Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
787
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 11:57 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:10 am

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 49):
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.

REALLY??????

Where is the UN resolution condemning the U.S. on this? I have yet to see one.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 49):
attacked another nation without fully using the diplomatic means to achieve its goals

Yes sure and after how many years with Saddams playing with the UN and the rest of the world? LOL Do you really think this nonsense??? You seem to not know your history very well. Oh that's right, you get your history from that site of lies and distortions. Nice going at least in your point of view yes?  Smile

I just shake my head to people who distort.

Thank you very much.
787 Italia - Io, il comandante dell'aria
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
Perhaps you could do us all a favor and point out where to find the filibuster in the US Constitution.

If you pay attention to what I said, you will see that I specifically pointed out that the filibuster is legal according to the rules of the Senate. Now, lets look at whether or not they have the right to make such a rule - a quick glance at the U.S. Constitution shows that they do:
Section 5, clause 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...
So, to sum up, the rule was made in the Senate and, according to the Constitution, the Senate has the right to determines what rules it will follow.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
If Bolton isn't right for the job, the senate can vote no.

My point before was that they will not, simply because of party loyalty. My biggest gripe with government is that it is no longer "for the people", now it seems that the biggest concern is "for the party" - and yes, that includes both sides of the political fence. The democrats are, as the opposition party, trying to prevent a man who they see as unfit for the job from getting inevitable approval along party lines, in a way that is perfectly legal - what's wrong with that?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
A question, though - are you suggesting that anyone who voices criticism of something is foreclosed forever from taking part in that something?

NO - but when you specifically criticize an organization, in many ways suggesting it is irrelevant, how can you expect to serve as ambassador to that organization only a short time later? Bolton is also a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC is an organization which is not exactly in sync with the goals of the U.N., at least not from what I have read.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
(LOL, and you call ME un-American....)

Don't jump to conclusions - I said "you suggestion" is un-American, not you. Big difference.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47):
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?

You've got me all wrong, insecurity - especially when it comes to political views - is not my thing, but whatever. You are free to make your own baseless accusations.

The reason I accused you of partisan blindness is based on what you have said, not based on the fact that your opinion differs with mine. Let me show you exactly what it was that leads me to believe you are blinded by partisan beliefs, though if you claim you are not, fine, I only took what information I had and formed my opinion based on that:

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

True, but your tone makes it sound like his pick should be approved just because he is his pick - despite any concerns the Senate might have.

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....

It is democratic actually, the majority party should never have complete control - but your snide remark appears to betray a partisan view.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
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.

Again, partisan-looking on the surface. All that matters is Bush's agenda? What about the will of the people? Just because Bush won the election, with 50.73% of the popular vote, does not mean his agenda should, without any checks and balances being enforced, be rammed down the throat of America unquestioned. That idea goes against the whole basis of our democratic system - that is why I referred to your suggestion as un-American.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
liberal media

Common right wing comment, so it makes you appear partisan.

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

My way or the highway attitude - appears partisan.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
cowardly senate democrats

Senseless, unproductive name calling when you disagree with the other side in an argument certainly appears partisan.

OK - so I could be wrong. Perhaps you are as non-partisan as they come, but your comments seem to indicate otherwise.

I NEVER have a problem with an educated, informed disagreement. But when people disagree based solely on partisan beliefs I find it to be, no sense beating around the bush - REPULSIVE. Based on what you said, your beliefs seemed based more on partisan ideals than informed dissent - sorry if I was wrong, but I don't see it.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:44 am

Shoenorama: "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."

Halls: What article of the UN Charter was violated?

Shoenorama: "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."

Halls: The phrase you quoted actually comes from the preamble of the Charter, not one of the binding articles. Preambulatory language in an international instrument is largely irrelevant as compared to the articles of a given instrument. You might want to read the rest of the Charter before you reach a conclusion about whether we violated the Charter or we didn't. And pay special attention to Article 51....

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

Halls: Wow. I never thought that my suggestion that if the responsible nations capable of rendering Hitler's Germany impotent in the 1930's had acted in time to do so, it would have prevented the carnage of WWII, would be labeled as "dumb. I guess there are still a couple of Hitler fans out there still.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:46 am

787: "Where is the UN resolution condemning the U.S. on this? I have yet to see one."

Halls: As you correctly note, no such resolution was ever enacted, because we never violated the charter.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:48 am

Well, since I don't seem to be impressing Klaus with the fact that he's a patronizing ass with his constant barrage of pedantry I think I'll just watch the new kid whip Schoeniepoos butt.

Pretty good so far. Just remember, these guys seem to have nothing to do beyond post crap at 0300 their time. If you have a job this can get out of hand.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:05 am

KC135R: "If you pay attention to what I said, you will see that I specifically pointed out that the filibuster is legal according to the rules of the Senate."

Halls: I realize fully that the filibuster is a rule of the senate. I'm just making the assumption that you afford that rule some kind of mythical status, like most defenders of that rule. If the republicans decide to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, will you support their right as the majority party to do so?

KC135R: "The democrats are, as the opposition party, trying to prevent a man who they see as unfit for the job from getting inevitable approval along party lines, in a way that is perfectly legal - what's wrong with that?"

Halls: If I thought the democratic opposition to Bolton was motivated solely by their concerns over Bolton, I'd agree with you. But that isn't their sole motivation. This is more an attempt to wound Bush politically, just like the republicans who bottled up Clinton's appointees. That was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

I share your distaste for the current state of what passes of governance in Washington. I see it up close and personal on a daily basis, and it isn't pretty.

KC135R: "True, but your tone makes it sound like his pick should be approved just because he is his pick - despite any concerns the Senate might have."

Halls: absolutely not. If there are substantive reasons for blocking Bolton's nomination, I think every senator has the responsibility to oppose him.. I just don't think Bolton's statements against the UN and being an ass are disqualifying.

By the way, if being an abusive ass was a disqualifyer for public service, there would be a hell of lot of openings in DC.... Wink

KC135R: "Common right wing comment, so it makes you appear partisan.
My way or the highway attitude - appears partisan."

Halls: As I've noted previously, I've been an independent since 1979, largely in part because of my distaste for both political parties.

KC135R: "Senseless, unproductive name calling when you disagree with the other side in an argument certainly appears partisan."

