Falcon84: "Bush obviously doesn't have the guts to stick it out, and see what the process has in store for Bolton. He's taking the coward's way out, once again, so it seems."

Halls: the same could be said for the democrats who refuse to let Bolton's nomination come to the floor for a vote.

Falcon84: "Most the nation doesn't want this jackass, but he's going to stick him in NYC, and further damage the reputation and good name of the U.S."

Halls: Bolton's nomination has been the subject of a vote? News to me...

And actually, there was a vote. Bush won the election, and as such, gets to nominate people to positions that require Senate confirmation.

In this case, knowing that they can't win a fair vote on the floor of the Senate, the Democrats prevent the vote from taking place. How very democratic....

Oh, Klaus....you know that you are using fuzzy math to come up with and adjust many of those numbers. Many of the nations you mention spent a good deal of the time since the formation of the UN either being rebuilt by the US, both economically and physically, as well as having their defence subsidized by us, which allowed them to grow and become contributing members of the world community; and many programs have been outright funded by us outside of normal UN budgeting.

The ingrates to whom I refer are the ones who continually badmouth the US, for the last 50 years, in spite of the fact that whenever an earthquake/flood/actofgod happens we are always the first ones there with the most to relieve the suffering. Oh, and lip service to the war against terrorists is not what we need. Too many nations simply said whatever they thought they needed to say to avoid getting hit in the shitstorm that flew in the aftermath of 9-11. You should also note that I am primarily referring to the corrupt third world emissaries who arrive in NYC with permission to do whatever they want, and line their pockets with money from the people that want to believe that they are contributing to something worthwhile. Whenever these people are brought to light they immediately begin with the cries of racism and colonialism and justify their actions by guilting the Europeans into accepting their bad behaviour as the results of Euro colonialism and US tyranny.

As far as the security council veto, you actually have a point there, but there is also this big deal where several nations are agitating for Security Council Permanent Member status, and that's not going to happen anytime real soon since the current members are under no obligation to allow any other members. So don't talk to anyone about democracy and the UN at the same breath......the two are not related topics.

Oh, and don't hurl insults at me unless you are prepared for the flamewar that will result. Calling me clueless is not only inaccurate and beneath you but extremely rude. I generally give you the respect you deserve, even though I usually disagree, but if you want to be an ass then I will certainly respond.

Falcon: "I get worked up about it. The guy has no honor."

Halls: actually, Bolton is a serial abuser of the people who work for him. That is the only provable offense against him. I know this to be a fact, because I've worked and traveled with people who have been the victims of his tirades.

While he wouldn't be my choice, I'm not the President, and neither are you. Bush, is, and for better or worse, he gets to make the nomination, and the Senate ought to hold a vote on Bolton's nomination.

As far as concern over the damage Bolton will do to our image overseas, I find that concern to be laughable in the extreme. Our friends will still be our friends, and our critics will still be critics. I've had several foreign diplomats tell me that they privately welcome Bolton's presence, as it will help them clean out the cesspool of corruption that is the modern UN.

Klaus: "The thing that turns many UN initiatives and deliberations into "a waste of time" is the oh-so-precious veto of the permanent UNSC members. Nobody who believes in democracy being any more than just an empty phrase can accept the veto for the long term. Unfortunately, of course, democracy means that other people will actually be able to be heard and even vote against you if they so desire. Something you seem to be entirely unprepared to deal with."

Halls: What makes the above statement so laughable is that many of the nations that whine about the Security Council veto aren't in the least bit democratic at home.

Once the UN Charter is amended to deny membership to countries that do not embrace democracy at home in fact, then come to me with your complaints about the Security Council veto.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 10): For Alpha/Falcon, the only cause he needs is the fact that Bolton is a Republican and appointed by a Republican President.

That's constructive.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13): In this case, knowing that they can't win a fair vote on the floor of the Senate, the Democrats prevent the vote from taking place. How very democratic....

Even the Republican controlled committee did not send him to the floor with a recommendation.

