NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D13965577)

He doesn't seem to be that bad.... (cept shave his mustache!! argh it's ugly. :D )

Yeah, we all know how great somebody is when they're against the United Nations.

Yeah, we all know how great somebody is when they're against the United Nations.
Actually I'm quite anti-UN myself :)

Oh, really? I never noticed.

cept shave his mustache!! argh it's ugly. :D )
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
IT BUUURRRRNNNSSS USSSSS!!!!

Hes a friend of my father

Clicky (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D13965577)

He doesn't seem to be that bad.... (cept shave his mustache!! argh it's ugly. :D )
Yeah I know nothing of his politics but he gets a D- on the stache. What the hell? Its pure white, it perpetually looks as if he was just sloppily drinking a glass of milk.

Thats not a moustache. Its a pet caterpillar. The hairy type. :D

All facial hair comments aside, I'm of two minds about him, and diplomacy in general.

Its nice sometimes to have a diplomat cut through the niceties of diplomacy with fiery, hard hitting words of wisdom.

Its also nice sometimes to have a smooth talker ease the tensions of a difficult negotiations with some subtle wrangling and verbal manuevering.

The man seems to be very much the former, however I would suggest that perhaps this administration already has enough hard-hitting, plain spoken, fiery speakers as is. The only thing I can think of is that the administration is worried that such "diplomatic" speech will only dilute their message; as was often said of Colin Powell.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

I thought this was a joke at first.

It's like appointing a Nazi ambassador to Israel. He hates the U.N. He feels it is outmoded and a threat to American hegemony.

Although he has a reputation as a "tough-minded diplomat", only one of those three words is true. He isn't much of a diplomat, as shown by his penchant for offending his negotiating partner (see North Korean missile talks), and frankly, his mustache discounts the "mind" part of that statement too. This only leaves tough, and take it from a foreigner- everyone in the world knows America is tough. We just aren't all sure that they're open to logical, reasonable debate.

All in all, a very poor choice.

All in all, a very poor choice.

For an organization that has presided over or approved of more massacres of more people than Hitler, and been completely unable to channel aid to Iraqis during the Oil for Food program (instead, lining their own pockets and allowing Saddam to buy even more weapons from Europeans), one wonders just who a good choice would be.

I would suggest, that before we pick a better US Ambassador, that perhaps we sack most of the UN staff, starting with Kofi Annan.

Could be worse. Could be Michael Bolton. I think the UN will survive having one of it's critics present. Bad easy listening music would be much more cruel.

Clicky (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D13965577)

He doesn't seem to be that bad.... (cept shave his mustache!! argh it's ugly. :D )
dammit. i thought you said MICHAEL BOLTON. i was getting this dream ,of kofi and him doing bad kareoke duets. then i read it again. what a let down.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]For an organization that has presided over or approved of more massacres of more people than Hitler, and been completely unable to channel aid to Iraqis during the Oil for Food program (instead, lining their own pockets and allowing Saddam to buy even more weapons from Europeans), one wonders just who a good choice would be.

QUOTE]

I assume by massacres you are referring to the genocide in Rwanda (where the U.S. and others used their veto to prevent needed additional peacekeepers) or perhaps the Congo (who sent peacekeepers? not the United States) or maybe one of the other unfortunately too-prevalent events. I would suggest that someone more in a Colin Powell-mode, by which I mean someone who can reason with other nations without making them feel that the U.S. believes them to be beneath their contempt, be selected. Last I checked there were plenty of Americans who prefer to discuss possible courses of action rather than unilateraly impose them.

For the record: I am not attempting to blame the U.S. for those horrible atrocities, merely pointing out that they did nothing to help the U.N., and indeed hampered the efforts of that institution.

Yes, of all the people to make Ambassador to the UN, it seems that the optimal choice to head up Bush's primary interface to the community of nations is a guy who has stated that there is no such thing as the UN, that "Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a 'make my day' outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system." (Washington Times, 10/24/98), and who, at a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association stated "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."


Clearly a man who will show the proper respect for the institution that he will be attending...


And clearly one who will be up open and up front with the people should the United States continue the doctrine of pre-emption and extend beyond simple sabre rattling in the cases of Syria or Iran. After all, it's not like during his tender in Justice that he refused to provide congressional committees documents on Supreme Court nominees William Renquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy and also refused to provide information, including his personal notes regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, and instead aided congressional Republicans who attempted to stop investigations of Contra drug smuggling....