Halls: Since I've called the democrats who are blocking the vote from taking place cowards, and the republicans who vote lockstep with their party for someone they don't believe in cowards, where's the partisanship?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6278
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:21 am

I'll try to get back to the topic. Is this guy such a diplomatic genius that he's worth the hassle or is he just a bigmouth only capable of hurling insults?
I mean, if you seriously want to intiate a reform of the organization, wouldn't it be better to nominate someone more consensual, someone who enjoys respect and is not hated before taking the office? I'm thinking someone like Colin Powell although his "famous" PowerPoint presentation at the UN surely did not improve his resume.
I'm sure B757300 will get a hard-on whenever Bolton says "f*ck the UN, f*ck the rest of the world, UN is relevant only as it serves US interests" but if appointed will he achieve anything else besides this fireworks of big empty words?
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:46 am

Quoting 787 (Reply 50):
Where is the UN resolution condemning the U.S. on this? I have yet to see one.

You'll never see it. With the U.S. being a UNSC member with veto power, the chances a proposition for such a resolution actually makes it to a vote are 0!

Quoting 787 (Reply 50):
Yes sure and after how many years with Saddams playing with the UN and the rest of the world? LOL Do you really think this nonsense???

Please, remind me again of the exact number of WMD's which were found in Iraq. A 'vast amount'?

Quoting 787 (Reply 50):
Oh that's right, you get your history from that site of lies and distortions. Nice going at least in your point of view yes? Smile

Never, EVER, have I encountered on this or any other discussion forum a user as ignorant AND annoying as you. Not only do you continue to refer to a discussion you and I had 2 months ago in each and every reply since, I also have the sensation you often only reply to my threads, not because you are interested in the topic, but because it enables you to repeat, again and again and again, the point you made two months ago.

Not only is this complete lack of originallity annoying, you're continueing to completely ignore the fact that in that particular discussion, I gave you TWO completely different sources to back up the same arguement: one journalistic article located at (but not necesarrily issued by) the World Socialist Website and one article at MSNBC's website. Up until today, you have complete ignored the fact that BOTH articles backed up my arguement. Instead, you have 'reminded' me, at every chance you got in these last two months, of just how big a fool I must be to believe anything on the World Socialist Website, while youcontinue to ignore the contents of the MSNBC article, despite my numerous reminders in the original discussion!

Your profile states you are in the 26-35 age range but I'm not sure that is correct. Given your PATHETIC and CHILDISH attitude over the past TWO months, repeating the same BULLSHIT over and over and over again at every chance you got, while continueing to COMPLETELY ignore my posts addressing the issue, makes me believe you are either much younger than your profile states or you are mentally retarded.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:04 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
I'm just making the assumption

Aaaah - you see there is the problem. I don't fit easily into any stereotype when it comes to political views, so it's pretty unsafe to make an assumption about how I might feel on any given issue. But, since you didn't know that, I'll overlook your assumption making this time.  Wink

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
If the republicans decide to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, will you support their right as the majority party to do so?

That's a tough one - there's nothing set in stone (except tradition) that gives the right to filibuster, and I am not a huge fan of the "we do it this way because we have always done it this way" mantra - so tradition is little excuse to keep a rule, to me. But, the filibuster can be a useful tool to prevent the majority from taking complete control. Since we only have two parties now in America, for all intent and purposes, and since neither party truly represents the country on all issues (more often than not these days the country is split 50/50) I personally fear either of them having complete control.

So I look at it from two different perspectives:

If I was a democrat I would say, "keep the filibuster, the opposition party deserves a voice!"

If I was a republican I would say, "keep it because someday we will not be the majority party and we might need it."

Furthermore, if the practice of voting party lines wasn't so common these days, I would say there was no need for the filibuster. A bad nominee would never get a yes vote because the majority of Senators would know that he/she didn't deserve the position and vote accordingly.

But that doesn't happen - put this to a vote today and I can just about guarantee he would get approved, right along party lines. Do all republicans think he deserves the post? No! But would they vote for him anyway to risk stepping out of party lines? Absolutely.

If Senators truly voted for what they believed in, not what the party wanted, on a consistent basis (because some do it, sometimes) - I would say get rid of it. But since that does not happen, I tend to lean towards the belief that it should be kept.

That's how I feel, what do you think?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
But that isn't their sole motivation.

That's true - but you can't discredit the fact that they have a point about this guy just for that reason.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
I just don't think Bolton's statements against the UN and being an ass are disqualifying.

Let me tell you why I think it is disqualifying - solely based on what you just said. Bush wants to send him to be the top U.S. diplomat to the U.N., right? So here's a guy who dislikes the U.N. and who acts like an ass - should he be sent to the U.N. as a diplomat? Bear in mind the definition of a diplomat is, in part, "One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others." So he does not care for the organization where they want to send them, and he does not use skill and tact when dealing with others - why on Earth should that not be reason enough to disqualify him?

You seem to have some insight into his bad behavior - do you want this guy representing the U.S. at an international organization? Do you trust him not to show his ass in that job?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
where's the partisanship?

Alright, I'll grant you that you did refer to the republican senators as cowards too, if they were merely voting party lines.

My whole point was your words appeared to show a partisan slant. Then I showed you why I drew that conclusion. Perhaps you just side with the Republicans on this particular issue and that is fair enough. I simply pointed out how you seemed to be using partisan rhetoric, in this case, to justify your position - that's all.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 52):
What article of the UN Charter was violated?

"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained"

&

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
"

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 52):
Preambulatory language in an international instrument is largely irrelevant as compared to the articles of a given instrument. You might want to read the rest of the Charter before you reach a conclusion about whether we violated the Charter or we didn't.

Preamble or not, it does form part of the Charter itself.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 52):
And pay special attention to Article 51....

Article 51 deals exclusively with Self-Defence. Iraq did NOT attack the U.S.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 52):
Wow. I never thought that my suggestion that if the responsible nations capable of rendering Hitler's Germany impotent in the 1930's had acted in time to do so, it would have prevented the carnage of WWII, would be labeled as "dumb. I guess there are still a couple of Hitler fans out there still.

You made a statement on just how WWII could have been prevented if international law would have been broken back in the 1930's. You completely fail to ignore two important facts: Nazi Germany did just that! Justifying the breaking of international law because you believe it is the right thing to do, enables other countries to do exactly the same, because they believe it is the right thing to do!