Bolton is a jackass - he publicly has made comments against the U.N. and I don't think that is the type person we should have as ambassador to the U.N. - Bush wants to send him there despite the reservations of many in the Senate - to include many in his own party - why?

Falcon is right - this proves, yet again, that the attitude of the Bush administration is my way or the highway. This country has suffered enough from that attitude, our standing in the rest of the world is permanently tarnished because of our President and his neocon cronies.

Well, once again we see how much love Bush gives yet another member of the "Project for the New American Century", membership in that organization and loyalty is all you need to excel in the Bush administration - screw what's best for the country.

KC135R: "Bolton is a jackass - he publicly has made comments against the U.N. and I don't think that is the type person we should have as ambassador to the U.N. - Bush wants to send him there despite the reservations of many in the Senate - to include many in his own party - why?"

Halls: While Bolton is indeed a very disagreeable person, that isn't a disqualifying factor. Bush gets to make the nomination because he is the President, and knows that Bolton will carry out the agenda Bush wants him to carry out.

KC135R: "Falcon is right - this proves, yet again, that the attitude of the Bush administration is my way or the highway."

Halls: Welcome to the reality of losing a presidential election. Bush is acting no differently than his democratic or republican predecessors. When Clinton pardoned his buddy Marc Rich, he had the same one way attitude." As he was entitled to.

KC135R: "This country has suffered enough from that attitude, our standing in the rest of the world is permanently tarnished because of our President and his neocon cronies."

Halls: I was in a European capital on official business when we invaded Iraq - at a widely attended meeting from countries all over the world. Not one foreign diplomat treated the US delegation any differently. Several privately passed along words of encouragement.

You need to get out into the real world and stop relying on the liberal media for information on how we are viewed around the world.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18): While Bolton is indeed a very disagreeable person, that isn't a disqualifying factor. Bush gets to make the nomination because he is the President,

So what you are saying is - what matters is what Bush wants, not what is best for the country?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18): When Clinton pardoned

We are not talking about Bill Clinton here, though I agree the pardon was a mistake, it is irrelevant to the point - but I do like how people always try to divert attention from Bush's mistakes by bringing up Clinton.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18): You need to get out into the real world and stop relying on the liberal media for information on how we are viewed around the world.

I watch Fox, hardly the liberal media. But if it makes you feel better to make such an unfounded accusation - than go ahead and do what all right wing idealogs do and blame all our ills on the liberal media!! Give me a break!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18): Welcome to the reality of losing a presidential election.

Way to make an assumption - I didn't lose a presidential election because I did not vote for Kerry. Being the lesser of two evils does not make you a great President though.

Quoting JamesAg96 (Reply 8): Not true...sadly most of the nation has no idea what you are talking about.

Damn good point James, and I agree. Let's rephrase: most people who know about this guy don't want him. Fair enough?  

Quoting JamesAg96 (Reply 8): What causes that opinion?

James, I don't quite understand what you're driving at there.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 10): For Alpha/Falcon, the only cause he needs is the fact that Bolton is a Republican and appointed by a Republican President.

Stop being so shallow, dude. So far, I support Bush's nomination for the USSC-HE is a Republican, appointed by a Republican. I didn't even have an issue with Gonzalaz for AG, so that kind of shoots full of holes your delusions, B757300. Bolton is a jingoistic, arrogant, loudmouthed asshole, who hates foreigners, and hates the UN. So, why does your Savior, George W. Bush, think he'll be such a great attraction there, or get anything done. That's the question.

He could have picked far more qualified, and far more diplomatic people than this Ugly American.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12): Halls: the same could be said for the democrats who refuse to let Bolton's nomination come to the floor for a vote.

Not buying it. If you nominate an extremist, the oppositon has a right to oppose him. Plus, like Bush does so often, he won't release all pertinent info to the Congress on this loser. Hell, Halls120, even a lot of Republicans can't stand this guy.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13): Halls: Bolton's nomination has been the subject of a vote? News to me...

