Senate Will Likely Fight Over Bush UN Pick

[Guest MikeSC]

You mean what the US needs.

No, it's what the UN needs.

 

The organization is fucked up, quite possibly beyond repair.

 

It doesn't need a "nice, sweet guy" to address this problem. They need people who recognize that there IS a major problem and are not afraid to say it.

 

Bolton, hopefully, will be the guy to start the repairs that so desperately need to be made. Being friendly has not worked and the UN has become a haven of corruption, forced child prostitution, and an all-around black eye in the world.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Or perhaps Mike is right, and the Reps are just trying to do the wrong thing so that Dems will have to do the right thing and at the same time, go against the US in favor of the UN?

[2GOLD 0]

I honestly think we should leave the UN.

It's became a worthless organization because it has been corrupted to hell and never came back.

 

In theory, the UN was a good idea. But as we have seen, lots of stuff look good in theory.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Once a paid consultant to the Taiwanese government, Bolton favors Taiwan's independence and its full U.N. membership -- a dangerous position in light of cross-straits tensions and our efforts to obtain Chinese pressure on North Korea. Will Bolton set aside his support for a Taiwanese U.N. seat while manning the U.S. seat on the Security Council?

 

Bolton flatly opposes the use of U.N. peacekeepers in civil conflicts, because he does not deem these "threats to international peace and security." By his logic, the United Nations has no business doing peacekeeping in many places where the Bush administration has supported its deployment of forces.

 

Bolton has testified against U.N. involvement in Congo, an inter-state conflict that has cost 3 million lives. He blasted the United Nations' concept of operations for its Ethiopia-Eritrea operation and rejected the U.N. civil administration missions in Kosovo and East Timor. Will Bolton undergo such a conversion on the road to First Avenue that he can effectively support U.N. peace operations?

 

Finally, Bolton criticized any " 'right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide." One must wonder how forcefully he will work to halt what the administration deems genocide in Darfur.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1-2005Mar7.html

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Finally, Bolton criticized any " 'right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide." One must wonder how forcefully he will work to halt what the administration deems genocide in Darfur.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA just what we needed, eh.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...n_annan_reforms

 

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called for the boldest changes to the United Nations in the history of the world body, saying they are needed to tackle global threats in the 21st century. But getting leaders to agree on the package won't be easy.

 

(...)

 

One of the major proposals in the package calls for a new Human Rights Council as a major U.N. organ — possibly on a par with the Security Council — to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights. That panel has long faced criticism for allowing the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

 

"The creation of the council would accord human rights a more authoritative position," and put it on the same level as security and development, Annan said.

 

Annan also called for an expansion of the U.N. Security Council to reflect the global realities today, but he left the details to the General Assembly. He urged its members to decide on a plan before the September summit, preferably by consensus, but if that's impossible by a vote.

 

Annan backed two options proposed in December by a high-level panel. One would add six new permanent members and the other would create a new tier of eight semi-permanent members: two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. He left open the possibility of other ideas.

 

(...)

 

For years, a comprehensive convention against terrorism has been held up over a definition of terrorism, with some countries arguing that one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters. Annan said the debate must end and all countries must accept that resisting occupation "cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians."

 

He called for adoption of a convention by September 2006 with the definition of terrorism in the high-level panel's report. It said terrorism includes any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

 

More at the link.

[Guest MikeSC]

Once a paid consultant to the Taiwanese government, Bolton favors Taiwan's independence and its full U.N. membership -- a dangerous position in light of cross-straits tensions and our efforts to obtain Chinese pressure on North Korea. Will Bolton set aside his support for a Taiwanese U.N. seat while manning the U.S. seat on the Security Council?

 

Bolton flatly opposes the use of U.N. peacekeepers in civil conflicts, because he does not deem these "threats to international peace and security." By his logic, the United Nations has no business doing peacekeeping in many places where the Bush administration has supported its deployment of forces.

 

Bolton has testified against U.N. involvement in Congo, an inter-state conflict that has cost 3 million lives. He blasted the United Nations' concept of operations for its Ethiopia-Eritrea operation and rejected the U.N. civil administration missions in Kosovo and East Timor. Will Bolton undergo such a conversion on the road to First Avenue that he can effectively support U.N. peace operations?

 

Finally, Bolton criticized any " 'right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide." One must wonder how forcefully he will work to halt what the administration deems genocide in Darfur.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1-2005Mar7.html

Wow, a Clinton apointee dislikes Bolton. Color me shocked.

 

Oooh, supporting Taiwan is something we SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG. Nixon was a dick to change our policy in the first place. Taiwan, while imperfect, has a human rights record that is superior to China's.

 

I oppose using UN Peacekeepers as they have a nasty habit of RAPING LITTLE GIRLS or FORCING THEM INTO PROSTITUTION.

 

Can anybody explain how the UN FIXED anything in Congo?

 

Bolton is what the UN needs. And if the Dems really want to fight a guy who "puts America's interests ahead of the UN's" --- which is the gist of their complaints --- then that is political suicide.

Or perhaps Mike is right, and the Reps are just trying to do the wrong thing so that Dems will have to do the right thing and at the same time, go against the US in favor of the UN?

Bolton is the right person for the job.

 

The UN needs massive repair --- Kofi's "solutions" will be as useless as they always tend to be --- and they need somebody who will MAKE them change.

 

Bolton is that man.

 

A great choice by Bush.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Finally, Bolton criticized any " 'right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Can anybody explain how the UN FIXED anything in Congo?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1443494.stm

 

The former president seemed to have no interest in an end to the war but under his son Joseph there has been tangible progress.

 

A ceasefire is now in place and UN monitors have fanned out across the country to oversee troop withdrawals from the front line.

 

After months of frustration the United Nations mission in Congo has a new dynamism.

 

The war stopped trade along the river - a lifeline for many rural communities.

 

The United Nations presence assures people that it is safe to begin again.

 

Across the country the blue berets have been welcomed enthusiastically by ordinary Congolese who are heartily sick of the war.

 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00071.htm

[The Czech Republic 0]

Supranational entities are no good. That goes for the European Union too.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Supranational entities are no good. That goes for the European Union too.

WWII?

 

The Allied Powers?

 

Cold War--NATO?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Allied Powers =/= European Union

[BUTT 0]

 

That's right, don't compare us to those pussies.

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's quite a gay picture.