You also fail to understand that the UN was created after WWII to avoid just that in the future! The UN is not the most efficient organization, but one can't deny that up until the invasion of Iraq it has managed to avoid mayor global wars since WWII. But since it is now apparently legal for one country to invade another country without having been attacked by that country, what keeps Iran or North Korea from invading their neighbours pre-emptively?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:19 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 52):
What article of the UN Charter was violated?

Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

a) An armed attack on the USA by Iraq has clearly not occurred. This already puts the Iraq invasion in violation of Article 51.

b) The US-led "coalition" has consistently prevented UN institutions from performing their respective duties (by pre-empting the UNSC-appointed inspections and by never allowing UN organs to assume responsibility and control in Iraq). Again, this violates Article 51.

Article 51, by the way, is conveniently ignored by american critics who falsely claimed that the UN was useless because it "didn´t allow the USA to defend itself". The Article as quoted above clearly proves otherwise. The USA were just never in actual danger from Saddam´s Iraq. They are now, but that´s a slightly different matter.


Kofi Annan in a BBC report (16 September, 2004)):

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."


More here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 53):
As you correctly note, no such resolution was ever enacted, because we never violated the charter.

Oh come on! How ridiculous does this get?  Yeah sure
No condemning UNSC resolution could have been enacted simply because of the vetoes wielded by two of the main perpetrators: The USA and Britain!

There was in fact a strong and worldwide opposition among the UN members, but the current UNSC structure prevented them from stopping the impending disaster.


And, Halls120, PLEASE use the quoting mechanism!!!
Your posts are extremely tiresome to read simply because of the complete lack of a quoting separation.

If your browser doesn´t support the built-in mechanism (select the quote, click on the "quote selected text" link at the top of that post), copy the quote, then add the indicated tags around it manually if necessary:

[quote=Halls120,reply=52]What article of the UN Charter was violated?[/quote]

Fill in the name of the poster and the reply index, and you´re done. It makes the posts a lot easier to read. It´s sad if people skip over a post simply because it´s lacking proper technique.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 54):
Well, since I don't seem to be impressing Klaus with the fact that he's a patronizing ass with his constant barrage of pedantry I think I'll just watch the new kid whip Schoeniepoos butt. Pretty good so far. Just remember, these guys seem to have nothing to do beyond post crap at 0300 their time. If you have a job this can get out of hand.

I see you´re moving on from the smoking wreckage of your argumentation. Good choice.

Nothing is more annoying than a "patronizing ass" whose arguments you´re incapable of countering effectively, isn´t it? Big grin
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:20 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 54):
If you have a job this can get out of hand.

Maybe I don't need a job Big grin
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 53):
As you correctly note, no such resolution was ever enacted, because we never violated the charter.

That's nonsense! There was also never a resolution approved stating Bush is the President of the US of A, but that doesn't mean that he isn't. Resolutions are only adopted after the Security Council votes on it. With the US as a permanent member of that very council, it would never approve such a resolution which makes proposing such a resolution by any other Security Council member completely useless!
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:41 am

Klaus, we really should stop seeing eachother like this!

I mean, we both use bold, italic and underline for emphasis in every single post we make, we both back up our arguments with actual and working links and we're both online while we actually should be in bed (separately)

Worse of all, DL actually believes 'the new kid on the block is actually kicking our butts while we are sipping large quantities of coke, beer, coffee or whatever to stay awake and prove him wrong!  Wink
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:50 am

Cheers to that, Schoenorama!  bigthumbsup 

I found DL´s full reversal from the accusation of "fuzzyness" to the one of "pedantry" particularly heartwarming...! Big grin

If you´re getting it from both sides, you´re usually doing something right. Just a bit odd to have both sides represented by the same person!
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:50 am

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 29):
You do realize that your pick has 3 Commonwealth countries?

You do realize I said these are just examples, didn't you?  Smile

Quoting L-188 (Reply 40):
But I do like the fact you got France off of it.

Well, just to piss you off, and to get your infantile hatred and dislike of France in a lather, I'll put them back on, and take off the UK, L-188. Grow up man. Your hatred of France is so childish.

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

Sorry, but China gets to represent the Far East. That's just the way it should be, much as I dislike China. You can't ignore 1.5 billion people.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
Halls: it seems that the current definition of an extremist is anyone that the other side just doesn't like.

Wrong. I didn't like George 41's policies, or Reagan's, but I respected both, and don't thik either is an extremist. This guy is an extremist, and he has a very warped view of the word, and I don't think he belongs in the UN.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
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.

The Senate is not a rubber stamp. If he's bad for the country, he's bad for the country, period, be damned what the president thinks.

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.

ROTFL, they're cowards for pressing the WH to release all info on this bum? I don't think so. Besides, the GOP controls the Senate, but they're divided over this idiot as well, so they only have themselves to blame.

And Ian, it's debates like this, when you just can't call a spade a spade, that I wonder sometime about you, man.  Smile
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:51 am

L410Turbolet: "I'll try to get back to the topic. Is this guy such a diplomatic genius that he's worth the hassle or is he just a bigmouth only capable of hurling insults?"

Halls: As I've posted before, Bolton was the person who led the very successful and multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative.

And again, for all of those who are tired of reading my posts because I'm not using the "Quote Selected Text" function, it isn't working on my home Windows XP computer.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:59 am

KC135R: "But, since you didn't know that, I'll overlook your assumption making this time."

Halls: Since you made assumptions about my political stance, I thought I'd just return the favor!  Wink

KC135R: "If Senators truly voted for what they believed in, not what the party wanted, on a consistent basis (because some do it, sometimes) - I would say get rid of it. But since that does not happen, I tend to lean towards the belief that it should be kept.

That's how I feel, what do you think?"

Halls: I think the filibuster is a valuable tool, and ought to be retained. I think that the threat of its use in this instance is irresponsible on the part of the democrats. You use it for someone clearly unqualified - which Bolton is not - or for an appointment that matters - like for the Supreme Court.

KC135R: "So here's a guy who dislikes the U.N. and who acts like an ass - should he be sent to the U.N. as a diplomat? Bear in mind the definition of a diplomat is, in part, "One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others." So he does not care for the organization where they want to send them, and he does not use skill and tact when dealing with others - why on Earth should that not be reason enough to disqualify him?"

