|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:02 pm
Oh wow that's priceless wink
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:52 pm
JunjunTB Oh wow that's priceless wink It most certainly is. This is one of the more interesting quotes from Mr. Bolton: "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." The left-wing rag The Nation has likened it to Bush giving the UN the finger. biggrin And here is an editorial supporting him in the Washington Post. Quote: He has been skeptical of U.N. peacekeeping operations, skeptical of the U.S. obligation to pay its U.N. dues, skeptical of just about everything, really, to do with the United Nations. All of which makes him an ideal candidate to be America's U.N. ambassador. Bolton -- whom I've met but don't know well -- is blunt, which is an advantage in an institution where words are more often used to disguise meanings than to elucidate. He is unafraid of being disliked, which will be an advantage in a place where everyone will dislike him. In the past he has been unafraid of arguing his points, even in Europe, where they are deeply unpopular. Most of all, though, Bolton, who has been writing about the United Nations for decades, is one of the few people in public life willing to draw the distinction between what the United Nations actually is and what everybody would like it to be. I've gotten pretty sick of the United States wasting money supporting an anti-US shouting forum and the sense of entitlement that the UN and its fans have that the United States "owes" it anything. I'm definitely hoping that he does some shouting right back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:13 pm
I definitely agree. I don't know why we waste our time remaining in the UN. I mean, yeah, it is a good idea in general but it just doesn't realistically work. Most of the world is openly against many US policies and beliefs and are not afraid to show it. However, if the US just so happens to do anything to slightly offend another nation, everyone is up in arms. Likewise, America donates generous amounts of money to several countries (which, btw, is digging us into more debt)...but you really don't see them helping us out very much (besides with trade). I think it's outrageous that everyone complained that the US did not donate enough to help the Tsunami Relief effort because Japan happened to give more than us. Since when is it an unwritten rule that we have to give the most amount of money? Besides, we DID donate a significant amount and various private organizations contributed as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:23 pm
JunjunTB I definitely agree. I don't know why we waste our time remaining in the UN. I mean, yeah, it is a good idea in general but it just doesn't realistically work. Most of the world is openly against many US policies and beliefs and are not afraid to show it. I advocate remaining with the United Nations if for no other reason then so that the United States can exercise its veto power in the Security Council. The UN indeed doesn't work. It is based on the concept of collective security which is a flawed (I would argue intrinsically flawed) concept. It depends upon all the members of the collective security group to agree to the nature of the threat to the group and the extent to how it will deal with it. The only time that it has really worked to the advantage of the United States is during the Korean War. Even then, it only worked because the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN. Had the USSR been in attendance I have little doubt that there would have been a Soviet veto in the Security Council. It only "works" when it is broken. JunjunTB However, if the US just so happens to do anything to slightly offend another nation, everyone is up in arms. Likewise, America donates generous amounts of money to several countries (which, btw, is digging us into more debt)...but you really don't see them helping us out very much (besides with trade). The United States government is not a particularly generous donor in the international community. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing. Why should the American taxpayer be fleeced to support foreign aid where it doesn't advance the interests of the United States? If an individual wants to contribute they should do so through a private institution. Private institutions and individuals from the United States are very generous. Quote: What such criticism fails to take into account is the new landscape of foreign aid. Current measures of a nation's largesse only count funds doled out by the government, thus ignoring the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. In the last decade, U.S. government aid has been far outstripped by private donations -- from foundations, private voluntary organizations (PVOS), corporations, universities, religious groups, and individuals giving directly to needy family members abroad. There is no comprehensive measure of how much Americans donate overseas, but a conservative estimate, based on surveys and voluntary reporting, puts annual private giving around $35 billion. Even this low-ball figure is more than three and a half times the amount of official development assistance (ODA) given out in a year by the U.S. government. In the third wave of foreign aid, it is private money that is making the difference. The Privatization of Foreign Aid: Reassessing National Largesse. Carlol C. Adelman. Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2003. Foreign aid doesn't buy friends and goodwill. Take the Aswan High dam for instance. The United States offered aid to help Egypt build the dam. Nassar repaid it by shifting recogniton from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China, a direct affront to the United States and particularly US Secretary of State Dulles who was a strong supporter of Taiwan. Nasser went on to try to play both superpowers and bilk them both of aid. Foreign Aid hasn't bought Japan alot of prestige. Dispite being one of the world's largest donors of aid, it constantly gets the shaft in international organizations. Quote: For much of the 1980's and early 1990's, Japan was one of the biggest and most important spenders on the international scene. Yet despite its huge investment in Asia's tiger economies, its provision of the infrastructure essential for the Asian economic miracle, and its large financial contributions to the United Nations, the Wrold Bank, and the Asian Development Bank, Japan never seemed to get the acclaim or influence afforded other leading democracies. ...Japan does not have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and there has never been a Japanese president of the World Bank or a Japanese managing director of the International Monetary Fund. The first Japanese to get a leading position in a prominent international organization was Sadako