Earth to Halls120, Earth to Halls120: Read the damn article. Bush is going to appoint him WITHOUT a vote from Congress. It's called a Recess appointment, and it means the idiot will be in the U.N. till 2007.

Got it now?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13): And actually, there was a vote. Bush won the election, and as such, gets to nominate people to positions that require Senate confirmation.

He's bypassing he Senate. Understand now?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15): Halls: actually, Bolton is a serial abuser of the people who work for him.

I wasn't talking about Bolton. I was talking about the president.

By the way, glad to meet you Halls120. I look forward to shredding your arguements for this adminstration to shreds.  

Oh, and learn to use the "Quote Selected Text" key. It makes it easier to reade what you're doing. Thank you.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18): While Bolton is indeed a very disagreeable person, that isn't a disqualifying factor. Bush gets to make the nomination because he is the President, and knows that Bolton will carry out the agenda Bush wants him to carry out.

So you're saying that even though Bolton is an ass, he still deserves a vote because the president nominated him? Are you sure your name isn't George Voinovich?

-Mir

Halls120, if Bush were to nominate a Hitler clone, for arguments sake, does that mean we have to accept him, because Bush is President?

Are you related to Anet member Pope or something?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13): Bush won the election, and as such, gets to nominate people to positions that require Senate confirmation.

Well Bush stole the first election, and Bolton is going to bypass the senate. Two strikes.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 24): Well Bush stole the first election, and Bolton is going to bypass the senate. Two strikes.

Would you like some Tang with that Kool-aid Zotan?

Sorry Zotan, but gotta agree with JetJack here. Bush stole nothing in '00. Every recount shows he ,on Florida. There's no hard proof there was any voter fraud or any voter intimidation in Florida. I don't think the USSC should have made a decision, since it was a state issue, but it's over. He didn't win the popular vote, but he didn't steal anything, either, that we know of.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 10): the only cause he needs is the fact that Bolton is a Republican and appointed by a Republican President.

I thought that it was the only cause YOU need in order to start nodding in agreement like Pavlov's dog   

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): but there is also this big deal where several nations are agitating for Security Council Permanent Member status, and that's not going to happen anytime real soon since the current members are under no obligation to allow any other members.

Why bother with big words about reform then? Reshaping the UN to represent the world in 2005 not 1945 is step one of any seriously meant reform. Step two is stop living in an illusion that "reform" means turning the UN into some subsidiary of the White House and is a priori bad because they don't cater to all wishes of the US. administration.
I think this guy is too controversial ambassador of even more controversial administration. Achieving reform means inevitably compromises, which I don't this "my way or no way" guy is capable of. Kinda have to feel sorry for that Karen Hughes lady, she was appointed Rice's undersecretary with a mission to improve the image of the US abroad. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and now Bolton will make her job mission impossible IMHO.

I think one reform of the UN should be that each continent is represented on the Security Council. I don't think Europe should have two members on he Council anymore. I think the council shold look something like this:

-United States
-United Kingdom
-Russia
-China
-Brazil
-Australia
-Egypt or South Africa

Those are just some examples of what I'm thinking.

That way, all corners of the globe have some type of representation on the Security Coucil.

I would also like to see the Veto removed. That was a chicken-shit way out of enforcing the UN's collective will over the years. There should be an up-or-down vote on any issue in the Council.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): I think one reform of the UN should be that each continent is represented on the Security Council.

Since Egypt is more "Middle East" and would South Africa be considered as representant of Africa more than i.e. Nigeria by everyone else oor at leas majority of Afro countries? I don't see a reason for representation by continents.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): I don't think Europe should have two members on he Council anymore.I think the council shold look something like this: -United States -United Kingdom -Russia -China -Brazil -Australia -Egypt or South Africa

You do realize that your pick has 3 Commonwealth countries? How about Japan instead of Australia? And Germany instead of Egypt or South Africa.

KC135R: "So what you are saying is - what matters is what Bush wants, not what is best for the country?"

