NationStates Jolt Archive

At 10:00 AM ET, President Bush appoints Bolton to the United Nations via a recess appointment. He'll remain there till the next Congressional session in 2007.

I applaud the decision. An ambassador that constently criticizes the UN is precisely what the UN needs. You can't appoint someone that'll stick with the status quo.

Congrats Bush. About time!

Bolton's appointment is a big and long overdue slap in the face to the UN. I don't know why Democrats tried to block his appointment.

Now if you really want to piss off the UN send Michael Bolton and make him sing to them.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:TCvVDwYkZswJ:http://it.games-workshop.com/assets/images/mail_order/varie/troll_boxes.jpg

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:TCvVDwYkZswJ:http://it.games-workshop.com/assets/images/mail_order/varie/troll_boxes.jpg
How is expressing a negative opinion of the UN trolling?

Bolton's appointment is a big and long overdue slap in the face to the UN. I don't know why Democrats tried to block his appointment.

Now if you really want to piss off the UN send Michael Bolton and make him sing to them.

Is it weird to be thinking about Office Space after reading this post?

Is it weird to be thinking about Office Space after reading this post?
I got to thinking of Office Space while typing it.

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.

I don't see why any of you are happy about this. This is another nail in the coffin, as far as your nation's relationship with the world is concerned.

*laughs*

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.

As opposed to this being a flamebait post and inflammatory?

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.
I wouldn't disagree.

I got to thinking of Office Space while typing it.

Oh well guess I'd better get back to those TPS reports then.

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.
His post seems OK to me. Are you sure you're not just trying to silence an opinion that you don't agree with?

As opposed to this being a flamebait post and inflammatory?
As opposed to this being an inflammatory, flamebait thread?

As opposed to this being a flamebait post and inflammatory?

Just needed to get it out of my system, headbutting a wall is unsatisfactory. More productive than discussion round here mind...

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.
Why, that's his thread, and Corneliu is totally harmless.

On topic: I doubt that Bolton will accomplish something noticeable in the UN.

As opposed to this being an inflammatory, flamebait thread?

How when it is a news item?

I am glad that Bolton is finally going to the UN. It needs a person like him there.

Why, that's his thread, and Corneliu is totally harmless.

I'm harmless? :mad: I don't want to be harmless! :p

On topic: I doubt that Bolton will accomplish something noticeable in the UN.

Never know.

Of course, if Congress had been provided with the documents it requested, a recess appointment wouldn't have been necessary.

This guy is not going to be able to get *anything* done in the UN. No one is going to give him even a passing glance, as they (a) know he has no respect for it and (b) know he'll only be around for a year.

Now that Bush has decided to go over Congress' collective head, Bolton is incredibly unlikely to ever get a true confirmation.

I don't see why any of you are happy about this. This is another nail in the coffin, as far as your nation's relationship with the world is concerned.

*laughs*
Because the UN is a corrupt and ineffectual organization and appointing one of it's harshest critics to be our representative to it is a fine way of expressing our displeasure with the organization.

Because the UN is a corrupt and ineffectual organization and appointing one of it's harshest critics to be our representative to it is a fine way of expressing our displeasure with the organization.

I think the UN would be perfectly fine if people *ahem* actually listened to it.

I think the UN would be perfectly fine if people *ahem* actually listened to it.

Not just people dude, but if nations will learn to follow it. *looks at France, China, Iraq, and all the other nations*

I agree with Dempublicents1... Bolton won't get much accomplished simply because he has no respect for the UN. I think the UN would be open to change if he approached it with a favorable attitude.

I have no problem with Bush appointing whoever he likes as UN Ambassador, but I think that giving Bolton a recess appointment will greatly weaken his chances of getting anything significant done.

Because the UN is a corrupt and ineffectual organization and appointing one of it's harshest critics to be our representative to it is a fine way of expressing our displeasure with the organization.

Yes, because absolutely ensuring that we can't do anything at all about the corruption because no one is going to listen to our ambassador really sticks it to them.

Not just people dude, but if nations will learn to follow it. *looks at France, China, Iraq, and all the other nations*

That's what I meant with the *ahem*. I really believe that America is mainly to blame, so you know, I wanted to hint and not seem rude and evil.

I don't think it's fair for American's to say the UN doesn't work, when they're the ones who completely disobeyed the UN.

I think the UN would be perfectly fine if people *ahem* actually listened to it.
No, if people actually listened to the UN Israel would have been destroyed by it's neighbors, the oil for food scandal would still be enriching corrupt UN officials, and UN peacekeepers would still be sodomizing and raping little kids in East Timor and Africa.

That's what I meant with the *ahem*. I really believe that America is mainly to blame, so you know, I wanted to hint and not seem rude and evil.

I don't think it's fair for American's to say the UN doesn't work, when they're the ones who completely disobeyed the UN.

Last time I checked, we didnt violate UN Resolutions. Iraq did 17 times plus violating a Cease-fire. Israel have disobeyed the UN as has most of the Middle East.

So tell me how enforcing a UN Approved Cease-fire in Iraq disobeying the UN?

Last time I checked, we didnt violate UN Resolutions. Iraq did 17 times plus violating a Cease-fire. Israel have disobeyed the UN as has most of the Middle East.

So tell me how enforcing a UN Approved Cease-fire in Iraq disobeying the UN?
Are you suggesting that the current war in Iraq is a result of enforcing a UN ceasefire?

Are you suggesting that the current war in Iraq is a result of enforcing a UN ceasefire?

Since Saddam violated the cease-fire......

Are you suggesting that the current war in Iraq is a result of enforcing a UN ceasefire?
The refusal of the UN to actually do anything to enforce their resolutions gave Bush an excuse to help legitimize his invasion in the eyes of his supporters in the US and abroad. Their negligence helped Bush's stupid rush to war.

Since Saddam violated the cease-fire......
As far as I know, The UN security council never approved of the invasion. Only the UN Sec. Concil has the authority to determine whan and if further actions have to be taken.