Ogata, who becamoe UN High Commissioner for Refugees only in 1991, after years of lobbying by Tokyo. Eugene A. Matthews. ibid. "Money can't buy me love" as the song goes. JunjunTB I think it's outrageous that everyone complained that the US did not donate enough to help the Tsunami Relief effort because Japan happened to give more than us. Since when is it an unwritten rule that we have to give the most amount of money? Besides, we DID donate a significant amount and various private organizations contributed as well. It is increadibly outrageous that the US was criticized during the Tsunami relief. It was the United States that retasked a carrier battle group and an amphibious group to the region to assist, it was American C-130's flying aid to the region, it was American SH-60's that were getting some of the first boxes of aid to survivors. When the UN's representative called the United States "stingy", that moment showed the UN for what it was: simply a forum for the rest of the world to b***h, moan, and complain about the United States and shake it down for more money. Most conservatives, be they conservative realists such as myself, neoconservatives, nationalists/isolationists, ect. have a healthy distrust of international institutions. This is the reason why: they don't look out for the national interests of the United States. One of the reasons why I like President Bush despite my disagreement with some of his actions is that he has the right attitude regarding the United Nations: put it in its place. I'm glad he selected someone as outspoken as John Bolton to be our representative to the UN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:58 pm
Here is another neat editorial from the New York Daily News which I find very entertaining. Quote: The Europeans aren't comfortable with John Bolton. China and North Korea don't like him. The United Nations can't bear him. Splendid credentials all. Sounds like Bolton is the ideal guy to become Washington's next ambassador to Turtle Bay. Undersecretary of State Bolton, the administration's arms control expert, has been one of the UN's severest critics. "If the Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories," he said in 1994, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference." That makes nominating him for this diplomatic pointman job about like the White House giving the UN a kick in the pants - as could be read between the lines yesterday: Administration spokesman Scott McClellan: Bolton "is someone who shares the President's strong commitment to making sure multilateral organizations are effective." (Translation: "Attention, UN: Wake up and get with the program.") Secretary of State Rice: "He will be a strong voice for reform." (Translation: "Beware of dog.") Bolton himself: "American leadership is critical to the success of the UN." (Translation: "I said, American leadership is critical to the success of the UN." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: The UN "looks forward to working with him on UN reform and many other issues." (Translation: "There's nothing I can do about this.") With a proven track record - Bolton was among the architects of the U.S. action that drove Iraq out of Kuwait, and he had a hand in persuading Libya to abandon its weapons programs - Bolton is on the same page as President Bush. He is also notably of that species of foreign-affairs players who tell it straight without particular regard to social niceties. He has, for example, so enraged North Korea that Pyongyang once branded him "scum." Hard not to like that in a UN-ambassador nominee. In the event Bolton clears his confirmation proceedings - and there will be opposition to such an unreconstructed hard-liner - he bodes well to become a bold figure who will shake things up on the East Side. Let's see, the people who don't like him are: the UN itself, North Korea, China, the Europeans, Iran (they think he is "rude"), and the leftist rag The Nation... I'd consiter this alone good enough reason to support his nomination. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:56 am
just *sniff* beautiful...
I personally believe that the UN is just NATO+the US...which is about the only reason its been more successful then NATO...without, it would do absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:56 am
And least we forget, we pay a hefty amount of money for being a member just because we are able to...we really need to get something out of our 'investment'...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:34 pm
Undakai just *sniff* beautiful... I personally believe that the UN is just NATO+the US...which is about the only reason its been more successful then NATO...without, it would do absolutely nothing. the UN isn't more sucessful, it's just more prominent in the eyes of the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:05 am
german_bar_wench Undakai just *sniff* beautiful... I personally believe that the UN is just NATO+the US...which is about the only reason its been more successful then NATO...without, it would do absolutely nothing. the UN isn't more sucessful, it's just more prominent in the eyes of the public. no...technically, since the US is part of the UN, its been somewhat successful...athough, not because its actually done anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:35 am
Undakai german_bar_wench Undakai just *sniff* beautiful... I personally believe that the UN is just NATO+the US...which is about the only reason its been more successful then NATO...without, it would do absolutely nothing. the UN isn't more sucessful, it's just more prominent in the eyes of the public. no...technically, since the US is part of the UN, its been somewhat successful...athough, not because its actually done anything. The United Nations is not more effective than NATO. Actually NATO has been more successful. Bosnia and Kosovo are good examples of this. The UN was paralyzed with inaction. NATO went ahead in the Balkans without UN authorization to act. In Srebrenica, 7,500 Bosnians were massacred while Dutch UN peacekeepers sat on the sidelines. Same story played out in Rwanda as well. The main problem comes again to the priniciple of collective security: There is a Security Council with five permanent members and each of them has a veto. If the members can't agree to the nature of the threat and the proper response to the threat, then nothing happens. NATO, as a traditional alliance, can act more effectively: there has traditionally been an agreement on what the threat was (The Soviet Union) and how to respond (military force). Not to say that NATO is perfect mind you. NATO itself had some serious issues in regards to the Balkans as well. General Wesley Clark often became exasperated at the European allies frequently timid and legalistic approach to dealing with the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