Halls: Presidents get to make all kinds of appointments - Supreme Court, Ambassadors, and Cabinet posts. The Senate gets to confirm or reject those nominees. Unless they take strippers into the reflecting pool, or haven't paid taxes on their illegal nanny, the nominees generally get to serve in the post they are appointed to. Since Bush won the election, he gets to make those appointments, and presumptively his judgment that Bolton is good for the country is honored by the Senate.

You don't like Bush's nominees? Fine. I don't like some of them either. But that is the President's prerogative.

KC135R: "We are not talking about Bill Clinton here, though I agree the pardon was a mistake, it is irrelevant to the point - but I do like how people always try to divert attention from Bush's mistakes by bringing up Clinton."

Halls: I never criticized Clinton. I used him as a very relevant example for the power and discretion a President is allowed in carrying out the Constitutional duties of the office. The right to pardon and the right to appoint ambassadors are but two examples of that power.

KC135R: "I watch Fox, hardly the liberal media. But if it makes you feel better to make such an unfounded accusation - than go ahead and do what all right wing idealogs do and blame all our ills on the liberal media!! Give me a break!"

Halls: I don't watch Fox, so I'm qualified to comment on what you might have learned watching them. The fact remains that your "everybody hates us" mantra sounds right at home on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

KC135R: "Way to make an assumption - I didn't lose a presidential election because I did not vote for Kerry. Being the lesser of two evils does not make you a great President though."

Halls: I apologize for suggesting that you were a Kerry supporter.

I never said Bush was a great President. I do say, however, that he IS the President, and as such gets to make appointments to high-level positions. And if you or I don't like his particular choice, that is frankly just too bad.

Falcon84: "Not buying it. If you nominate an extremist, the opposition has a right to oppose him. Plus, like Bush does so often, he won't release all pertinent info to the Congress on this loser. Hell, Halls120, even a lot of Republicans can't stand this guy."

Halls: it seems that the current definition of an extremist is anyone that the other side just doesn't like. Bolton is not an extremist - he is a personally disagreeable abuser of the people who work for him. That's all.

Falcon84: "Earth to Halls120, Earth to Halls120: Read the damn article. Bush is going to appoint him WITHOUT a vote from Congress. It's called a Recess appointment, and it means the idiot will be in the U.N. till 2007.

Got it now?"

Halls: I understand it very well. I work with people in the State Department on a daily basis who are directly affected by this issue. The reason Bolton is going to get a recess appointment is that the cowardly senate democrats won't let the Bolton nomination come to the floor for a vote. I think that is an abuse of process in the Senate. I think the guy deserve a vote. That's all.

Falcon84: "By the way, glad to meet you Halls120. I look forward to shredding your arguements for this administration to shreds. Oh, and learn to use the "Quote Selected Text" key. It makes it easier to reade what you're doing. Thank you."

Halls: I wish I could use the quote selected feature. While it works quite nicely on my work computer (which doesn't have windows XP), my windows XP unit here at home won't let that function work. If anyone has an idea how I could fix this, I would be most grateful.

You need to re-read my posts on this issue. I'm not defending "this administration." I'm defending the right of this and all future presidents to staff their administration with the people they have selected.

Mir: "So you're saying that even though Bolton is an ass, he still deserves a vote because the president nominated him? Are you sure your name isn't George Voinovich?"

Halls: Yes, and no, I'm not George. During the Clinton administration, I worked for someone who was almost as big an ass as Bolton. I survived, and so did the country.

Well, it looks like I was incorrect. Boltons error in his paperwork is evidently not going to be used as an excuse to ditch him. President Bush says he is going to appoint Bolton before he heads for the ranch this week.

I think that's picking a fight on the one hand, but performing his duty on the other. He is obligated to appoint people that he feels up to the task he thinks ought to be performed. When the Senate refuses to vote on approving an appointee they are refusing to do their job.

Like it or not the President is doing his job, and the Senate now needs to do theirs. The appointment of Bolton to this post is definitely going to shake things up.