Halls: this same "ass" has put together an international coalition against the proliferation of WMD's that has been endorsed by the UN Secretary General. Even though I would never want to work for him, he is a very talented individual.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:06 am

Schoenorama: "Preamble or not, it does form part of the Charter itself."

Halls: Evidently you don't understand the negotiation of international instruments. Preambular language is where we put laudatory feel-good language that is viewed important, but can't be agreed upon for placement in the operative portion of an instrument.

Schoenorama: "Article 51 deals exclusively with Self-Defence. Iraq did NOT attack the U.S."

Halls: Ever heard of the concept of anticipatory self-defense?

Schoenorama: "The UN is not the most efficient organization, but one can't deny that up until the invasion of Iraq it has managed to avoid mayor global wars since WWII. But since it is now apparently legal for one country to invade another country without having been attacked by that country, what keeps Iran or North Korea from invading their neighbours pre-emptively?"

Halls: Nothing in the UN Charter has eliminated the concept of anticipatory self-defense, a tenet of international law that has existed for a lot longer than the UN.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:11 am

Klaus: "An armed attack on the USA by Iraq has clearly not occurred. This already puts the Iraq invasion in violation of Article 51."

Halls: Wrong. Article 51 has not prempted or otherwise rendered void the accepted concept of anticipatory self-defense.

Just because Kofi Annan think we violated the UN Charter means very little.

I tried once before to get the "quote selected text" to work in the manner you suggested. I'll try again before responding in this chain. I do realize my posts are hard to read, and I apologize for that.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:13 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 66):
Halls: As I've posted before, Bolton was the person who led the very successful and multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative.

Bolton's British Problem - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com:

Quote:
On several occasions, America's closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team.



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 67):
this same "ass" has put together an international coalition against the proliferation of WMD's that has been endorsed by the UN Secretary General. Even though I would never want to work for him, he is a very talented individual.

He is an incompetent loose cannon which could just barely be prevented from derailing several efforts which ultimately were only successful because Bolton had been taken oput of the negotiations!

The complete failure regarding North Korea, the "best friend" Pakistan playing the central role in worldwide nuclear proliferation completely unimpeded and the global disruption severely damaging the chances of getting the iranian nuclear ambitions back under control give testament of the abject failure of the both partially blind and partially over-aggressive tactics Bolton stands for.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:33 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Just because Kofi Annan think we violated the UN Charter means very little.

Yeah, I mean, he just is head of that organization. Big freaking deal.

We violted UN Charter, of that I have no doubt. We used the smoke-screen of WMD and Colin Powell's big presentation at the UN to foster Bush's thirst to go to war in Iraq. Who cares if the intel was false or we crapped all over the rest of the world, right?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:39 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 68):
Nothing in the UN Charter has eliminated the concept of anticipatory self-defense, a tenet of international law that has existed for a lot longer than the UN.

There are two kinds of that kind of defense:

a) The kind allowed under international law: It requires an immediate threat - such as Iraq setting its troops in motion on Washington or declaring war on the USA. Under those circumstances an invasion would actually have been justified (as in the case of nazi Germany declaring war on the USA on top of making itself fair game with the invasion of Poland at the very latest).

b) The kind outlawed under international law: That is the kind of "preemptive" reasoning which was used to invade Iraq - the mere claim of an unsubstantiated (and in fact obviously fake) threat could serve as a "justification" in any attack or invasion scenario otherwise. It is immediately obvious that the acknowledgment of this kind of "preventative" attack would lead to a complete collapse of any kind of order. Which is why it is outlawed.

The american public has been systematically deceived about those essential distinctions - and it was willing to be deceived.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Just because Kofi Annan think we violated the UN Charter means very little.

He is the official representative of the UN - appointed by consent of the international community. His word does have considerable weight in exactly this kind of matter. It´s his job to ensure proper observance of the UN charta as far as possible.

That you don´t happen to like what he has to say is not really relevant when it´s about his competence.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
I tried once before to get the "quote selected text" to work in the manner you suggested. I'll try again before responding in this chain. I do realize my posts are hard to read, and I apologize for that.

I have created my quotes manually for quite a while until the official mechanism started working with my browser as well. You could use a different browser to make it easier for you... Which is especially recommendable if you still had been using the dangerously leaking bucket Internet Explorer.
 
787
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 11:57 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 57):
you continue to refer to a discussion you and I had 2 months ago in each and every reply since

You chose the source. I did not. I remind you when I see you violate the basic tenants of truth and fairness. As in some of what you have said in this thread. You twist it to suit your own needs. You offer ideas and thoughts based on your own leftist bias and that my friend is the truth. Merely reminding you of it seems to dilute your arguments based on how you respond to that oh so subtle reminder of mine which I find rather amusing. Remember, you chose the source revealing what you read and the type of "political" person you are. It is tough carrying a "label" no? Perhaps it is the same "type" of label Mr. Bolton has aquired!!!!!!!!!

Thank you very much.
787 Italia - Io, il comandante dell'aria
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5791
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:44 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28):

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

Not that it would happen, but a representative from the Middle East would be quite a gesture. Kuwait? UAE?

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 29):
You do realize that your pick has 3 Commonwealth countries?

And what the hell is that supposed to mean???!

Do you think that the Commonwealth dictates our foreign policy?!

Explain yourself!

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:04 pm

"I found DL´s full reversal from the accusation of "fuzzyness" to the one of "pedantry" particularly heartwarming...!

If you´re getting it from both sides, you´re usually doing something right. Just a bit odd to have both sides represented by the same person! "


One was ironic the other factual.

Falcon...whom am I not calling a spade?

"Quoting DL021 (Reply 54):
If you have a job this can get out of hand.

Maybe I don't need a job "

Not with the unemployment benefits you guys get in Spain!  Wink

besides, everyone knows you and Klaus are brothers.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6278
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:57 pm

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 74):
And what the hell is that supposed to mean???! Do you think that the Commonwealth dictates our foreign policy?!Explain yourself!

No need to get all over me just because you don't like any even remote reference to the Union Jack. We all know that already. I was only pointing out to certain... let's say imbalace in Falcon's pick.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 65):
Sorry, but China gets to represent the Far East. That's just the way it should be, much as I dislike China. You can't ignore 1.5 billion people.