Bush acted out of the security council and is breaching the same resolution by attacking without the backing of the UN.

Nice try but this justification has been shut down too many times for even you to use.

The refusal of the UN to actually do anything to enforce their resolutions gave Bush an excuse to help legitimize his invasion in the eyes of his supporters in the US and abroad. Their negligence helped Bush's stupid rush to war.
That is a more accurate statement.

As far as I know, The UN security council never approved of the invasion. Only the UN Sec. Concil has the authority to determine whan and if further actions have to be taken.

Last I heard, the UN can't tell another nation that they can't go to war.

Bush acted out of the security council and is breaching the same resolution by attacking without the backing of the UN.

Funny since a cease-fire was violated. That's all the authorization needed.

Nice try but this justification has been shut down too many times for even you to use.

Sorry but under international law, a violation of a cease-fire is an act of war.

Of course, if Congress had been provided with the documents it requested, a recess appointment wouldn't have been necessary.

This guy is not going to be able to get *anything* done in the UN. No one is going to give him even a passing glance, as they (a) know he has no respect for it and (b) know he'll only be around for a year.

Now that Bush has decided to go over Congress' collective head, Bolton is incredibly unlikely to ever get a true confirmation.

Congress didn't request any documents a handful of obstructionist senators did.

They will have no choice but to listen but if they don't hopefully the US will withdraw from the UN or better yet shut it down and kick the sorry corrupt lot of them out.

His appointment runs till early 2007 when this congress ends.

Once again, Bush didn't go over anyones collective heads. A handful of obstructionist senators delayed the confirmation process until they would not be around to participate in the process any longer. It is a constitutional right of the president in just these circumstances. Something Slick Wille did 140 times? Where was the sniveling and whining then?

if anybody can, I'm sure it's Bolton: Will he get the UN to pay New York City the $200+ MILLION it owes in parking tickets??

Last I heard, the UN can't tell another nation that they can't go to war.

As a signatory of the UN charter, the Us has agreed to certain things. One of them is a set of rules on how and when one country should go to war.


Funny since a cease-fire was violated. That's all the authorization needed.



Sorry but under international law, a violation of a cease-fire is an act of war.
You obviously haven't read the UN resolutions and what it entails.

As a signatory of the UN charter, the Us has agreed to certain things. One of them is a set of rules on how and when one country should go to war.

:rolleyes: Sorry but we have the soveriegn right to do what we want.

You obviously haven't read the UN resolutions and what it entails.

You obviously haven't read the UN Cease-fire?

Last I heard, the UN can't tell another nation that they can't go to war.

...
Sorry? The UN could not tell Iraq in 1990 that it is erm... wrong to attack Kuwait?

...

You obviously haven't read the UN resolutions and what it entails.
Unfortunately, Corneliu has. :rolleyes:

Liverbreath']Congress didn't request any documents a handful of obstructionist senators did.

Those "obstructionist senators" (bipartisan, no less) are part of Congress. If they felt that more documentation was necessary to make their decisions, they should have had it provided. We are talking about the US Congress here. Same goes for any high level appointment.

They will have no choice but to listen but if they don't hopefully the US will withdraw from the UN or better yet shut it down and kick the sorry corrupt lot of them out.

Yeah, that's cute. "Hey, we are going to send you an inflammatory asshole that you are guarranteed not to be able to work with. Then, when you can't work with him, we're going to act like babies and pull out."

His appointment runs till early 2007 when this congress ends.

Recess appointments last until the next *session* of Congress, not the next new Congress. In other words, they last a year.

Once again, Bush didn't go over anyones collective heads. A handful of obstructionist senators delayed the confirmation process until they would not be around to participate in the process any longer. It is a constitutional right of the president in just these circumstances.

It really wasn't a "handful". There are quite a few senators that aren't comfortable with Bolton, or with the fact that all documentation was not being provided.

And yes, recess appointments are a right of the president to be used when he wants to get around the confirmation process. However, they really shouldn't be lightly used - as they are going to piss Congress off. Even most of the senators who would have voted for Bolton are not going to be very happy about Bush going around them - especially when they had this situation with judges, and Bush promised not to use recess appointments as much.

One way or another, someone who gets in through a recess appointment is highly unlikely to command the same respect as someone who made it through the confirmation process.

Something Slick Wille did 140 times? Where was the sniveling and whining then?

I wasn't really following politics in Clinton's time. This is the first I have heard of him using recess appointments that many times. How many of them were high level officials?

Sorry? The UN could not tell Iraq in 1990 that it is erm... wrong to attack Kuwait?

They did and authorized a force to kick him out. However, it is up to the nations to supply those troops. However, this was only the 2nd time they've authorized a war against another nation. The only other time they did that was the Korean War and that also ended in a cease-fire.

As for telling Iraq that it was wrong. They can do that yes but to really do anything about it, they needed nations to back it up with troops and that is what we did. The UN has no teeth and must rely on nations to supply them with forces. Remember that President George H.W. Bush still had to come before Congress to get authorization to use force against Iraq. President George W. Bush did the samething for this round of action. Both resolutions passed Congressed.

:rolleyes: Sorry but we have the soveriegn right to do what we want.

Did you skip the part of the Constitution clearly stating that treaties are the Supreme Law of the land?

Recess appointments last until the next *session* of Congress, not the next new Congress. In other words, they last a year.

The Next New Congress convenes in the year 2007!

Did you skip the part of the Constitution clearly stating that treaties are the Supreme Law of the land?

Did you also notice that the UN Charter isn't a treaty?

...

As for telling Iraq that it was wrong. They can do that yes ...
Oh really? :rolleyes:

Did you also notice that the UN Charter isn't a treaty?
Yeah... because your parents, several people in one class or another and friends that you have said that. Isn't it?

Oh really? :rolleyes:

The UN still needed the nations to approve the use of their troops. One thing to pass a resolution. A totally different one to get the authorization to use said force.

Yeah... because your parents, several people in one class or another and friends that you have said that. Isn't it?

Nope. Not it at all.

