17 enabling UN resolutions.
UN officials have failed to halt genocide of tens of thousands in Darfur, Sudan.
Similarly, the UN’s peacekeeping wing, at the time headed by Annan, failed to heed pleadings to prevent the genocide of 800,000 in Rwanda in the 1990s. When asked about it, Annan responded, “We all made mistakes.”
Gross human rights abuser Libya was chosen to chair the UN’s Human Rights Commission, and despotic Syria was made a commission member.
UN sex scandals continue unabated, the latest involving rape, child abuse, and prostitution by UN personnel in the Congo.
Annan personally acquitted a high UN official accused of sexually harassing an employee, prompting the near-passage of an unprecedented no-confidence vote by UN employees.
The UN continues to condemn Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East, while consistently siding with Palestinian terrorists."

So, are you saying that Bolton, with his tin star and 10 gallon cowboy hat, is going to ride his big white horse into NYC and right all of these misdeeds?

 

[cnredd]

So, are you saying that Bolton, with his tin star and 10 gallon cowboy hat, is going to ride his big white horse into NYC and right all of these misdeeds?

For one man to come in and change a conforming thought process that has evolved through years of decadence and politically corrorrect toleration isn't, or shouldn't be, the job of the ambassador.

Bolton's job is to portray the administration's international policies to the UN delegation.

I await you're next glib remark...

 

[akyron]

So, are you saying that Bolton, with his tin star and 10 gallon cowboy hat, is going to ride his big white horse into NYC and right all of these misdeeds?

No. Reform is the goal.
Failing that the UN should disband and form a UDN United Democratic Nations and start working on the rest.

Or should we just give up and disband it now and start pressuring non democratic regimes to join the democratic club today?

 

[cnredd]

No. Reform is the goal.
Failing that the UN should disband and form a UDN United Democratic Nations and start working on the rest.

Or should we just give up and disband it now and start pressuring non democratic regimes to join the democratic club today?

Which WAS the original plan of the UN before it got all screwed-up...

 

[superskippy]

I thought the original plan was to beat the Axis Powers. It was called the United Nations because of the unity of nations against the Nazi's, the Italians, and the Japanese.

 

[cnredd]

I thought the original plan was to beat the Axis Powers. It was called the United Nations because of the unity of nations against the Nazi's, the Italians, and the Japanese.

This was written by Tasrah, a very intelligent debater here at the forum...

Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.

In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.

Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling...
Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?

I say, with enthusiasm..."YES!"