Falcon84: "Halls120, if Bush were to nominate a Hitler clone, for arguments sake, does that mean we have to accept him, because Bush is President?

Are you related to Anet member Pope or something?"

Halls: As I've said in an earlier post, unless a nominee is a felon, pedophile, or hasn't paid their taxes, then yes, the Senate should accept the nominee.

Bolton may be an ass, but he isn't a Hitler clone. Tell you what - do a Google search for "Proliferation Security Initiative." Read the source documents about this multilateral initiative that has been accepted and joined by a large number of countries. I challenge you to find anything remotely Hitleresque or extreme in this initiative, which has been also endorsed by the UN Secretary General.

Have any idea who created it, and was personally responsible for its successful implementation? John Bolton, in case you were wondering.

I have no idea who Anet member Pope is, so I can't answer the other question.  

Falcon84: "I would also like to see the Veto removed. That was a chicken-shit way out of enforcing the UN's collective will over the years. There should be an up-or-down vote on any issue in the Council."

Halls: the SC veto will be eliminated when pigs fly.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36): Falcon84: "I would also like to see the Veto removed. That was a chicken-shit way out of enforcing the UN's collective will over the years. There should be an up-or-down vote on any issue in the Council." Halls: the SC veto will be eliminated when pigs fly.

I have to agree. The powers-that-be have absolutely zero incentive to relinquish this authority.

I believe that it impedes progress on many issues, but that's the way they set it up, and until the rest of the world decides they can run a UN less the permanent members there will be little change to that aspect of the UNs structure.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): I think the council shold look something like this: -United States -United Kingdom -Russia -China -Brazil -Australia -Egypt or South Africa

Not fair Falcon! America gets two votes in your reorganised council!  

Quoting B757300 (Reply 10): For Alpha/Falcon, the only cause he needs is the fact that Bolton is a Republican and appointed by a Republican President.

That does seem to be a recurring theme of his yes?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): I think the council shold look something like this: -United States -United Kingdom -Russia -China -Brazil -Australia -Egypt or South Africa

It will never fly.

But I do like the fact you got France off of it.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 25): Would you like some Tang with that Kool-aid Zotan?

Again I ask you - listen to Hannity much??   Oh well, at least you are consistent.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31): And if you or I don't like his particular choice, that is frankly just too bad.

It doesn't matter whether or not I like his choice, what matters is what is best for the country. You don't send a vocal U.N. hater to be the ambassador to the U.N. - Even Senate Republicans know this guy is a mistake, that's why they sent him out of committee without a recommendation - the problem is, if it came to a floor vote, they would line up behind party lines and send him packing to the U.N. - even though they know it's not what is best.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32): The reason Bolton is going to get a recess appointment is that the cowardly senate democrats won't let the Bolton nomination come to the floor for a vote. I think that is an abuse of process in the Senate.

It's easy to call someone a coward that you don't agree with, it's also childish and petty. Often times, I would agree that the Democrats act in a way that is, let's just say, less than respectable. But in this case I think they are doing the right thing - I would even say it is courageous, not cowardly, to stand up against the majority. As I pointed out several times, even the Republican controlled committee did not send him out with a recommendation. If the Democrats did not use their filibuster right (granted to them by Senate rules) to stop this vote - of course Bolton would get confirmed because the majority of the Senate are Republicans. If it comes to a floor vote, the majority of them will not vote their conscience - they will vote party lines. That would mean, despite their own reservations, Bolton would easily get confirmed, and you have no problem with this? Just because "Bush picked him"? Come on, get a grip - there is a reason that nominations like this require the "advice and consent" of the Senate - so the President does not have total control, I believe we call it "checks and balances". There is also a reason the filibuster is legal in the Senate - it's called preserving the rights of the minority party. Just because the Senate is majority Republican, and the Republicans are so disciplined they do pretty much what Bush wants, does not mean an inferior candidate should be sent to represent us in the U.N.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35): As I've said in an earlier post, unless a nominee is a felon, pedophile, or hasn't paid their taxes, then yes, the Senate should accept the nominee.