The UN still needed the nations to approve the use of their troops. One thing to pass a resolution. A totally different one to get the authorization to use said force.
I think that you'll be verry much against establishing a standing UN army.



Nope. Not it at all.
I'll quote your statement from 15 June then.



I have talked to several people in one class or another and friends that I have and they don't think it is. I don't think it is either and neither do my Parents.

To some, it isn't a treaty and that it is just a Charter. To others, it is a treaty. It all depends on how you want to view it.

You have good arguements but I just don't see it as a treaty.

I think that you'll be verry much against establishing a standing UN army.

Actually, I wouldn't be though I would like to see the military structure of it before I am either for it or against it.


I'll quote your statement from 15 June then.

And I am right. It does depend on how you want to look at it. To me, it isn't a treaty. My parents didn't tell me it wasn't. After reading the UN Charter, I came to that conclusion on my own.

...

And I am right. It does depend on how you want to look at it. To me, it isn't a treaty. My parents didn't tell me it wasn't. After reading the UN Charter, I came to that conclusion on my own.

The legal status of an international agreement doesn't depend on your (or mine) point of view. If you, your parents, and your friends don't think that the UN Charter is a treaty - fine, that's their opinion.

However, the UN Charter falls under the legal definition of an international treaty.

The Next New Congress convenes in the year 2007!

Is reading really that hard for you?

Did you also notice that the UN Charter isn't a treaty?

Really?

Treaty: 1 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating
2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b : a document in which such a contract is set down


Are you suggesting that the UN Charter is not a contract between two or more political authorities formally signed by representatives duly authorized and ratified by the lawmaking authorities?

Not just people dude, but if nations will learn to follow it. *looks at France, China, Iraq, and all the other nations*
Why you looking at Iraq? I thought they were your poster-boys for the new Banana Republics. And anyway, look in a mirror before you go pointing fingers, there... "dude".

Or are you too busy living in that there 'doggy dog world' for that?

The legal status of an international agreement doesn't depend on your (or mine) point of view. If you, your parents, and your friends don't think that the UN Charter is a treaty - fine, that's their opinion.

Yes it is my opinion!

However, the UN Charter falls under the legal definition of an international treaty.

Care to show me where in the charter does it say that its a treaty?

Is reading really that hard for you?

No its not. I actually got all A's when I was in grade school in the reading category. I also got high marks in regards to reading comprehension too.

Really?

Treaty: 1 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating
2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b : a document in which such a contract is set down

Very nice. Now.... look up the definition of a charter and you'll see that it fits closer to the Charter definition than it does to a treaty definition. ITs not that hard to figure out.

Are you suggesting that the UN Charter is not a contract between two or more political authorities formally signed by representatives duly authorized and ratified by the lawmaking authorities?

Sounds more like a charter to me than a treaty just based on the defintion of a charter.

...

Care to show me where in the charter does it say that its a treaty?
It is not some sine qua non , Corneliu. Proof?

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Part I, Article 2

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation

Emphasis mine.


I'd like to add that the UN Charter is an international treaty under American law--it was submitted by President for senatorial advice and consent. No kind of international agreement, other than a treaty, requires this. The proof of this requirement is in the US Constitution.

It is not some sine qua non , Corneliu. Proof?

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Part I, Article 2



Emphasis mine.

Nice dodge. Now show me in the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS does it say that the UN is a treaty? I'll save you the effort. It isn't a treaty. All it is, is a charter. Its a business agreement.

I'd like to add that the UN Charter is an international treaty under American law--it was submitted by President for senatorial advice and consent. No kind of international agreement, other than a treaty, requires this. The proof of this requirement is in the US Constitution.

I'd also like to point out that trade agreements are done via the US Congress but they aren't treaties either. NAFTA and CAFTA are both Free TRADE Agreements. Just because it was approved by Congress doesn't mean that its a treaty.

And now that we've gone completely off topic. I am glad that Bush appointed Bolton. He's just what the Doctor order.

I wasn't really following politics in Clinton's time. This is the first I have heard of him using recess appointments that many times. How many of them were high level officials?

High level is kind of a subjective classification, depending on what you consider high level, but Clinton was the one that blew the lid off of recess appointments. He was in the business of making money and sold ambassadorships among other things for 100k each.

Here's a link that will tell you a bit about recess appointments. (without the political garbage)
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

The apointment of John Bolton completely disgusts me.
This is a major step backward for the US, the UN and all of mankind.






P.S wtf are there two threads on the same topic?

Nice dodge. Now show me in the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS does it say that the UN is a treaty? I'll save you the effort. It isn't a treaty. All it is, is a charter. Its a business agreement.
What part of 'whatever its particular designation' you don't understand? A treaty can be called an accord, an agreement, a convention... The list is long.



I'd also like to point out that trade agreements are done via the US Congress but they aren't treaties either. NAFTA and CAFTA are both Free TRADE Agreements. Just because it was approved by Congress doesn't mean that its a treaty.

...
You are lying here.

I have to state this in such terms because I've pointed the inaccuracy of that earlier.

There is a constitutional difference between a treaty approved by the Senate only and a congressional-executive agreement adopted by the Congress as a whole. Read your Constitution.

And now that we've gone completely off topic. I am glad that Bush appointed Bolton. He's just what the Doctor order.
That Doctor need to get his license revoked for malpractice ASAP. He clearly is a quack.

The apointment of John Bolton completely disgusts me.
This is a major step backward for the US, the UN and all of mankind.

Sorry C6 but he isn't your rep! He's ours. I can't wait for him to arrive in NYC!

P.S wtf are there two threads on the same topic?

Actually, there isn't. The other one is to Confirm him already (meaning that he hasn't been confirmed yet)! This one announces his appointment to the UN via recess appointment.

*snip*

Care to get back on topic?

Sorry C6 but he isn't your rep! He's ours. I can't wait for him to arrive in NYC!
Bolton doesn't have to be our (Canada's) rep for his appointment to be a major step backward for the US, the UN and all of mankind.
Care to get back on topic?
Sure. Care to explain what exactly 'a doggy dog world' is before we do?