Well over billion of Indians are ignored up until today so why not shuffle the seats and let the Far East be represented (that is if it is even possible for one country to "represent" anyone or anything other than themselves) by a democracy for a while?
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5791
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:06 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 76):
No need to get all over me just because you don't like any even remote reference to the Union Jack. We all know that already. I was only pointing out to certain... let's say imbalace in Falcon's pick.

Your reference was completely wrong - devoid of any facts. Your explanation was evasive, which failed to answer any of my questions. You obviously don't know what the commonwealth is otherwise you wouldn't have even brought it up.

There is was no imbalance in his suggestion, it was very fair. Unlike your comment which was utterly ridiculous. You might like to actually do some research before you inaccurately postulate again.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6278
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:01 pm

Quoting QANTASFOREVER (Reply 77):
Your reference was completely wrong - devoid of any facts.

Deviod of any facts? Is Australia's membership in the Commonwealth not fact? Would you say three countries out of ASEAN or let's say Arab League or any other association of countries would suggest there is certain imbalance?
Instead of attacking me for not stating any facts, calling my objections "ridiculous" or "wrong" while failing to state a single fact yourself, try to come up with a coherent argument why do you think Australia should be on the UNSC instead of Japan? You might like to take a deep breath and calm down before getting all agitated because of internet forum.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER (Reply 77):
There is was no imbalance in his suggestion, it was very fair.

No imbalance? Having two countries with one formal head of state would be unfortunate move. Tell me what progress as far as credibility and worldwide relevance and acceptance would it be reforming UNSC made up of WW2 winners into UNSC of former British colonies? If you ask me, I don't really care, all I'm saying other countries should be given preference.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 74):
Do you think that the Commonwealth dictates our foreign policy?!

No. Do you?
 
QANTASforever
Posts: 5791
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:45 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
Deviod of any facts? Is Australia's membership in the Commonwealth not fact?

Of course it is fact. However I think that you quite inaccurately over-emphasise the significance of this.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
Would you say three countries out of ASEAN or let's say Arab League or any other association of countries would suggest there is certain imbalance?

One could argue that the geographic proximity of France, Russia and the United Kingdom make the security council euro-centric.

You see - the Commonwealth is a little UN. It doesn't actually do anything, or have any power. It doesn't control anyone, it rarely helps anyone, and it's basically an excuse to hold a very large sporting event. It's not like ASEAN or the Arab League, it doesn't hold crucial economic summits or serve as a platform for nations to flesh out bold new plans.

It is an impotent little conference. Nothing more.

And anyway, aren't France, the UK, the USA, China and Russia not all members of a certain very large international organisation?  Wink

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
Instead of attacking me for not stating any facts, calling my objections "ridiculous" or "wrong" while failing to state a single fact yourself, try to come up with a coherent argument why do you think Australia should be on the UNSC instead of Japan?

I'm not arguing that Australia should be on the security council, I'm simply defending its right to be considered as a future member.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
You might like to take a deep breath and calm down before getting all agitated because of internet forum.

That is the oldest one in the book. I freely choose to participate here, it's an intellectual exercise. It doesn't make me, you, or the 10,000 other people here petty or small-minded.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
No imbalance? Having two countries with one formal head of state would be unfortunate move.

Because of course the Queen has sat on the Security council on many occasions, along with the Presidents of Russia, France, The USA, and China. Honestly - the status of the HOS is irrelevant if they are not political.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
Tell me what progress as far as credibility and worldwide relevance and acceptance would it be reforming UNSC made up of WW2 winners into UNSC of former British colonies?

You say that as if that is all they are. Are France and the UK not former colonies of Rome? Is the United States not a former colony of the United Kingdom and France? Has China been occupied by Mongolians, Manchurians, and the Japanese at various stages? Everyone has been at the mercy of someone else at some stage. It is not a valid reason to discount Australia. It is the country as it exists today that will perhaps be considered.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 78):
Do you think that the Commonwealth dictates our foreign policy?!

No. Do you?

Your apparent concern over a conflict of interest involving the Queen and your belief that Australia's former status as a colony is the one major factor that will be determined if Australia is ever to join the sec-con; suggest otherwise.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:50 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 68):
Evidently you don't understand the negotiation of international instruments. Preambular language is where we put laudatory feel-good language that is viewed important, but can't be agreed upon for placement in the operative portion of an instrument.

So you're basically saying that the whole preamble is just propaganda, right? It is just there 'cause is sounds nice', right? With all respect, but that is nonsense. The Charter of the UN consists of two parts: the preamble, broadly patterned after the preamble of the Constitution of the United States and a series of articles divided into chapters. (1)
The preamble serves as an introduction to the articles and these articles actually do underline the text in the preamble. Have a look at Articles 1 and 2 for that matter.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 68):
Ever heard of the concept of anticipatory self-defense?

I've sure heard about it. The problem is, such a concept is not covered by Article 51 of the UN charter, as you claim. Another minor detail is that Iraq formed no threat whatsoever to the US.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 68):
Nothing in the UN Charter has eliminated the concept of anticipatory self-defense, a tenet of international law that has existed for a lot longer than the UN.

The issue whether this was a case of anticipatory self-defense or not was the core issue of the debate at the UN from Day 1. And the moment the U.S. noticed the majority of the Security Council (and of the world, for that matter) simply did not believe the reasoning behind anticipatory self-defense, the Bush Administration ignored the UN Charter as a whole, and articles 1 and 2 specifically. One cannot be a Member Nation of the UN and selectively ignore the Charter when it suits one best.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Article 51 has not prempted or otherwise rendered void the accepted concept of anticipatory self-defense.

The accepted concept is what Hitler used when he invaded Poland. It is for this reason alone that the UN was created in the first place; to have an international body to prevent nations from using such accepted concepts in the future for their own purposes.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 75):
Not with the unemployment benefits you guys get in Spain!

400 Euro per month is hardly enough to pay for my pool-maintenance Big grin
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:51 pm

When the UN votes countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia to the 2005 Human Rights Commission, I think they deserve to get an undiplomatic, brash blowhard from the U.S.A. to shake them up a bit. God knows thay need a shake-up.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:20 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 81):
When the UN votes countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia to the 2005 Human Rights Commission, I think they deserve to get an undiplomatic, brash blowhard from the U.S.A. to shake them up a bit. God knows thay need a shake-up.

You're getting more B757300 on us all the time, Charles. No, they don't deserve it, not from the nation that is supposed to be better than everyone else. We complain all the time about some of the louts that are sent by other nations' to the UN, and now we send the quintessential Ugly American there? A man who has said publically he detests that orgainzation, who obviously detests foreigners. That's not what we need.