So they should confirm whoever the President sends, short of having been convicted of a crime? Doesn't matter to you whether or not they are right for the job? Doesn't matter, specifically in this case, that the nominee publicly spoke out against the U.N.? So why the hell even ask for the advice and consent of the Senate? In your world - the President should just have the FBI do a background check, and if it comes back OK then "poof" the nominee is approved - screw the Senate, right? Give me a break, this is not a communist state or a monarchy - we have checks and balances for a reason. Your suggestion that Bush should get whatever he wants is un-American.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30): I don't watch Fox, so I'm qualified to comment on what you might have learned watching them.

You don't watch Fox, so you can comment on what I saw on Fox? First of all, that makes no sense - how can you comment on something that you never saw? Second of all, I don't exclusively watch Fox - I watch Fox plus read A LOT of stuff from other news sources on the internet, legit news sources before you comment on that, and other sources as well. I pride myself on the fact that I never develop an opinion from watching/reading just one source. Oh, that and I don't get my opinions delivered to me by Sean Hannity or Al Franken, like some people on here. I develop my own opinions based on the facts I have at that point in time realizing, of course, as new facts come to light that my opinion is always subject to revision. Being a true independent, I decide each issue one by one, not based on the ideals of a political party. So don't ever assume that my opinions are based on the playbook of either party, or that they originated from the opinion of some talking head - you would be wrong.

By the way, I don't think everyone hates America - but I do believe our reputation in the world has been severely tarnished under the Bush Presidency, and if you can't see that you are partisan blinded. It DOES matter that the world looks at us differently now - when you are fighting a worldwide war on terror, you need the support and help of other countries. Despite what some think, we cannot win a global war all by ourselves.

Falcon.....I think you were working on getting all the continents involved there , if I'm not mistaken, but if any nation not currently represented on the Security Council deserves to be I'd have to say it's Japan.

They are huge worldwide donors, and are a stabilizing influence in their economic sphere. Japan is one of the leading nations of the world in most identifiable ways, moreso than Brazil or Egypt.....although it would be interesting to have a continental representative from South America and Africa. I don't know how you'd do that though.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 42): nation not currently represented on the Security Council deserves to be I'd have to say it's Japan.

Agreed, or Germany since they are the second and third largest financial contributors after the U.S. - apparently, with Japan, the problem is other Asian countries who have strongly protested their membership for one reason or another.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): Oh, Klaus....you know that you are using fuzzy math to come up with and adjust many of those numbers.

The latest figures:



from http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/unindex.htm

You can easily verify the information on your own. And http://www.un.org/ has more.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): Many of the nations you mention spent a good deal of the time since the formation of the UN either being rebuilt by the US, both economically and physically, as well as having their defence subsidized by us, which allowed them to grow and become contributing members of the world community; and many programs have been outright funded by us outside of normal UN budgeting.

a) "Fuzzy" doesn´t even begin to describe your statement.
b) Invoking previous generations´ efforts to demand absolution and even subservience for the screwups of your own one is a prime symptom of what´s currently going wrong with the USA.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): As far as the security council veto, you actually have a point there, but there is also this big deal where several nations are agitating for Security Council Permanent Member status, and that's not going to happen anytime real soon since the current members are under no obligation to allow any other members.

Yeah, how dare they! They only represent ranks 2 and 3 of the UN budget contributors ranking - together significantly ahead of the USA - (Japan and Germany), a huge population many times larger than the USA (India) and the by far biggest nation of a heretofore in the UNSC unrepresented continent (Brazil).

You know, "obligations" are one thing; Politically justifiable refusal of a legitimate request is quite another on the geopolitical level.

You may also have heard that the four applicants have offered to postpone their own veto power voluntarily (evidently so the general abolition of the veto for all could be negotiated in the meantime), but of course they aren´t keen on becoming UNSC members "second class" under the circumstances.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): So don't talk to anyone about democracy and the UN at the same breath......the two are not related topics.