Care to get back on topic?
As you wish... ;)

Unfortunately, Bolton will have a voice (and his voice is quite loud) in the coming selection of Annan's successor, which is due in 2006... whom he'll find?

The UN charter is what is known as a constituent treaty - this means that any entity that has signed it is bound by its articles. Therefore it is a treaty... you don't have to call the thing a treaty for it to be a treaty. The EU Constitution that is currently faltering is very similar - it's legal status is a treaty.

The apointment of John Bolton completely disgusts me.
This is a major step backward for the US, the UN and all of mankind.


Unless you consider a completely corrupt and ineffective nest of spies and criminals good news for man kind, I'd say it is a good time to take a step backward in order to move forward. Personally I say scrap the lot of them and start anew somewhere else. It's very organizational structure, (the lack of it) is completely open to corruption at almost any level with branchs that are entirely unaccountable to anyone.

Sorry C6 but he isn't your rep! He's ours. I can't wait for him to arrive in NYC!Dobbs answered for me but I would like to add that he isn't your rep. He's the PNAC's rep.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9355176&postcount=60

Sometimes these threads move too fast. That was my response, bottom of last page.

Suck it up.

Liverbreath']Unless you consider a completely corrupt and ineffective nest of spies and criminals good news for man kind, I'd say it is a good time to take a step backward in order to move forward. Personally I say scrap the lot of them and start anew somewhere else. It's very organizational structure, (the lack of it) is completely open to corruption at almost any level with branchs that are entirely unaccountable to anyone.Yes like most bureaucratic entities. I still fail to understand why an emperialistic, fascist is required to acomplish reform in the UN. Reform of the UN bringing it into conformity with the PNAC's guidelines and views is a step backward for the UN and all mankind.

Yes like most bureaucratic entities. I still fail to understand why an emperialistic, fascist is required to acomplish reform in the UN. Reform of the UN bringing it into conformity with the PNAC's guidelines and views is a step backward for the UN and all mankind.

What evidence do you have to support that claim? Bolton is a libertarian leaning intellectual.

BTW, can the recess appointment of Bolton make the future of Roberts's nomination to the USSC more uncertain? It should have irked some Democratic senators, I presume.

The Democratic senators were already upset about the lack of Roberts' files presented to them before the Bolton appointment. I don't think it will change that situation much. The one thing it will do is destroy the common ground created by Frist's defection last week.

What evidence do you have to support that claim? Bolton is a libertarian leaning intellectual.Bolton is not libertarian on any scale whatsoever. Neither is he an intellectual. If Bolton is an intellectual than Bush is an intellectual.

He is an active member of the PNAC. That alone is enough to classify him a Emperialistic.

Bolton is not libertarian on any scale whatsoever. Neither is he an intellectual. If Bolton is an intellectual than Bush is an intellectual.

He is an active member of the PNAC. That alone is enough to classify him a Emperialistic.
I did not say that Bolton was a libertarian, I merely stated that some of his beliefs would fit the libertarian platform best.
Reasons why Bolton has libertarian inclinations:
1) He opposes many aspects of the United Nations because they restrict the soverignty of the United States (and hence the American people) to act unilaterally.
2) He opposes the vast majority of international treaties fro the same reason.

I asked if you had info that he was fascist, not emperialistic.

He is an active member of the PNAC.
Shit, are you serious?

It's a sad day for America. At least we have a "fitting" representative.

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.
No, he's not. A blindly partisan Bushevik apologist, perhaps, but not a troll. He's been around rather longer than you.

Sorry but we have the soveriegn right to do what we want.

Does that only apply to the USA? No country actually has the sovereign right to do what they want. In todays world, sovereign rights should be limited. Saddam Hussein was an example of a dictator who thought he had the sovereign right to do what he wanted. He thought he had the right to invade Iran and Kuwait. He thought he had the right to committ genocide. Guess what? He didn't, and neither do you.

So Bolton is a vocal critic of the UN. So what? It's an organization that needs criticism and reform. Why is everyone up in arms about his appointment?

So Bolton is a vocal critic of the UN. So what? It's an organization that needs criticism and reform. Why is everyone up in arms about his appointment?Calling Bolton a critic would be like calling Saddam a bad man. It's true, but it's a crass understatement. Bolton is a bully who's abused his position. He HATES the UN. His idea of a truly effective UN demands kicking all other P5 members off the SC. Why should we send someone to the UN that is convinced its crap and should be dismantled?

So Bolton is a vocal critic of the UN. So what? It's an organization that needs criticism and reform. Why is everyone up in arms about his appointment?
If you want the UN to actually get anything done, how does it help matters to send in someone who wants the UN to fail utterly in its' mission? If you want to reform the UN, this isn't how to do it. This is instead how to sabotage the UN.

Thanks ever so much, Ummurrika.

Calling Bolton a critic would be like calling Saddam a bad man. It's true, but it's a crass understatement. Bolton is a bully who's abused his position. He HATES the UN. His idea of a truly effective UN demands kicking all other P5 members off the SC. Why should we send someone to the UN that is convinced its crap and should be dismantled?
Maybe if you send someone who'll call the UN out when it screws up it will motivate the other nations to band together and reform the UN. Reform won't happen unless there is pressure. Sending someone who will go along in order to get along won't accomplish anything but ensure that the same old crap continues.

If you want the UN to actually get anything done, how does it help matters to send in someone who wants the UN to fail utterly in its' mission? If you want to reform the UN, this isn't how to do it. This is instead how to sabotage the UN.

Thanks ever so much, Ummurrika.
What's with the intentional spelling error?

You don't see me (or anyone else on this forum) writing KKKanada, do you? It's not clever and it only looks dumb.

What's with the intentional spelling error?