I'd much have preferred someone like Colin Powell, who is respected by both political parties here; he's respected all over the world, and he'd engender COOPERATION, not confrontation, which can lead to real reform, not acrimony, Charles.

We don't need a bull in a china shop. We need a consumate diplomate, and a person who is respected. Bolton isn't that kind of guy.

It's another example of Bush crapping on the world. He crapped on it after the debate over Iraq, and he's dumping another load of crap on it by putting this neanderthal as head of the U.S. "diplomatic" delegation in New York.

I'd love it if the U.N. refused him when he presented his credentials, just to stick it up Bush's ass.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:02 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
No, they don't deserve it, not from the nation that is supposed to be better than everyone else.

Nice guys finish last.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
A man who has said publically he detests that orgainzation, who obviously detests foreigners. That's not what we need.

What we don't need is someone who loves the U.N. - i.e. has no desire or the personality to force it to reform.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
We don't need a bull in a china shop. We need a consumate diplomate, and a person who is respected. Bolton isn't that kind of guy.

A bull is exactly what is needed, and a lot bigger one than Bolton. In order to force the U.N. to rebuild itself, you have start smashing the place up. A "consumate diplomat" will achieve the same thing as past U.S. embassadors have achieved - zilch. Ideally, the U.N. should be entirely disolved, except for the General Assembly, and possibly the World Food Program, in modified forms. Of course that won't happen, but maybe we can make some progress.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
I'd love it if the U.N. refused him when he presented his credentials, just to stick it up Bush's ass.

And the U.S. then withholds its membership fees, which amount to a quarter of the U.N. budget. The U.N. needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs the U.N.

I live in Geneva. I've visited and worked with various agencies of the U.N., and a lot of my neighbors are high-ranking officials at the U.N. (My house is 5 minutes away from the main U.N. compound). I have dinner with many of them on a frequent basis. So I know more about the inner workings of the U.N. than most people, and I can tell you that it is rotten to the core.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:47 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
Nice guys finish last.

Not quite.

Aggressive and stupid guys simply end up getting kicked out of the door at the earliest opportunity.

Aggressive and smart guys often get what they want short term, but in the end people will gang up on them and kick them out of the door as well.

Nice and stupid guys will sometimes get what they want - but their friends will often prevent them from making their worst mistakes - fortunately!

Nice and smart guys will inspire everybody to follow them voluntarily or at least willingly cooperate with them constructively for shared goals.

Unfortunately Bolton obviously fits into the first category (together with the whole Bush regime).

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
So I know more about the inner workings of the U.N. than most people, and I can tell you that it is rotten to the core.

And next thing you´d be trying to tell us would be that - of all things - the Bush administration was the moral institution to change all that? No fawning cronies, no incompetent thugs, no corruption? And Bolton the white knight in shining armour to clean up the problems within the UN?

That is simply laughable!  crazy   rotfl 

In order to get a meaningful UN reform going, the biggest problem - the UNSC construction with its ancient power distribution and the destructive veto - will have to go. Unless that happens, any other reform would be completely meaningless.

If you want strengthened accountability and efficiency, you need to spruce up the UN organisation, take the oversight out of the hands of backroom member government committees and make the inner workings of all UN organisations more transparent for public review.

A big reform needs a wide consensus across the membership. And that does indeed take quite a few consummate diplomats in most of the key member nations, especially in the USA. Bolton wouldn´t know the first thing about what to do to engineer the required consensus or which changes should be attempted.

He´s just an old crony of the Bush family who is shoved into that post to do as much damage to the UN as possible in order to discredit or remove it from the global power structure.

Bad mistake. Very bad mistake.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:56 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
Nice guys finish last.

So, tell me, how's it look from the middle of the pack, Charles?

Bullies don't finish first, either-they end up being ostrasized, and with this guy's attitude, it will not further the interests of the United States, nor the UN. We'll get the same ignorant, arrogant persona we have in the White House, and that we have in the GOP leadership in the Congress, which has caused nothing but division and acrimony. And you want to extend that to the UN?

You've bought into this arrogance, haven't you? And you've seen what it's accomplished-nothing, except to sully or good name, and make the American word suspect at every turn.

Maybe nice guys finish last in some thing, but we dont' need bullies either.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
No, they don't deserve it, not from the nation that is supposed to be better than everyone else.

Nice guys finish last.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
A man who has said publically he detests that orgainzation, who obviously detests foreigners. That's not what we need.

What we don't need is someone who loves the U.N. - i.e. has no desire or the personality to force it to reform.

I really thought you were smarter than that. I'm not saying we need someone to have a group hug, Charles, but we don't need someone who all he's going to do is piss off everyone else. How is that going to solve everything? His personality won't force any reform, because no one is going to listen to this loose cannon. All he'll do is get laughed at, if he does what he's obviously done throughout his career, and there'll be no reform, and there'll be even less respect for the United States.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
A bull is exactly what is needed, and a lot bigger one than Bolton. In order to force the U.N. to rebuild itself,

ROTFL. You really believe that baloney? Really? This guy won't force the UN to do shit!  Silly All he'll do is make it more difficult to get reform, because he'll bring in Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to the UN, and it won't fly.

If you really believe all that manure, then you're not as observant or as smart as I've been led to believe Charles. You've seen what those kind of "bulls", i.e., DeLay, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Frist, have done on the domestic level-and you want to put one in the UN? ROTFLMAO. You live in a dream world, dude.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 83):
And the U.S. then withholds its membership fees, which amount to a quarter of the U.N. budget. The U.N. needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs the U.N.

I wonder about that. I'd turn down his credentials so fast that Bush wouldn't know what to do.

It's sad that you've bought into this right-wing extremist crap, Charles. You've abandonded common sense, and see no problem with shitting all over the rest of the world. Just remember, the stink from such shit can reach right back to the people who created it. That's what you'll get with this asshole.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:42 am

Wow, that was a bit much to read and seemed to be going in circles. Here's why I think Bolton would be not just a poor decision but also bad for our national security.

Bolton has shown he is hostile to the United Nations. This is pretty undeniable if you ask me, just look at his comments in the past, as well as his actions.