That statement is quite self-revealing. Nobody can have any doubt any more that the current US perspective on the UN is that of a subservient executive organ under full control of the White House. That is exactly what Bolton represents. And that´s the only thing he is capable of. Any kind of actual negotiating is beyond his skill set. But that is what the reality is and will remain to be.

The USA has already lost most of its influence that is not based on direct threats or coercion. Voluntary cooperation from partners and allies has once been the biggest strength of the USA before Bush II.

But chronic overextension, the inability to lead (with hardly anybody following any more) and an ever-increasing string of painful failures on every level are testament to the kind of "success" which is the result of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bolton style.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): Oh, and don't hurl insults at me unless you are prepared for the flamewar that will result. Calling me clueless is not only inaccurate and beneath you but extremely rude. I generally give you the respect you deserve, even though I usually disagree, but if you want to be an ass then I will certainly respond.

The sad thing is that you don´t even recognize any more how offensive and contemptuous your stance is towards the rest of the world.

You´re using the undeniable problems in several aspects of the UN as a pretense to vilify and summarily dismiss the UN as a whole, even though most of its failings have much more to do with its member governments - the USA prominently among them - than with the organisation itself and its many useful organs.


UN reforms are necessary. But in no case will the outcome be the rest of the world meekly submitting themselves to every whim of the respective US administration or - worse - to domestically-motivated hate campaigns which never bother to deal with the complications of the real world.

The UN can - at its best - be a forum for the world (which it already is) and the UNSC a really legitimate institution to deal with conflicts and globally relevant problems (which it is not - it is simply a frozen snapshot of a historical power configuration with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever). With actual legitimacy, there could even be enforcable global standards for freedom and democracy.

But legitimacy does not come from aircraft carriers and ICBMs; It can only be based on the voluntary assent of the global community, based on negotiations and the rule of law.

Breaking international law left and right, even putting military threats against it, bullying and coercing others instead of convincing them, completely invalidate any otherwise justified attempt to lead the way into a reform.

What a pity.

DL021: "I have to agree. The powers-that-be have absolutely zero incentive to relinquish this authority. I believe that it impedes progress on many issues, but that's the way they set it up, and until the rest of the world decides they can run a UN less the permanent members there will be little change to that aspect of the UNs structure."

Halls: The veto exists because the UN has no independent authority over member nations - and it will not have such authority, until the nations of the world decide to cede a portion of, or all, of their sovereignty to this world body.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 43): with Japan, the problem is other Asian countries who have strongly protested their membership for one reason or another.

The wikipedia article says that only China, North and South Korea oppose the Japanese membership, while everyone else, or at least everyone significant supports the membership.
It's just outrageous that China with its track record of human rights abuses, invasions, occupations and hostilities with every single one of its neighbors has the nerves to object Japan's UNSC membership. They should first look how far Japan made it since 1945 and how far they did.
North Korea is just not worth mentioning but I'm surprised the South Koreans still get so worked up over events half a century old while its evident Japan's democratic institutions are well anchored.

KC135R: "It doesn't matter whether or not I like his choice, what matters is what is best for the country. You don't send a vocal U.N. hater to be the ambassador to the U.N. - Even Senate Republicans know this guy is a mistake, that's why they sent him out of committee without a recommendation - the problem is, if it came to a floor vote, they would line up behind party lines and send him packing to the U.N. - even though they know it's not what is best."

Halls: then those Senate republicans are just as cowardly as the democrats who refuse to allow a floor vote.

KC135R: "There is also a reason the filibuster is legal in the Senate - it's called preserving the rights of the minority party."

Halls: Perhaps you could do us all a favor and point out where to find the filibuster in the US Constitution.

KC135R: "So they should confirm whoever the President sends, short of having been convicted of a crime? Doesn't matter to you whether or not they are right for the job? Doesn't matter, specifically in this case, that the nominee publicly spoke out against the U.N.? ....Your suggestion that Bush should get whatever he wants is un-American."

