Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed

I just sat there with my mouth hanging open when I saw this last night.If anyone wants to know why Bolton should NOT BE CONFIRMED as the US ambassador to the UN, watch this video.It was clearly a big "f*ck you!" from Bush to the UN to even nominate him, and I am appalled that he is even being considered. here,here,here, or here.

I was totally confused. I first thought you meant the place Bolton, and I was trying (and failing) to make sense of any of what you just said.*head slap*This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 16-May-2005 05:21 PM

Schraf, What was it, in the order of 16-18 Chapter Seven resolutions over Iraq passed unanimously post 1991? When it comes to backing up those resolutions, not a backbone to be seen anywhere.Why shouldn't it be treated with the contempt it deserves?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The UN is not perfect, but it is useful in many ways.It can, however, make things difficult for the US if it really wanted to, and I wouldn't blame them at all if Bolton becomes the new Ambassador to the UN.Bolton isn't just a critic of the UN.He thinks the UN should be abolished and the only thing that matters iswhat the US wants, and to hell with the rest of the world.Is that the attitude you want the US to have?

I'll say.... FOXThe UN is just a tool for 3d world thugs to attempt to reign the US in.Another example... CNN

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

The UN might or might not be a second-rate talking shop, but that don't have anything to do with whether Bolton would represent the United States.All I know is that the mustache is really, really creepy.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

That's right, the US was booted off the UN Human Rights commission and Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo and Uganda were all added. What are the human rights records of those countries? Of course it doesn't matter since that commitee is a hypocritical sham anyway.

quote:

---

The hypocrisy of the expulsion from the UN Human Rights Commission was glaringly obvious by which nations were voted in. At the same time the US was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission, Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Togo — all countries with poor to atrocious human rights records — were voted into the commission.

​

The Muslim Sudanese government, for instance, has slaughtered or enslaved some 2 million Sudanese Christians and animists in Southern Sudan in one of the most massive "ethnic cleansing" efforts in the history of mankind. Yet, not only has the UN turned a blind eye to this atrocity, they voted the offending government to sit on the very same UN commission that is supposed to prevent these kind of violations.

---

I say give 'em Bolton.

Me too - mod.I thought that maybe we were going to hear something about Big Sam!

Hi Schraf, The UN as it stands is as useful in the same way as a charity, it serves as a pool of resources when someone wants it to. Sometimes. But it just has no teeth to do what it needs to do. In the case of Iraq, it couldn't even back up it's own resolutions.This is serious. What's the point in having an organisation that claims to be the United Nations, & its members directly oppose what they had unanimously implicated themselves with? This isn't a pro/anti Iraq war rant, but why were states voting in favour of resolutions that were implicitly backed by the use of force if they were so against the use of force? What were they thinking? Didn't it occur to someone that they shouldn't be talking the talk if they weren't prepared to walk the walk? What's wrong with a resolution under a different chapter that doesn't threaten force if the resolution is breached?I'm no fan of George Dubya I assure you, but I think he has a legitimate reason to doubt the UN's credibility. What better place to put Bolton out of harms way and at the same time make a point, from Bush's point of view, of course. How can the UN make it difficult for the US? The US pulls out & is richer as a result. The US no longer has to go through the irksome process of getting people to back up resolutions they voted for? That'll teach 'em . Clearly Bolton is a dick, but putting someone who is anti-UN in the UN isn't going to bring the UN down. Maybe he should run for president in four years, that might bring it down . It is, as you say, GWB saying "fuck you". And why not? A sandpit of intransigent hypocrites deserves all that it gets. Now, having had GWB's middle finger extended in it's general direction, the UN can get on with all the other "useful" things that it gets up to.The UN will live on, it won't learn, but it will live on. It will even occasionally do wonderful & necessary things. It could be so much more.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Schrafinator:Hello there. While I do not disagree that Bolton should not get confirmed, I have to admit that I view the reasoning behind the nomination a bit differently than you. Personally, I don’t think that Dubya is bright enough to have thought that nominating Bolton as UN Ambassador would be a big middle finger to the UN. I think he is doing it to the Democrats.I think he just wants to show everybody that he can get whatever the hell he wants. He nominates a guy that he knows will piss off the Democrats but says kiss my assI want him and I’m gonna get him and there’s nothing you can do about it.That’s why I do not want Bolton to get the votes. Bolton is a dick, and even George knows it, but he wants to show how tough he is by getting his man the Ambassadorship none-the-less. Look, even a number of Republicans admit that he’s not really the best man for the jobbut what do you wanna bet that they will show absolutely no integrity whatsoever and vote for him anyway.Anyway, that’s just my humble little opinion. And, heymy wife just bought her first horse!

The guy is right, though. Why should we be forced to compromise our national interests so that a couple of hundred little countries that owe us a lot of money, by the way..will dictate global policy? Theissue is not the big bad powerful U.S. The issue is that the third world votes in a block and dictates where OUR money (basically all U.N. money) should be spent.They could find a better candidate, however. I will agree with that.

It stays in place even when he's at his most rabid!I agree, Bolton would be a disaster, but I think this is more than a big F**k you. This is a calculated political move, and while Flies may have a point about this being a gesture to the Democrats I think it is mainly born out of two factors:1. This is what a large section of the Republican guard actually want - "We got the tanks, we got the missuls, we got the money. Why do we have to listen to the rest of the world?"2. It is an extremely good diversion from the difficult foreign policy questions that should be being answered. Human rights abuse, resistance in Iraq, an ignored Afghanistan...all brushed under the carpet as someone shouts "OOOH LOOK OVER THERE. FOOD FOR OIL!"I am always astounded when I see shortsighted views such as those Bolton expressed in the video. Yes, in the short term riding roughshod over the rest of the world will probably be in the US's best interests. Longer term however, the only way to ensure a safe and fair world (which is in everybody's interest) is to have a functioning UN. The only way to have a healthy international community is to have the US on board and playing by the rules. How else can you expect other people to listen?

I agree. How can they understand our way of life, though? They are not free people, but they are poor. We need to inform them that we can't bankroll everything. (Including the war that we started,BTW) How can we get along with the rest of the world when they expect us to change? The rich will never cough it up. It is between the shrinking wallets of the American Middle class and the rest of the world.

deleted by editor.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 05:56 PM

So we are the ultimate world force that is beyond rebuke?I think a more current terminology would be 'developing countries' as opposed to '3rd world', but what makes you so convinced that the US can and should stand unquestioned as THE dominant world force ?That is so egocentric."In what amounts to a stinging rebuke, the United States has been voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva."The Patriot Act was grounds enough for that.