Right now, we are fighting our international war on terror, or as the administration now wants to call it, the "Global Struggle Against Extremism" (don't even get me started on this stupidity Global Struggle Against Extremism). If we are trying to fight a global struggle, we can't do it alone. Our armies are strung thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so we can only devote so much to the fight against terrorism. We can't go this alone.

The kind of standoff-ish attitude that Bolton would present to the United Nations is not only arrogant, it is completely counter productive to the atmosphere of cooperation that we need these days. We cannot win the war on terror alone, not to mention we're not the only country in the world who is the target of terrorism (i.e. England, Spain, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, etc. etc.). I don't want to send Bolton to the United Nations as our representative with the attitude he has shown to have.

Secondly, I think we should send somebody to the United Nations who has shown he is successful in previous posts under this administration, something I think Bolton has failed at.

His work as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control has been a complete joke. If he was so dedicated to his work there, he would have dedicated his time to stopping Iran and North Korea from getting weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he spent more time accusing Cuba of developing weapons of mass destruction (Cuba) and trying to oust Jose Bustani from the UN.

When it did come time to deal with Iran and North Korea, he did a miserable job. He was removed from the delegation after describing Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" of a country where for many, "life is a hellish nightmare." (Bolton's Comment). Funny how after that the six party talks fell apart, and then North Korea declared they had operational nuclear weapons. There's a thing called diplomatic tact that Bolton fails to understand.

And finally we come to Iraq. He held important information from Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice on multiple occasions that ran contrary to his own agenda (Source). Bolton is also alleged to have played a role in the Niger incident, which is now known to be a lie (Niger).

Finally, we come to news from a few days ago. "On July 28, 2005 it was revealed that a statement made by Bolton on forms submitted to the Senate was false. Bolton indicated that in the prior five years he had not been questioned in any investigation, but in fact he had been interviewed by the State Department Inspector General on July 18, 2003 as part of an investigation into the sources of pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction evidence in Iraq."(Bolton) (Associated Press).

In my view, this goes beyond just his attitudes and views of the United Nations. That is unimportant in the much greater picture of this man. What is far more important is that he has lied in the past about crucial stuff. He has failed IMO at his job as Undersecretary of Arms Control. He lacks diplomatic tact which would be necessary if you are to be a diplomat. And finally, it is my opinion that his appointment is counter productive to our interests of national security and the war on terror (see above).

Now you tell me, do you want a man who lies and manipulates information to be our representative at the U.N.?

[Edited 2005-07-31 19:46:24]
NO URLS in signature
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:07 am

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 86):
Now you tell me, do you want a man who lies and manipulates information to be our representative at the U.N.?

Fits right in with Iraq, doesn't it?

For all of you who 1. complain about all the idiots in the UN, why in he name of Adelei Stevenson would you want to send ANOTHER idiot there, who won't help solve anything?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:15 am

Falcon,

Putting aside how Bolton feels about the U.N., the fact that he was involved in the lies surrounding the Niger Uranium incident is reason enough for me to not want him in the U.N. This shows me that he lied and manipulated information to fit his policy. I don't want that in the United Nations, regardless of how one feels about the organization. It is simply corruption when you look at it. If you want to clear up corruption in the U.N., he's not exactly the poster child.
NO URLS in signature
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:11 am

Quote:
Schoenorama Quoting 787 (Reply 50):
Where is the UN resolution condemning the U.S. on this? I have yet to see one.

You'll never see it. With the U.S. being a UNSC member with veto power, the chances a proposition for such a resolution actually makes it to a vote are 0!

How does holding veto power prevent another Security Council from tabling an issue for discussion? The answer is - it doesn't.

As of 2003, the US had exercised its veto power 73 times - second only to Russia/USSR, who had exercised its veto over a hundred times in the same period. In the case of the US, most of the vetoes were registered to prevent resolution that castigated Israel in some fashion. I'm pretty sure that the sponsors of those failed resolutions probably knew well in advance that the US would veto the resolution.

Thus, your claim that a resolution charging the US with violating the UN Charter hasn't been brought because it would be futile is ridiculous. If a majority of the Security Council thought we had violated the charter, what better way to illustrate that violation but to force us to use our veto?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:16 am

Quote:
Klaus - No condemning UNSC resolution could have been enacted simply because of the vetoes wielded by two of the main perpetrators: The USA and Britain!

First of all, thanks for the tip on how to make my quotes more easily readable. I tried Mozilla Firefox, which didn't help, so I tried your manual solution.

Now - while the US and the UK could of course vetoed any resolution holding the US guilty of violating the UN Charter, the veto can't stop another member from bringing a resolution to the SC for discussion and vote. What better way to embarrass the US than to force us to veto a "violation" resolution?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:20 am

Halls, try to answer in one post, man. You're putting out too many threads, when you could just combine them. It's easier to read that way. Thanks.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:21 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 89):
If a majority of the Security Council thought we had violated the charter, what better way to illustrate that violation but to force us to use our veto?

The failure of Bush to get support for the Iraq invasion in the UNSC was already based on the expressed opinion of the other members that such an invasion would not be in accordance with the principles of the UN. Just read the transcripts of the famous sessions at that time.

It was already a severe diplomatic setback - a separate resolution proposal saying the same thing again (and which would have been vetoed by the USA and Britain anyway) would have been entirely redundant and would have been a further diplomatic escalation with little substantial consequence, which was not desired even by the opponents at that time.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:27 am

Quote:
Schoenorama Quoting Halls120 (Reply 68):
Evidently you don't understand the negotiation of international instruments. Preambular language is where we put laudatory feel-good language that is viewed important, but can't be agreed upon for placement in the operative portion of an instrument.

So you're basically saying that the whole preamble is just propaganda, right? It is just there 'cause is sounds nice', right? With all respect, but that is nonsense.

Have you ever participated in the drafting and negotiation of an international instrument? I have - several, to be more precise. While the preamble is part of the instrument, it has no operative effect with regard to the instrument itself. While Parties are expected to act consistent with the ideas set forth in the preambular language, Parties aren't required to act in accordance with that language. That requirement is only applicable to the operative paragraphs.

Quote:
Schoenorama Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Article 51 has not pre-empted or otherwise rendered void the accepted concept of anticipatory self-defense.

The accepted concept is what Hitler used when he invaded Poland. It is for this reason alone that the UN was created in the first place; to have an international body to prevent nations from using such accepted concepts in the future for their own purposes.