Oh wait. No - he did that too.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,873093,00.html

Yes, kind of like Kofi Annan and his son not wanting to cough up documentation, either... Seems that's a requirement for anyone working at the UN.

I'm sure he'll fit right in with the good ol' boys who would rather put billions into their own pockets rather than help a single poor person.

If the UN building suddenly had 10 floors of its building mysteriously disappear (like on the X-Files), would anyone miss them?

The answer is, "No."

The reason that the UN is so ineffective (or one of the reasons, anyway) is that it was never designed to resolve small-scale conflicts. It was designed to allow the Americans and the Soviets to talk things over in a somewhat civil manner, and to prevent a nuclear war.
Now that the immediate danger of nuclear war is past (and if anyone here thinks North Korea or Iran or Iraq- oh no wait, they've already been invaded- is a serious nuclear war threat, you should stop drinking that whitehouse Kool-Aid), and there is only one superpower, the UN needs to be restructured to deal with emerging issues, terrorism, unilateralism and the like.
Incidently, you may mock the UN all you like, but at least they HAD peacekeepers in Rwanda, and they HAVE peacekeepers in the Congo. None of those peacekeepers are American.
I certainly don't expect America to fix the world, but at least do the world the common courtesy of pretending to listen to what they have to say. Bolton is a fierce unilateralist who believes that "might is right", precisely the sort of attitudes that Bush promised to address in his second term.

Yes, kind of like Kofi Annan and his son not wanting to cough up documentation, either... Seems that's a requirement for anyone working at the UN.

I'm sure he'll fit right in with the good ol' boys who would rather put billions into their own pockets rather than help a single poor person

I didn't know Kofi Annan's son was a member of the UN? Please elaborate? Lets also not forget that it was us who installed Kofi to begin with after we no longer liked what Butros Butros Gali was doing. We just never seem to be happy.

Incidently, you may mock the UN all you like, but at least they HAD peacekeepers in Rwanda, and they HAVE peacekeepers in the Congo. None of those peacekeepers are American.


And yes, Dallaire called Kofi Annan personally, and asked for permission to save at least some of the victims of the Rwandan massacres. And Kofi, without consulting anyone, told him "No.".

As they boarded the aircraft to leave, the Belgian troops who had served as peacekeepers threw away their UN berets and cut the UN patches off their uniforms with knives, threw them on the ground, and spat on them.

In most places where there is conflict, United Nations is a two-word phrase that translates to "your enemy now has permission to massacre you while the world watches".

If the UN isn't working well, it isn't the fault of the United States.

And yes, Dallaire called Kofi Annan personally, and asked for permission to save at least some of the victims of the Rwandan massacres. And Kofi, without consulting anyone, told him "No.".

I think you are incorrect. From what I understand Clinton wanted it vetoed because we didn't want another Somalia on our hands. Kofi doesn't have that kind of power.

I agree completely. The U.N. isn't working well, and it isn't the fault of the United States. That means the U.N. should be heavily reformed, not abolished.
A man like John Bolton has no credibility at the UN, and thus cannot effect change. Someone who is in favor of reform, not abolishment should be sent. This sort of man would be an asset, both to the United States, and to the UN.

I agree completely. The U.N. isn't working well, and it isn't the fault of the United States. That means the U.N. should be heavily reformed, not abolished.
A man like John Bolton has no credibility at the UN, and thus cannot effect change. Someone who is in favor of reform, not abolishment should be sent. This sort of man would be an asset, both to the United States, and to the UN.

I agree with your take on it. I feel the same way.

I think you are incorrect. From what I understand Clinton wanted it vetoed because we didn't want another Somalia on our hands. Kofi doesn't have that kind of power.
Annan was the head of peacekeeping operations at the time, not the secretary general. As such, he could order the "peacekeepers" in Rwanda to "keep the peace". He did nothing of the sort.

A report was delivered to General Romeo Daillaire that the Tutsi ethnic group was being registered, and this was a prelude to a plan to kill 1,000 of them every 20 minutes. The General warned Kofi Annan (currently secretary general), the head of U.N. peacekeeping operations, of this, and suggested disarming the Hutu militias who posed the threat. Annan ordered Daillaire not to take action and not even to protect his informant, but to simply inform other governments about the situation.

Later - there was a Security Council resolution that failed because Clinton did not want to help the UN, either. Clinton didn't care if a bunch of Africans killed each other.