You don't see me (or anyone else on this forum) writing KKKanada, do you? It's not clever and it only looks dumb.
This is specifically to differentiate between the now-defunct United States of America and its' direct lineal descendant, "Ummurrika". We've heard it from your President's lips often enough, it's pronounced "Ummurrika", though perhaps you've yet to determine the proper spelling of your new country's name. Good luck on that, btw. Hope it's something you can all agree upon. Well, at least 50% of you, anyway. I hear 50% is a clear and overwhelming majority around your place, so...
(Oh and feel free to call canada however you wish - though I don't see how "KKKanada" is justified. It's funnier when it has it's basis in reality, is all.)

If you want the UN to actually get anything done, how does it help matters to send in someone who wants the UN to fail utterly in its' mission? If you want to reform the UN, this isn't how to do it. This is instead how to sabotage the UN.

Thanks ever so much, Ummurrika.

It makes it easier to deal with the UN, which seems to want the US,UK & non-"oil-for-food corruption scandal" countries to fail.

Thanks ever so much, United Masturbations. :p
(Why UM? Because when asked what they get done, all I ever hear is "Um...")

The apointment of John Bolton completely disgusts me.
This is a major step backward for the US, the UN and all of mankind.


Excellent. He's already doing his job, then. The point isn't for you all to like him. No matter WHO Bush appointed, (except maybe Jane Fonda?) you'd hate.

Maybe if you send someone who'll call the UN out when it screws up it will motivate the other nations to band together and reform the UN. Reform won't happen unless there is pressure. Sending someone who will go along in order to get along won't accomplish anything but ensure that the same old crap continues.Bolton's style of pressure is the one that breaks bones. He won't call it out when it screws up, he's going to call it out whenever.

I wasn't really following politics in Clinton's time. This is the first I have heard of him using recess appointments that many times. How many of them were high level officials?
A good portion of them were. Recess appointments are Constitutionally sanctioned and if I remember correctly, nearly every president has made at least one (George Washington made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court!)

Here's an amusing little article highlighting the history of recess appointments.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Recess-appointment

So Bolton is a vocal critic of the UN. So what? It's an organization that needs criticism and reform. Why is everyone up in arms about his appointment?

I don't know for sure if it's true or not, but from what I have been told Socialists believe that the UN is their best shot at one world government under their control. The way they have defended it despite the corruption and attempts to expand itself beyond and above individual governments I would say there has to be some basis in truth to it. Especially in light of the fact that you hear most of the Bolton bashing coming from Canada, Germany and other hard left sources.

Liverbreath']I don't know for sure if it's true or not, but from what I have been told Socialists believe that the UN is their best shot at one world government under their control. The way they have defended it despite the corruption and attempts to expand itself beyond and above individual governments I would say there has to be some basis in truth to it. Especially in light of the fact that you hear most of the Bolton bashing coming from Canada, Germany and other hard left sources.
You heard it first from Liverbreath! Canada and Germany are communist countries!

No its not. I actually got all A's when I was in grade school in the reading category. I also got high marks in regards to reading comprehension too.

Then you need to try my original post again. You seem to have slipped a bit.

Very nice. Now.... look up the definition of a charter and you'll see that it fits closer to the Charter definition than it does to a treaty definition. ITs not that hard to figure out.

You know, in English, sometimes two words can describe the same thing.

For instance, my purse can be called a purse, as it is a purse. It can also be called a bag, as it is a bag. All bags are not purses, but my purse is a bag. It can also be called a container. Again, all containers are not purses, but my purse is a container.

Funny how the English language works.

Sorry to break it to you, but something can be a treaty and a charter. It does not have to be either/or.

You heard it first from Liverbreath! Canada and Germany are communist countries!
Achtung, comrades! How iz der plot to overthrow America proceedink?

Liverbreath']I don't know for sure if it's true or not, but from what I have been told Socialists believe that the UN is their best shot at one world government under their control. The way they have defended it despite the corruption and attempts to expand itself beyond and above individual governments I would say there has to be some basis in truth to it. Especially in light of the fact that you hear most of the Bolton bashing coming from Canada, Germany and other hard left sources.HAHAHA! Hard left! You've got no clue what you're talking about... :p

Achtung, comrades! How iz der plot to overthrow America proceedink?If you want to be real German about it, Genossen (Gheh-noh-ssen) means comrades :D

BTW, can the recess appointment of Bolton make the future of Roberts's nomination to the USSC more uncertain? It should have irked some Democratic senators, I presume.

Not just Democratic senators. While there are ways for the various branches of government to go over each other's heads - no one really likes having it done. I would find it highly likely that there are many senators - Democrats *and* Republicans - upset by this move.

Meh!

Boulton will not accomplish much.

Teddy once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Boulton doesn't seem to know when it's time to talk nice and when to yell.

All he will do is spout and the majority will ignore him.

Meh!

Boulton will not accomplish much.

Teddy once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Boulton doesn't seem to know when it's time to talk nice and when to yell.

All he will do is spout and the majority will ignore him.
Bolton's response to being asked about the EU's carrot and stick method when dealing with Iran: "I don't do carrots."

Meh!

Boulton will not accomplish much.
Not much that's positive, no.

Teddy once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Boulton doesn't seem to know when it's time to talk nice and when to yell.

All he will do is spout and the majority will ignore him.

Yeah...when he's not actively sabotaging the UN, that is.

Yippee, the morons of PNAC will be holding us all back, now. Now we'll all actually have something in common: mutual loathing and hatred for American idiocy and how they hope to retard the planet on behalf of PNAC.

Well, except for certain... nations... I'll choose not to name at this time.

Bolton's response to being asked about the EU's carrot and stick method when dealing with Iran: "I don't do carrots."
That's why I like him.

I would like to add that he isn't your rep.

Actually, he is my representative. He's the American Representative to the United Nations and since I am an American, that makes him my rep there.

Suck it up.

Now this is just a childish remark :rolleyes:

So Bolton is a vocal critic of the UN. So what? It's an organization that needs criticism and reform. Why is everyone up in arms about his appointment?

Because he's a critic of the UN and people on here don't seem to like that he is a critic and has been appointed to the UN rather than someone who has kept his mouth shut regarding the UN which is the last person I'd appoint to this post.

