It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I doubt they can replace Kofi Anan- that man was a
true diplomat in every sense of the word. A bully does not a diplomat make.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I hope this is not indicative of the next two years in Washington. The Democrats have said that they want the new congress to work in a bi-partisan fashion. It seems that bi-partisan means that things will be their way only.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel - throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
Originally posted by DYepes
Can anyone please explain any scenarios in the globe right now that will be better off being dealt with using force and war, as opposed to negotiations and diplomacy?
The only thing that comes to my mind is the Genocide in Sudan. North Korea already has enough sanctions on it to where more just wont do much more at all. Attacking them would leave the Capital of the South in ruins within hours, cost up to thousands of American soldiers live's along the borders, and may very well leave Japan under missle attacks for up to several days.
Attacking Iran would draw in a complete regional war. US forces in Iraq will be pinned in by Iran and Syria, and Israel would unfortunately fall under chaos. But we cant be soft and attacking them would be the right thing to do I am sure
Those who keep talking about being soft and the UN being weak seem to not understand, going to war does not make any of the situations better at all, in fact makes them worse.
Originally posted by subz
Seems that Bolton losing his position at the UN is the bi-partisan wish. Anything else would be the Bush administration riding roughshod over everyone elses concerns.
Notable Bolton quote
"The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question, THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, is what's in our national interest. And if you dont like that, im sorry but that is the facts"
What an Ambassador Bolton has not only shown contempt for the UN as an institution but is on record as stating the UN is beholden to American interests and is incapable of working unless the United States wishes it to work.
UNdiplomatic, Time for a Bolton Confirmation Vote
Kofi Annan's deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, takes a swing at the "U.S. heartland,” and UN Ambassador Bolton fires back. It’s too bad. Brown had made an effort to reach out to UN skeptics in the U.S., holding luncheons, etc. and acknowledging that the UN needed major structural reform. His remarks may make the liberals at the Center for American Progress all tingly inside but they will further harm the UN’s reputation among conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill and “heartland” Americans. Considering how much good America does in the world – a truly outrageous statement to make if one only read and believed what’s on some of the lefty blogs -- Mr. Brown really blew it on this one.
PS: Senate Republicans should make Democrats squirm and seek a confirmation vote on the recessed-appointed Bolton as soon as possible.
www.weeklystandard.com...
Which is bloody accurate when you view how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved because the United States vetoes any UN measures aimed at ending the conflict.
Yet, should a man who thinks this American obstructionism is a good thing be the best man to represent the US at the UN?
Originally posted by jsobecky
I realize this may dismay you, but he is correct. No other nation will act in our best interests.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Bolton is pro-Israel, no doubt. So you think he should abandon that support, for the sake of....what, exactly?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Supportive, yes. Obstructionist, that's just sensationalism.
And to blame the US for the situation in the ME is wrong. It takes two to tango, and Arafat never knew how to dance. Talk about obstructionist, he was it.
Originally posted by jsobecky
You make some compelling points, subz. But I think that some of your statements need clarification. Like the part about the entire world thinking one way, and the US thinking otherwise. That only pertains to the situations where a unanimous vote is necessary from the UNSC. And it is true, invariably it will be the US on one side and the other permanent members on the other side.
Originally posted by jsobecky
And I agree that the UN is not there to further the desires of any one nation. That is the job of the diplomats. And they follow the wishes of the current administration, so the views they express are not necessarily their own. Anyway, in this area, Bolton has excelled. There are many countries who would use the UN to destroy the US if it were possible.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I personally think that the UN is an ineffective organization, and that it is corrupt. You would disagree, I'm sure. But that would be a topic for another thread.