More on the useless UN:

The town of Srebrenica was one of many of the "safe areas" placed under U.N. protection in 1993. As Bosnian Serb forces attacked, the United Nations denied its own peacekeeping forces military backup, and without any resistance, the United Nations allowed Bosnian Serb forces to overrun the town and carry out the systematic, mass executions of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims. The blame now is placed squarely on the United Nation’s policy of appeasement, which had encouraged the Bosnian Serbs.


It was NATO action, not the United Nations, that finally brought all of this to a halt.

And yes, Dallaire called Kofi Annan personally, and asked for permission to save at least some of the victims of the Rwandan massacres. And Kofi, without consulting anyone, told him "No."

While I find Annan's actions in this particular instance disgusting, I think he believed that nobody would support an expanded mission, especially after Somalia. But this is an example of what is wrong with the UN. It needs to have the clout to stop these sort of incidents, and there needs to be a way for heroes like Romeo Dallaire to make their case to more people than their direct superior.
Thank you for your support, Xanaz.

More on the useless UN:

The town of Srebrenica was one of many of the "safe areas" placed under U.N. protection in 1993. As Bosnian Serb forces attacked, the United Nations denied its own peacekeeping forces military backup, and without any resistance, the United Nations allowed Bosnian Serb forces to overrun the town and carry out the systematic, mass executions of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims. The blame now is placed squarely on the United Nation’s policy of appeasement, which had encouraged the Bosnian Serbs.


Although I am only familiar with the basics of what occured in somalia, this is correct as far as I can remember. It is an example of the inefficiency in current peacekeeping procedure, something that needs to be fixed. However, I'm curious, do you think peacekeeping by the UN is a total waste of time, and if so, who do you think should take responsibilty for these types of missions? Bear in mind that the US military is already overstretched, and would not be likely to be welcomed by ANY country.

While I find Annan's actions in this particular instance disgusting, I think he believed that nobody would support an expanded mission, especially after Somalia. But this is an example of what is wrong with the UN. It needs to have the clout to stop these sort of incidents, and there needs to be a way for heroes like Romeo Dallaire to make their case to more people than their direct superior.
Thank you for your support, Xanaz.

The reason that the Somalia mission failed is that Clinton's advisers (Madeline Albright in particular) micromanaged the military mission and forbade them from using the force necessary to accomplish the mission. Albright, for instance, forbade the use of US tanks or AC-130 gunships.

You are either using a military to truly bring peace to an area, re-establish government and stability, or you should never have come.

If, for example, the Rangers in Somalia had had access to M-1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, and an AC-130 overhead, it would not have been a debacle.

It is a serious mistake for a President to employ the military, and then micromanage how it is to be employed. That's a one way ticket to getting men killed uselessly, and to have the mission itself fail in a major way.

It is a serious mistake for a President to employ the military, and then micromanage how it is to be employed. That's a one way ticket to getting men killed uselessly, and to have the mission itself fail in a major way.

Yes, that's one way to do it. Similarly, in Rwanda Dallaire claimed that if his original command, a 5000- strong mechanized division was in Rwanda, the genocide would have been halted. This was later confirmed by West Point academecians. Just one more way to undercut peacekeeping- by not sending sufficient troops with the proper mandate.

Yes, that's one way to do it. Similarly, in Rwanda Dallaire claimed that if his original command, a 5000- strong mechanized division was in Rwanda, the genocide would have been halted. This was later confirmed by West Point academecians. Just one more way to undercut peacekeeping- by not sending sufficient troops with the proper mandate.

You would have to re-write the UN Charter, as well.

The item that Kofi Annan cited was the fact that any troops on a peacekeeping operation are operating under Chapter IV. Even if you have the whole US Army there, if it's a Chapter IV peacekeeping operation, they can only stand there and observe.

Nice. The UN is hamstrung by its own Charter. From the inside out, it is a useless and completely moribund and impotent organization.

Wasn't Dallaire a Canadian , not an American though? I think he was.

The reason that the Somalia mission failed is that Clinton's advisers (Madeline Albright in particular) micromanaged the military mission and forbade them from using the force necessary to accomplish the mission. Albright, for instance, forbade the use of US tanks or AC-130 gunships.

You are either using a military to truly bring peace to an area, re-establish government and stability, or you should never have come.

If, for example, the Rangers in Somalia had had access to M-1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, and an AC-130 overhead, it would not have been a debacle.

