America's New UN Ambassador?

[Dace De'Briago]

OK, this borders on classic.

First of all, read this article.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...diplomacy.html

Then it gets truly interesting when you start to read the comments underneath the article.

Reminds me of some of the fun we've had in this forum [img]smile.gif[/img] */sighs\*

[Sir Degrader]

I still think Patton or Macarthur should have gotten it.

[shamrock_uk]

Lol, that's a funny article.

"calling John Bolton a diplomat is bit like calling Jack the Ripper a surgeon"

Priceless.

It does seem to be a bit counter-productive - Bush isn't using his head here.

Even if he doesn't intend to deal with the UN, an appointee who takes it seriously and at least appears credible to the rest of the Assembly would go a long way to reducing American headaches if he could give enough to keep them quiet.

Anna made a good point, and unfortunately Barry's inflamatory posts have been deleted, from the responses it might have been good comic relief!

But Wolfowitz for the world bank?! That really scares me...he is one of the few people in the world I would describe as being 'evil', made worse by his intelligence. Some of his writings are really chilling...

[ 03-09-2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Dace De'Briago]

*sighs*

Barry made that article come to life. I should really have copied the entire thread as it stood.

He reminded me a little of Morguerat.

(lol, no offence mate )

One further thing to add to this appointment:

John Bolton: "There is no such thing as the United Nations".

FYI, he keeps a model of a hand grenade on his desk.

[Stratos]

Speaking of strange nominations, didn't someone propose Bono for the World Bank?

[shamrock_uk]

Quite possibly! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

lol, don't recall seeing Barry's posts, so I can't say whether I should be offended or not, I'll take it as a compliment, lol. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

{edit} after reading most of the reactions to Barry's comments, even if the comments themselves were deleted I find it interesting...

as I believe I've said before, I'm not happy with my national level leaders, primarily the executive department (I've no real quarrels with the congressional, or judicial branches, aside from many of the 9th circuit court's rulings, but that isn't the supreme court).

I think they are in bed far too deeply with elements that would see us destroyed, ie Saudi Arabia whom we are only allied with the royal family, and the country's violent and reprehensible wahabism, I don't like the fact that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi, because it was easier for them to get passports, I'm not happy with border security and the government's inability to close, or at least man the largest unguarded borders in the world (Canada and Mexico), such that citizens are forced to organize outside of official channels and round up illegals.

I'm not happy with the amnesty program Bush is trying to push through (essentially if you've been an illegal immigrant for long enough you can have your citizenship, a sort of common law marriage deal).

I'm not happy with government sponsored torture, brutality, etc (germans can't talk on this one because their cops have no laws whatsoever regarding police brutality, as I've heard from many a soldier who was pulled over)

I don't think democracy is the be all, end all solution for every nation, and attempting to force it on a people is as bad as what the russians did throughout eastern europe in the cold war, I do think giving people the choice when they otherwise have no way to enact meaningful change is a worthy goal, but once they're given that chance outside involvement should be reduced to at most an observation role. (ie Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, etc)

But most importantly, I don't think John Kerry could have done it any better, and likely would be (if he had been elected) mucking things up even worse than Bush is, I voted for Bush because he was the lesser of two evils, and I firmly believe that while as an American you have the right to bitch about the government all you want, if you don't vote, your bitching is meaningless, because you don't care enough to go make your voice heard. {/rant} [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[ 03-10-2005, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[shamrock_uk]

Something must be funny here - I agree with almost every word you said, [img]tongue.gif[/img] especially about democracy.

Not convinced Kerry would be any worse - whilst I think he was a weak candidate ("I have a plan...." Tell us what it is then!), intelligence and fresh thinking at the top would have probably outweighed his deficiencies.

The campaign was dirtier than the democrats were prepared for too IMO - the 'chickenhawks' managing to portray Kerry, who by all accounts should be considered a national hero, as anti-military was both impressive and something that proved too hard to counter.

Re. the amnesty programme - is not 'wiping the slate clean' a good way to start anew? As long as new tougher border controls are brought in alongside it, potentially this will lead to the legal recognisation of many workers who would otherwise be 'outside the system'. I think the benefits from less crime and exploitation probably outweigh the costs. And its not like there aren't jobs enough for them to do.

[ 03-10-2005, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Something must be funny here - I agree with almost every word you said, [img]tongue.gif[/img] especially about democracy. Not convinced Kerry would be any worse - whilst I think he was a weak candidate ("I have a plan...." Tell us what it is then!), intelligence and fresh thinking at the top would have probably outweighed his deficiencies.

To date, he still hasn't told anyone what his plan is, I for one would love to see him send it through the senate armed forces commity as a bi-partisan project, if such a plan exists.

The campaign was dirtier than the democrats were prepared for too IMO - the 'chickenhawks' managing to portray Kerry, who by all accounts should be considered a national hero, as anti-military was both impressive and something that proved too hard to counter.

I think he tried to rely on his credibility as a soldier too much, especially when he effectively gave up the ability to authoritatively do so by testifying to the Senate about how "every soldier in vietnam was/is guilty of war crimes" and he alienated a lot of former servicemembers who otherwise likely would have given him more thought.

[shamrock_uk]

To date, he still hasn't told anyone what his plan is, I for one would love to see him send it through the senate armed forces commity as a bi-partisan project, if such a plan exists.

Crazy! For what its worth, I agree - if his plan is so good surely America should benefit from it regardless of who is in power.

I think he tried to rely on his credibility as a soldier too much, especially when he effectively gave up the ability to authoritatively do so by testifying to the Senate about how "every soldier in vietnam was/is guilty of war crimes" and he alienated a lot of former servicemembers who otherwise likely would have given him more thought.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'd try the political leaders at the time for war crimes - to say that every soldier is guilty strikes me as being a bit unrealistic.

Just out of interest, have you ever heard of the Winter Soldier Investigations which contained veteran's accounts into conduct in Vietnam? I can provide a link if you want, but they're pretty disturbing so won't post it in the first instance.

Some of the atrocities described therein are so bad that I almost doubt their credibility - I was wondering if it had ever received any coverage in America? Has it been discredited?

[ 03-10-2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]