Bolton is the perfect choice because of his outspoken criticism.

You heard it first from Liverbreath! Canada and Germany are communist countries!

I already knew this so this is nothing new to me :D

That's why I like him.Let me ask you this, would you rather be punched in the face or kindly asked to step aside?

Let me ask you this, would you rather be punched in the face or kindly asked to step aside?
I'm not a rogue state that wants to beat up the neighborhood Jewish kid, unlike Iran.
Nor do I starve my family to buy guns, like North Korea.

The biggest problem facing American diplomacy and UN relations today is the presence of rogue states, and I deal only in sticks (make that bombs) with rogue states. So, as long as we don't have a major dispute with another civilized nation, Bolton will be just fine.
If we start arguing with Russia over oil and Bolton says he is going to pull out a couple thousand nuclear warheads, I'll be concerned and ask for his resignation.

Because he's a critic of the UN and people on here don't seem to like that he is a critic and has been appointed to the UN rather than someone who has kept his mouth shut regarding the UN which is the last person I'd appoint to this post.

There is a difference between a critic and a divisive asshole. Bolton is over that line.

See, there is constructive criticism - which no one would have a problem with, and then there is bitching - which is what Bolton has brought to the table.

I'm not a rogue state that wants to beat up the neighborhood Jewish kid, unlike Iran.
Nor do I starve my family to buy guns, like North Korea.

The biggest problem facing American diplomacy and UN relations today is the presence of rogue states, and I deal only in sticks (make that bombs) with rogue states. So, as long as we don't have a major dispute with another civilized nation, Bolton will be just fine.
If we start arguing with Russia over oil and Bolton says he is going to pull out a couple thousand nuclear warheads, I'll be concerned and ask for his resignation.
That wasn't the question, was it? Would you rather be punched in the face or would you rather be kindly asked to step aside? Or rather, what would you do to the person that punched you in the face rather than ask you to move? How would you act around them in the future?

That wasn't the question, was it? Would you rather be punched in the face or would you rather be kindly asked to step aside? Or rather, what would you do to the person that punched you in the face rather than ask you to move? How would you act around them in the future?
The question isn't applicable to me, though. I'm not building nukes.

Corneliu is a troll, any post by him is inflammatory and pig-headed.
This coming from you is frigging hilarious.

Now this is just a childish remark :rolleyes:
Down, doggy.

There is a difference between a critic and a divisive asshole. Bolton is over that line.

Your opinion anyway.

See, there is constructive criticism - which no one would have a problem with, and then there is bitching - which is what Bolton has brought to the table.

The UN deserves the bitching.

The question isn't applicable to me, though. I'm not building nukes.Where did I mention nukes? :confused: Would you rather be punched in the face or kindly asked to step aside? It's not a hard question.

The UN deserves the bitching.So does Bolton.

So does Bolton.

WHy? Because he bitches about an organization that deserves to be bitched at?

The UN deserves the bitching.

Perhaps. However, bitching is not useful. It feels good to the person bitching, but doesn't do any real good to the issue at hand.

Constructive criticism, on the other hand, can help get things done.

WHy? Because he bitches about an organization that deserves to be bitched at?You give reasons why the UN deserves bitching first. You brought it up. I don't see why I should have to defend that statement if you don't.

You have to appreciate the high comedy in using "Bolton" and "diplomacy" in the same sentence.

You give reasons why the UN deserves bitching first. You brought it up. I don't see why I should have to defend that statement if you don't.

How about the lack of stopping genocides?
How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?
How about not being able to prevent wars?

How about the lack of stopping genocides?
How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?
How about not being able to prevent wars?
What, and has the US managed to do any of the three things you've listed?

Pfft. I know, it's tough and all... in a... *nahh, I won't say it...*

Woof!

"How about the lack of stopping genocides?
How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?
How about not being able to prevent wars? "

I thought stopping muslim extremists, genocidal leaders and preventing wars was the job of the U.S.? Oh, wait.. is there oil in Sudan?

How about the lack of stopping genocides?
How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?
How about not being able to prevent wars?I'll give points one and two. Point three is crap. Sometimes war is unavoidable. You saw that Bush didn't give a damn about WMDs, there wasn't much to avoid it. But I'd like to call your attention to the Dutch-Indonesian war. What Dutch-Indonesian War? you might ask. Exactly. It never happened. What about the ongoing bloodshed in Cyprus? No bloodshed. Why is Timor-Leste in a bloody civil war? It isn't.
The UN has failed in some respects, but sending an idiot to tell them that isn't going to get the message across.

P.S.: Some concrete examples of where the UN failed in the above would have been appreciated.

What, and has the US managed to do any of the three things you've listed?

Pfft. I know, it's tough and all... in a... *nahh, I won't say it...*

Woof!

How about using our assets to stop the genocide in Kosovo? OOPS! We stopped a Genocide without UN Approval? Thank you Clinton. Best thing you've ever did internationally.

Wars can never be prevented unless both sides are willing to negotiate. God I love that word negotiate.

P.S.: Some concrete examples of where the UN failed in the above would have been appreciated.

Nothing done in Rwanda. Nothing done in Sudan. Nothing done in Kosovo (Until NATO decided to do something)

Nothing done regarding Saddam's violations of UN Resolutions. Nothing done about ISRAEL's violations of UN resolutions (though some probably aren't deserved but that is an entirely different debate)

Nothing done in Rwanda. Nothing done in Sudan. Nothing done in Kosovo (Until NATO decided to do something)

Nothing done regarding Saddam's violations of UN Resolutions. Nothing done about ISRAEL's violations of UN resolutions (though some probably aren't deserved but that is an entirely different debate)Please. You don't honestly think Bolton is going to get on Israel's case.

Please. You don't honestly think Bolton is going to get on Israel's case.

I don't think so either but you know what? I don't mind it. Israel has the right to exist and if things stay on course and the Gaza pullout starts, who knows what's going to happen.