It is a serious mistake for a President to employ the military, and then micromanage how it is to be employed. That's a one way ticket to getting men killed uselessly, and to have the mission itself fail in a major way.
What do you think international reaction would have been to a US AC 130 blasting a trail through Mogadishu? There was no way to achieve the UN objective of feeding the Somalis and stopping Aidid's militia (who was hijacking food shipments to starve his enemies) without using much more force than the UN would allow. It was a doomed mission from the beginning.

Yes, Dallaire was Canadian.

Mr. Bolton has fought long and hard against the attempts of the U.N. to do away with the right of free people to keep and bear arms; his presence will be nothing but a boon for free people everywhere. Kudos to President Bush for this appointment.

get the US out of the UN and then kick the UN out of the US, let's see the pansy ass Euro appeaseniks and tin pot dictatorships when they have to work and live somewhere in Religion of peaceostan

I think you are incorrect. From what I understand Clinton wanted it vetoed because we didn't want another Somalia on our hands. Kofi doesn't have that kind of power.
Actually that's how that particular incident went down. While it is true that that fuckwit clinton didn't want us there; when Kofi could easily have saved that particular group of people he said no.

get the US out of the UN and then kick the UN out of the US, let's see the pansy ass Euro appeaseniks and tin pit dictatorships when they have to work and live somewhere in Religion of peaceostan

Ah, what do I say? I'll start by pointing out that Hitler was European. Then I'll point out that the region of Peaceostan wouldn't be a bad place, as peace is generally a good thing. Then I'll point you in the direction of a good English tutor. :D

You would have to re-write the UN Charter, as well.

The item that Kofi Annan cited was the fact that any troops on a peacekeeping operation are operating under Chapter IV. Even if you have the whole US Army there, if it's a Chapter IV peacekeeping operation, they can only stand there and observe.

Nice. The UN is hamstrung by its own Charter. From the inside out, it is a useless and completely moribund and impotent organization.

I believe you mean a Chapter VI mission, and yes, of course your right about its limitations. Dallaire in his book advocates a "six and a half" mission, something between combat (Chapter VII) and standing there doing nothing (Chapter VI). Again, reform, not abolishment.

What do you think international reaction would have been to a US AC 130 blasting a trail through Mogadishu? There was no way to achieve the UN objective of feeding the Somalis and stopping Aidid's militia (who was hijacking food shipments to starve his enemies) without using much more force than the UN would allow. It was a doomed mission from the beginning.

If the international community wants something done (like the removal of Aidid), and they send a military unit to do it, they should NEVER tell the military unit how to do it - or restrict any of their conventional weaponry. If you do, the mission will be a failure.

With the proper mission package, Aidid would have been removed and his militia annihilated. As it is, the Rangers managed to cripple his Habr Gidr militia - but it would have cost far fewer US lives if there had been an AC-130.

If the international community isn't willing to use force to accomplish the goal, don't send any troops. Send Greenpeace members in Hawaiian shirts.

If the international community isn't willing to use force to accomplish the goal, don't send any troops. Send Greenpeace members in Hawaiian shirts.

Once the decision has been reached to use force, the operation should leave the realm of politics and become the problem of the soldiers and their commanders on the ground. However, I think it should be noted that the decision to use force should be avoided where possible. Once that decisioion has been made, though, it must be carried out.
(One of the chief problems Dallaire had in Rwanda was that his troops, primarily the Belgians, went to Belgian politicians whenever they had a problem with the UN orders. This political circumvention is the primary reason peacekeeping missions fail.)

For an organization that has presided over or approved of more massacres of more people than Hitler, and been completely unable to channel aid to Iraqis during the Oil for Food program
What do you expect them to be, the world police or something?

I think it will ultimately make no difference, other than shock value. There may be someone to criticise the UN at every turn, but the UN is so set in its ways that a really big shock would be needed.

What do you expect them to be, the world police or something?
Well, yes. They are an international forum that expresses the collective will of sovereign government. Being such, shouldn't the UN peacekeepers be allowed to undertake offensive action?

Well, yes. They are an international forum that expresses the collective will of sovereign government. Being such, shouldn't the UN peacekeepers be allowed to undertake offensive action?
Remember that the "collective will" of nations is not always so collective. It is kind of like the way everything would get done faster under a dictatorship because no debating needs to be done. That's probably why the UN peacekeepers look so inert compared to the armies of individual countries.