Halls: No, yes, and no. I don't think the senate should rubber stamp any nominee. But in this case, they aren't doing anything but stalling. If Bolton isn't right for the job, the senate can vote no. I'm not suggesting that Bush should get anything he wants. I just want the senate to vote, one way or another. A question, though - are you suggesting that anyone who voices criticism of something is foreclosed forever from taking part in that something? Putting aside the 1st Amendment implications, do you want nothing but yes-men and women representing the US? (LOL, and you call ME un-american....)

KC135R: "Being a true independent, I decide each issue one by one, not based on the ideals of a political party. So don't ever assume that my opinions are based on the playbook of either party, or that they originated from the opinion of some talking head - you would be wrong."

Halls: since I never said your opinions were based on one or other political party, I'm not sure why you've made the above statement. I just said that your opinion sounded like those one hears from the so-called "elite" media.

I'm glad you are an independent. I've been registered as such since 1979.

KC135R: "By the way, I don't think everyone hates America - but I do believe our reputation in the world has been severely tarnished under the Bush Presidency, and if you can't see that you are partisan blinded."

Halls: Since my job takes me overseas frequently, where I interact with foriegn officials on a first hand basis, I think I'm fairly well situated to gauge our standing in the world. Maybe popular world opinion is more negative these days, but among foreign officials, Bush gets admittedly grudging respect among the vast majority of people I encounter.

What is sad about your statement above is that instead of recognizing that I merely have a different opinion than you on this issue, you ascribe it to "partisan blindness." Are you so insecure that you think your opinion is the only one that might be correct?

Klaus: "The UN can - at its best - be a forum for the world (which it already is) and the UNSC a really legitimate institution to deal with conflicts and globally relevant problems (which it is not - it is simply a frozen snapshot of a historical power configuration with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever). With actual legitimacy, there could even be enforcable global standards for freedom and democracy."

Halls: The UN will NEVER have actual legitimacy to establish enforceable global standards unless and until a compelling majority of nations are willing to
cede their sovereignty AND all those nations are free and fully democratically governed countries.

Halls: "Breaking international law left and right, even putting military threats against it, bullying and coercing others instead of convincing them, completely invalidate any otherwise justified attempt to lead the way into a reform."

Halls: In your opinion the US has violated international law. However, since there is no mandatory "Supreme Court" vested with the authority to determine whether that rather amorphous body of law called "international law," any such opinion is just that opinion, not fact.

The US acted against Iraq in part because of inactivity by the UN, that inactivity in part brought on by the collective gutlessness of the UN member nations, and the reforms so badly needed.

Perhaps if the western powers had broke a little "international law, employed bullying and coercion" back in the 1930's, we might not have had a world war that resulted in tens of millions of deaths.....

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 48): In your opinion the US has violated international law. However, since there is no mandatory "Supreme Court" vested with the authority to determine whether that rather amorphous body of law called "international law," any such opinion is just that opinion, not fact.

The US violated the UN Charter as it attacked another nation without fully using the diplomatic means to achieve its goals; disarming Saddam. If it would have stuck to the UN Charter, many innocent lives (mainly Iraqis) could have been saved.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 48): The US acted against Iraq in part because of inactivity by the UN, that inactivity in part brought on by the collective gutlessness of the UN member nations, and the reforms so badly needed.

Inactivity? The weapons inspectors were inside Iraq, remember? They were looking very hard to find those WMD the U.S. said Saddam had. They actually stated they needed more time for inspections as none of these 'vast amounts of WMD's' would turn up. If the inspections would have continued as established within the legal framework of rules and regulations of the UN (and which any nation, as a mere member, agrees to uphold), the lives of many iraqis could have been saved. It didn't happen and Iraq was invaded over bogus reasons, killing many innocent civilians and thereby violating the very first article of the UN Charter every signatory is supposed to uphold: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 48): Perhaps if the western powers had broke a little "international law, employed bullying and coercion" back in the 1930's, we might not have had a world war that resulted in tens of millions of deaths.....

Read the section on the UN's history before making such dumb statements.