"How about the lack of stopping genocides?
How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?
How about not being able to prevent wars? "

I thought stopping muslim extremists, genocidal leaders and preventing wars was the job of the U.S.? Oh, wait.. is there oil in Sudan?
Yep. Lots of oil in Sudan, that's why China and France don't want the UN involved. Lots of French and Chinese money too. Since that money is spent on Russian weapons, the Russians are hell bent on keeping the UN out too.

That's why it's a corrupt and ineffective organization.

Yep. Lots of oil in Sudan, that's why China and France don't want the UN involved. Lots of French and Chinese money too. Since that money is spent on Russian weapons, the Russians are hell bent on keeping the UN out too.

That's why it's a corrupt and ineffective organization.And with all the lobbying done in the US, the government isn't? Maybe we should send Bolton as ambassador to the government to get some things done.

I don't think so either but you know what? I don't mind it. Israel has the right to exist and if things stay on course and the Gaza pullout starts, who knows what's going to happen.Really? And how many legally binding UN resolutions do you know that deny Israel it's right to exist?

Really? And how many legally binding UN resolutions do you know that deny Israel it's right to exist?

None but the way that the UN always seems to act when Israel defends itself doesn't sit well with me. No wonder the US threatens veto now when resolutions against Israel are brought up do to self-defense measures.

And with all the lobbying done in the US, the government isn't? Maybe we should send Bolton as ambassador to the government to get some things done.
The US needs campaign finance reform. When the politicians don't depend on money from wealthy contributors they can be truly independant. Still, this thread's about the UN and Bolton, not the USA's problems.

What's wrong? Can't take someone's valid criticizm of the UN so you have to change the subject?

Really? And how many legally binding UN resolutions do you know that deny Israel it's right to exist?
The UN condemns Israel every time it takes action to defend itself from terrorism, yet seldom condems the actions of palestinian terrorist groups who have pledged to destroy Israel.

None but the way that the UN always seems to act when Israel defends itself doesn't sit well with me. No wonder the US threatens veto now when resolutions against Israel are brought up do to self-defense measures.Sounds like an instance in which the UN actually worked. It shouldn't be surprising that most of the Arab world hate's Israel. Be glad that the UN has mechanisms to protect Israel. I am.

The UN condemns Israel every time it takes action to defend itself from terrorism, yet seldom condems the actions of palestinian terrorist groups who have pledged to destroy Israel.Utter Bullshit. The "UN" does not "condemn". The only part of the UN capable of such an action would be the SC. And the SC hasn't brought out a resolution against Israel unless even the United States backed off. The GA can't "condemn" or authorize force. A little misconception there.

The US needs campaign finance reform. When the politicians don't depend on money from wealthy contributors they can be truly independant. Still, this thread's about the UN and Bolton, not the USA's problems.

What's wrong? Can't take someone's valid criticizm of the UN so you have to change the subject?No need to get personal. But please tell me why the current situation in Sudan can be used to consider the whole UN corrupt and ineffective? (I won't be able to reply until tomorrow though, I'm going to bed now)

No need to get personal. But please tell me why the current situation in Sudan can be used to consider the whole UN corrupt and ineffective? (I won't be able to reply until tomorrow though, I'm going to bed now)
It's one instance in a line of UN failures and scandals.

Jordanians working as UN peacekeepers in East Timor were molesting numerous local children.

UN peacekeepers in Africa were running child sex businesses.

There's the UN oil for food corruption scandal.

Those are just three other examples of the UN fucking up.

Anyway, sorry if it sounded like I was getting personal. I was just thrown off by your sudden change of subject when I provided an example of UN corruption.

Utter Bullshit. The "UN" does not "condemn". The only part of the UN capable of such an action would be the SC. And the SC hasn't brought out a resolution against Israel unless even the United States backed off. The GA can't "condemn" or authorize force. A little misconception there.
The only reason the UN security council doesn't condem them is because the US stands up for their right to exist.

Think that Israel gets fair treatment from the UN? Think again (http://www.mideasttruth.com/UNvsIsrael.html)

Perhaps. However, bitching is not useful. It feels good to the person bitching, but doesn't do any real good to the issue at hand.

Constructive criticism, on the other hand, can help get things done.

AHH now that is the difference between a Statesman and a loud mouthed piker.

How about the lack of stopping genocides?

The US had a hand in that. Rawanda....


How about the lack of stopping muslim extremists?


Hmmm I guess you missed the sharing of intel part.


How about not being able to prevent wars?

Oh come on.....

Interesting... Bush has appointed a UN hater to the UN.

I applaud the decision. An ambassador that constently criticizes the UN is precisely what the UN needs. You can't appoint someone that'll stick with the status quo.
All I want is that he stays civil (apparently he finds that difficult), that he respects the process rather than tries to bypass it and that he pays every other delegate there the same respect he would give to the PotUS.
So much for my hopes.... :rolleyes:

I did not say that Bolton was a libertarian, I merely stated that some of his beliefs would fit the libertarian platform best.
Reasons why Bolton has libertarian inclinations:
1) He opposes many aspects of the United Nations because they restrict the soverignty of the United States (and hence the American people) to act unilaterally.
2) He opposes the vast majority of international treaties fro the same reason.

I asked if you had info that he was fascist, not emperialistic.
The two reason's you state make him a hardcore conservative. Democrats are usually the one's to converge with UN. And about him being a fascist. I believe that the fact he is an active member of the PNAC makes him a fascist.

Excellent. He's already doing his job, then. The point isn't for you all to like him. No matter WHO Bush appointed, (except maybe Jane Fonda?) you'd hate.So let me get this straight. I'm saying that this is a step backward for mankind and a horrible tragedy and you're saying that's excelent and that he's allready acomplishing his goals? Amusing.

And for the zilionth time... I despise Jane Fonda.

Actually, he is my representative. He's the American Representative to the United Nations and since I am an American, that makes him my rep there.In title yes. In actuality he is representing the PNAC think tank and their agenda. Which by the way would put most fascist dictators to shame.