While that may indeed have been part of the motive behind the creation of the UN, the fact is that neither the UN Charter nor any act by the UN since has eliminated the ability of a sovereign state from exercising anticipatory self-defense.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:38 am

Quote:
Chalk Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 82):
We don't need a bull in a china shop. We need a consummate diplomate, and a person who is respected. Bolton isn't that kind of guy.

A bull is exactly what is needed, and a lot bigger one than Bolton. In order to force the U.N. to rebuild itself, you have start smashing the place up. A "consummate diplomat" will achieve the same thing as past U.S. ambassadors have achieved - zilch. Ideally, the U.N. should be entirely dissolved, except for the General Assembly, and possibly the World Food Program, in modified forms. Of course that won't happen, but maybe we can make some progress.

Chalk, you sound just like some UN employees I know, who have said some of the very same things to me - long before the Bolton nomination became news.

First of all, I will state for the record that I believe in the UN - at least I believe it what it could accomplish if it was properly reformed. What many of the posters on this thread don't realize is how thoroughly corrupt the UN has become. If it isn't Kofi Annan's son skimming cash from the food for oil program, it's rampant sexual assault by UN peacekeepers - and if not sexual harassment by senior UN officials against subordinates, it's the former Director of the Office on Drugs and Crime directing contracts be awarded to his cronies.

I'm not saying all other governments aren't corrupt to some degree; most probably are. But for the UN to have any legitimacy whatsoever, it has to cleaner than the governments that belong, or its loses whatever legitimacy it might otherwise have. And what the UN DOES need is someone to come in and start breaking the formal china in the UN dining room. I realize that it's hard to accept this, but I've had several foreign diplomats tell me that they eagerly await Bolton's arrival.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:44 am

Quote:
Falcon84: Bullies don't finish first, either-they end up being ostrasized, and with this guy's attitude, it will not further the interests of the United States, nor the UN. We'll get the same ignorant, arrogant persona we have in the White House, and that we have in the GOP leadership in the Congress, which has caused nothing but division and acrimony. And you want to extend that to the UN?

Falcon - I don't know how many UN employees or foreign diplomats you personally know, but I know quite a few of each. While some of them aren't happy at the thought of Bolton as our ambassador, none of them share your gloom and doom attitude, and as I've noted above, many are anxiously awaiting his arrival.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:47 am

Quote:
Falcon84: Halls, try to answer in one post, man. You're putting out too many threads, when you could just combine them. It's easier to read that way. Thanks.

Wow. I finally master the "quote selected text" function, and you want more, more, more.  Wink

Seriously - when posting on other boards, I've been advised that people prefer shorter posts, so I try to keep mine short. If people here want longer, I can go with the flow.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:54 am

Quote:
Klaus, The failure of Bush to get support for the Iraq invasion in the UNSC was already based on the expressed opinion of the other members that such an invasion would not be in accordance with the principles of the UN. Just read the transcripts of the famous sessions at that time.

It was already a severe diplomatic setback - a separate resolution proposal saying the same thing again (and which would have been vetoed by the USA and Britain anyway) would have been entirely redundant and would have been a further diplomatic escalation with little substantial consequence, which was not desired even by the opponents at that time.

A resolution that the US was acting in explicit violation of the UN Charter would have been a much greater diplomatic setback than the expressed opinion of other members that the US would not be acting in accordance with the Charter. In fact, it would likely have prompted the Congress to attempt to rein Bush in. That the initial effort to stop the US didn't specifically cite that such an attack would be a violation of the Charter tells me that the supporters of the effort knew that they couldn't make that case.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:36 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 97):
A resolution that the US was acting in explicit violation of the UN Charter would have been a much greater diplomatic setback than the expressed opinion of other members that the US would not be acting in accordance with the Charter. In fact, it would likely have prompted the Congress to attempt to rein Bush in.

a) The purpose of the opposition wasn´t to prepare the biggest possible setback for the Bush administration (not that they hadn´t deserved it), it was preventing the disaster we´re now watching as it unfolds - pretty much exactly as predicted.

b) There would not have been a resolution due to the US and the british vetoes blocking any majority.

c) We all know that at least at the time the US legislation was so preoccupied with renaming potato products (instead of making sure to send their troops only where absolutely necessary) that they certainly wouldn´t have been swayed even by a decision of the organisation they openly harrassed and ridiculed at every turn.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 97):
That the initial effort to stop the US didn't specifically cite that such an attack would be a violation of the Charter tells me that the supporters of the effort knew that they couldn't make that case.

Pursuing such an official judgment about the obvious violation (which you haven´t been able to contest, apparently!) would have been a highly political act; After the Bush administration rushing to their failure, damage control was at the top of the agenda, not the persecution of the law.

I agree that that was a mistake when looking at the larger picture; International law must be preserved and blatant violations must be prosecuted, at least up to an official condemnation. When people (and nations) always stand back and wring their hands without raising their voices while the perpetrators violate the law with impunity, things can only get worse. And that´s exactly what has happened.

The open opposition against the invasion (and against the disruption of due process) was a good start; But it can´t just stop there. When we´re talking about reforms, this is one thing that cannot be glossed over as well. It´s the hard, uncomfortable truth for some, but when we´re at it, this is an integral part of it!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush May Appoint Bolton To UN Next Week

Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:29 pm

Amazing how all you U.N.-worshipers keep harping how the U.N. is such a beacon for legitimacy and truth keep forgetting how the U.N. was filling its pockets with the oil-for-food program while Iraqi children were starved for 12 years. I met a Russian lawyer in Turkey last month who worked on oil-for-food, and he told me how very upset he and his collegues were when the U.S. invaded. He personally had made a substantial little fortune for himself with oil-for-food, and so had all his friends.

WHat did the U.N. do to stop the bloodshed and persecution in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? Nothing. They are too busy in Geneva building their little empires. The only way they do something is when somebody grabs them by the ear and drags them in kicking and screaming.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 98):
I agree that that was a mistake when looking at the larger picture; International law must be preserved and blatant violations must be prosecuted, at least up to an official condemnation. When people (and nations) always stand back and wring their hands without raising their voices while the perpetrators violate the law with impunity, things can only get worse. And that´s exactly what has happened.

I could swear you were talking about how Iraq was flauting the U.N. for 12 years...
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flipdewaf, ZB052 and 43 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos