Politics Forum at Washington Post: Bolton

From:
chinshihtang
8:42 pm
To:
TraderCap unread
(252 of 253)

4965.252 in reply to 4965.250
The U.N. is still a place where representatives of member governments come and express their views. Thank goodness, they do a little more than that, too!
I don't think it is a menace to anybody--or particularly, to any member government--at this point. Any half-assed government can find an ally among the five permanent Security Council veto-holding nations, and thus whatever tyranny--and most any aggressive behavior--can be safely done without fear of the U.N. getting involved. A good example, in fact, is Iraq, where the U.S. did not get any permission to invade and occupy the nation, where the Secretary General properly points out the invasion was basically illegal, but that has no real weight on the situation.
Analytically, I think those who think Bolton's nomination means the Bushites mean to leave the U.N.--or wish it were true--are dead wrong. Although I see no evidence Dubya himself has any knowledge of history, I know Rove (and his father) do. They don't want #43 to become the guy who doomed the U.N. as an organization. The U.S. Senate got the blame for failure to endorse the Treaty of Versailles and get the U.S. into the League of Nations, and that has not been to their credit--no matter how lousy the League's setup may have been. Instead, Bolton's nomination signals the desire to continue to leave the U.N. out there hanging in the wind, irrelevant.
Bolton in some ways is the perfect choice to represent the Bush Administration of the U.S. federal government in the U.N. The problem is if he thinks he represents the American people--at best, he represents 51.5% of the 60% of (ruled) eligible voters who voted for the President.
With Sen. Voinovich's shameful cave (he wanted to do his duty but ultimately failed to do so, since a candidate he knows is not qualified will be advanced to the Senate floor with his cooperation), Bolton seems sure to make it eventually. No doubt the Bushite Ambassador to the U.N. will be under close observation--a tight leash, as it were--and will be on his best behavior. No doubt it won't be adequate to represent American interests, but that's good enough for the Bushite objectives.
I wish it were possible to have someone represent the American people's interest--as opposed to the U.S. federal government's interest--at the U.N. Perhaps if the posters get their wish, the Bushites will withdraw, and we could have Ted Turner become the American anti-Bushite Ambassador! He's already providing--personally--about as much funding as the federal government to the organization.

Replying to:

From:
TraderCap
6:41 pm
To:
drgonzaga unread
(250 of 254)

4965.250 in reply to 4965.217
The UN may have its use as far as being a body where countries may gather and express their views, however this function a long time ago was left behind.
Today it is a body that espouses collectivist ideas and is quite simply poisonous as well as being a menace to free nations.
The issue on Iraq for example, where a free nation, the United States, has to obtain "permission" to act against a tyrrany.
The United Nations is a poisoned organization and the United States ought to collapse it by withdrawing as a member.