Quote:

Excellent. He's already doing his job, then. The point isn't for you all to like him. No matter WHO Bush appointed, (except maybe Jane Fonda?) you'd hate.

So let me get this straight. I'm saying that this is a step backward for mankind and a horrible tragedy and you're saying that's excelent and that he's allready acomplishing his goals? Amusing.

And for the zilionth time... I despise Jane Fonda.


Actually, I'm saying that his job is to look out after the US's best interests at the UN. He's not there to be liked. Since by your history, I know you to basically hate anything Bush does, your reaction registered a zero on the surprise meter.
THE MAN HASN'T EVEN TAKEN HIS POST YET! How on Earth can you say it's a giant step backwards?!? Talk about judging a book by the cover!!

I'll give you points for despising Fonda, though.

Actually, I'm saying that his job is to look out after the US's best interests at the UN. He's not there to be liked. Since by your history, I know you to basically hate anything Bush does, your reaction registered a zero on the surprise meter.
THE MAN HASN'T EVEN TAKEN HIS POST YET! How on Earth can you say it's a giant step backwards?!? Talk about judging a book by the cover!!I'm judging him by his political record. Hardly a book's cover. Being faithfull to my personal beliefs, I am obliged to despise and criticise anyone that belongs to the PNAC.

I'm judging him by his political record. Hardly a book's cover. Being faithfull to my personal beliefs, I am obliged to despise and criticise anyone that belongs to the PNAC.

So then... I get to pre-judge anybody on their past actions? Great!

We must disbar Senator Clinton and remove her from the Senate.
We know she met MLK and is married to Bill Clinton, both of whom were known womanizers. Therefore, she is anti-family. She's also served on the board of directors for Wal-Mart for 7 years, so we know she's for sending US manufacturing jobs to China. And while acquitted at Whitewater, we all know something was going on... especially since just about everyone else related to the scandal DIED before they left the White House.

...Obviously, this line of reasoning is meant to illustrate a point: that's you're drawing conclusions that may or may come to pass or even be true.

Once he does something crazy, THEN hate him. ;)

So then... I get to pre-judge anybody on their past actions? Great! How else do we evaluate politicians other than judging their record? I can't tell the future so I don't know exactly what he will do as ambassador. There aren't elections for this job, so we don't get to hear his plans for the future in televised campaigns. There is nothing wrong with the way I base my judgement. Nor do I give you any right to point the finger at me for this. Especially when you have previously called Ted Kennedy ignorant based on his past behaviour in a life threatening accident. You have no moral grounds with which to further pursue this subject.

You may not agree with my opinion but questioning my right to judge a politican by his past is just simply lame.

Now... The only way Bolton can do his job correctly is If he does not keep faithfull to his beliefs and to the emperialistic ideals of the PNAC to which he belongs. I have no reason to believe that will be the case.

Once he does something crazy, THEN hate him.
p.s. He has allready done many crazy things, and it is for that reason that I despise him.

John Bolton, just what the real world UN needs.
La Habana Cuba.

Where did I mention nukes? Would you rather be punched in the face or kindly asked to step aside? It's not a hard question.

Bolton's response to being asked about the EU's carrot and stick method when dealing with Iran: "I don't do carrots."

I said I liked him for this. Rogue states don't deserve carrots.
Now, considering I am not a rogue state, I'd question why anyone on the street would feel the need to punch me if I did not move out of his or her way.
And Bolton's method would be HARSHLY asking you to step aside, and punching you if you didn't. He doesn't throw punches for no reason. He does have a temper problem, I admit (He yelled at one of my high school friends during a Q & A segment at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) but there isn't a problem with being a total jackass to Iran.

...but there isn't a problem with being a total jackass to Iran.
Except maybe that it doesn't achieve anything... :rolleyes:

I said I liked him for this. Rogue states don't deserve carrots.
Now, considering I am not a rogue state, I'd question why anyone on the street would feel the need to punch me if I did not move out of his or her way.
And Bolton's method would be HARSHLY asking you to step aside, and punching you if you didn't. He doesn't throw punches for no reason. He does have a temper problem, I admit (He yelled at one of my high school friends during a Q & A segment at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) but there isn't a problem with being a total jackass to Iran.That's cute, but it still doesn't answer my question. Would you rather be punched in the face or would you rather be kindly asked to step aside? Please only answer that and don't try and interpret anything, because frankly, you have no clue what I'm getting at.

How else do we evaluate politicians other than judging their record? I can't tell the future so I don't know exactly what he will do as ambassador. There aren't elections for this job, so we don't get to hear his plans for the future in televised campaigns. There is nothing wrong with the way I base my judgement. Nor do I give you any right to point the finger at me for this. Especially when you have previously called Ted Kennedy ignorant based on his past behaviour in a life threatening accident. You have no moral grounds with which to further pursue this subject.

You could do something crazy like withhold judgement until he's been in the job for awhile. :)

Kennedy is an ignorant, self centered bastard. He's also been in the same office since 1962, which is WAY before I was born. (I'm 32.) If he became President (riiiiiight...) I'd not condemn him automatically. It's simply not my way. In his capacity as Senator, however, I have no problem bashing him.
(Before you call me a Republican: I've voted for Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd in EVERY election since 1988 (the first I could vote in), and have split my Presidential voting 2-2-1. )

You may not agree with my opinion but questioning my right to judge a politican by his past is just simply lame.

I'm questioning your judging him in a future role before he's started.
There is a difference. No one expected Sandra Day O'Conner to be the justice she was, either. I'm not saying he's going to be like that. But at least give the guy a month or two in office before calling him a black day for the planet, eh?

Now... The only way Bolton can do his job correctly is If he does not keep faithfull to his beliefs and to the emperialistic ideals of the PNAC to which he belongs. I have no reason to believe that will be the case.

p.s. He has allready done many crazy things, and it is for that reason that I despise him.

Oy vey. I'm not asking you to join his fan club or something. Just give the guy a chance before calling him a catastrophe.