nobody Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Senate Intelligence Committee. Isn't that a oxymoron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 more detail So what's the news here? It's certainly no news that a Bush nominee is a swaggering bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 more detail So what's the news here? It's certainly no news that a Bush nominee is a swaggering bully. 303019[/snapback] There's an unpredictable take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 more detail So what's the news here? It's certainly no news that a Bush nominee is a swaggering bully. 303019[/snapback] The UN needs reform. You are not going to get it from a limp-wristed panderer. They need someone who is going to shake things up or they will whither away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The UN needs reform. You are not going to get it from a limp-wristed panderer. They need someone who is going to shake things up or they will whither away. 303333[/snapback] No argument there, but I'm not convinced that an Ambassador who holds as much disdain for the UN as Bolton appears to is going to be an effective agent for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 No argument there, but I'm not convinced that an Ambassador who holds as much disdain for the UN as Bolton appears to is going to be an effective agent for change. 303410[/snapback] I disagree. He will shake things up. He is not afraid to tell them what they refuse to admit: there is too much corruption and too little action on important international issues. One of the problems with the UN is that they refuse to address the negatives in their organization. They just prefer to sweep things under the carpet in hopes that they will go away. With Bolton there, they will be forced to address these issues, making the organization stronger. Some people think that he could actually save the UN from themselves and give the organization some meaning. If you send someone less "abrasive," then you will see the UN continue down the same road to irrelevancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I disagree. He will shake things up. He is not afraid to tell them what they refuse to admit: there is too much corruption and too little action on important international issues. One of the problems with the UN is that they refuse to address the negatives in their organization. They just prefer to sweep things under the carpet in hopes that they will go away. With Bolton there, they will be forced to address these issues, making the organization stronger. Some people think that he could actually save the UN from themselves and give the organization some meaning. If you send someone less "abrasive," then you will see the UN continue down the same road to irrelevancy. 303419[/snapback] Good point. In concept the UN is a great idea (IMO), but they have been pretty damned efficient at making themselves irrelevant. If Bolton's too abrasive he'll be stonewalled, but if he can be somewhat conciliatory, then he at least has a chance. I think he'll have an uphill battle for two reasons: one, he'll be looking to implement change, and two, he's an American and from what I've read a good part of the world is concerned we are going to try to manipulate the UN to do our bidding. Only time will tell, but if he's approved, I do hope he can help bring some modicom of relevancy (back?) to the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Good point. In concept the UN is a great idea (IMO), but they have been pretty damned efficient at making themselves irrelevant. If Bolton's too abrasive he'll be stonewalled, but if he can be somewhat conciliatory, then he at least has a chance. I think he'll have an uphill battle for two reasons: one, he'll be looking to implement change, and two, he's an American and from what I've read a good part of the world is concerned we are going to try to manipulate the UN to do our bidding. Only time will tell, but if he's approved, I do hope he can help bring some modicom of relevancy (back?) to the UN. 303437[/snapback] They need the Americans for money and real estate. They would not exist today if it were not for the Americans. They can try to stonewall Bolton, but it will just make them even more irrelevant than they are currently. Annan wants a legacy and he wants reform to be his legacy. He can use Bolton to achieve that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The UN needs reform. You are not going to get it from a limp-wristed panderer. They need someone who is going to shake things up or they will whither away. 303333[/snapback] He doesn't want to shake things up - he wants to cut them down at the knees. Anyone that Bush nominates would not be a limp-wristed UN panderer (a limp-wristed Bush panderer maybe.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 He doesn't want to shake things up - he wants to cut them down at the knees. Anyone that Bush nominates would not be a limp-wristed UN panderer (a limp-wristed Bush panderer maybe.) 303915[/snapback] The UN needs to be smacked and smacked hard. Unfortunately, the Dems seems to want someone who holds the UN in high esteem. That is not what they need right now. They need someone who is tough and is not concerned with ruffling the feathers of the UN. If not Bolton, who would you recommend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The UN needs to be smacked and smacked hard. Unfortunately, the Dems seems to want someone who holds the UN in high esteem. That is not what they need right now. They need someone who is tough and is not concerned with ruffling the feathers of the UN. If not Bolton, who would you recommend? 303926[/snapback] I don't disagree with putting Bolton in the UN on those grounds...but I'm not positive that's the only motivation, particularly given that the UN's inherent anti-Americanism and Bolton's disenchantment with the UN combined are likely to make the UN more intransigent towards the US than less. Why couldn't it be more a matter of marginalizing the UN even further than it already has itself? Putting a UN Ambassador into the UN who has a dislike for the UN would not tend to lend any validity to the UN's processes. But then...if they just kicked the whole parasitical organization out of New York, I wouldn't shed too many tears anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I don't disagree with putting Bolton in the UN on those grounds...but I'm not positive that's the only motivation, particularly given that the UN's inherent anti-Americanism and Bolton's disenchantment with the UN combined are likely to make the UN more intransigent towards the US than less. Why couldn't it be more a matter of marginalizing the UN even further than it already has itself? Putting a UN Ambassador into the UN who has a dislike for the UN would not tend to lend any validity to the UN's processes. But then...if they just kicked the whole parasitical organization out of New York, I wouldn't shed too many tears anyway. 303932[/snapback] That is a potential motivation, but can it be both? Can Bolton be sent there to kick some azz. If that does not work, then he basically makes them even more irrelevant than they currently are by marginalizing them to the extent to which you mention. I agree with your last statement. Send them to Europe. They can pick up the tab and then they can just continue to make toothless resolutions and nobody will care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The UN needs to be smacked and smacked hard. Unfortunately, the Dems seems to want someone who holds the UN in high esteem. That is not what they need right now. They need someone who is tough and is not concerned with ruffling the feathers of the UN. If not Bolton, who would you recommend? 303926[/snapback] I'm no expert on who else would want the job. How about James Baker or Colin Powell? Why don't you give me a list to choose from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I'm no expert on who else would want the job. How about James Baker or Colin Powell? Why don't you give me a list to choose from? 303959[/snapback] When were you elected to office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I'm no expert on who else would want the job. How about James Baker or Colin Powell? Why don't you give me a list to choose from? 303959[/snapback] Neither Baker nor Powell has the backbone to whip them into shape. It is the critics of Bolton who need to generate the alternatives, not me. I like the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 13, 2005 Author Share Posted April 13, 2005 When were you elected to office? 303970[/snapback] he was never elected, he's just some Nobody must be a bureaucrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 he was never elected, he's just some Nobody 303997[/snapback] He's just envious because he's usually nominated for UN ambassador... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Neither Baker nor Powell has the backbone to whip them into shape. It is the critics of Bolton who need to generate the alternatives, not me. I like the nomination. 303985[/snapback] I just gave you some alternatives. You might not like them but alternatives they are. OK - how about this question: If bolton were to decide to pull his name from nomination because he decides to take a job in the private sector, who else would you like to see Bush nominate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 When were you elected to office? 303970[/snapback] KRC appointed me as council to come up with names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 He's just envious because he's usually nominated for UN ambassador... 304002[/snapback] But I've never made it through the nomination process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts