We can all be excused if we have come to believe that Senate Democrats are concerned about John Bolton’s appointment to the United Nations. They are not.
Their every U.N. thought is wrapped in a skin that wants that international debating club to remain ineffective — except in placing blame for every issue on the United States. That, of course, allows American money to be used to slow down and hamper much-needed changes.
Such a clear thinker as Mr. Bolton, however, might believe that, as an institution, the United Nations is so flawed that it’s time to start all over again.
Let’s start with the U.N. Security Council.
Today’s must read.
The UN may need some modifying to tweak a 60 (?) year old formula. But, Bolton is not the person to do it. A “bull in the china shop” approach just isn’t smart. It will take diplomacy, and Bolton has way more than 3 strikes against him.
: Newsweek reported, in its May 2 edition, that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw complained about Bolton to then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in November 2003. Citing a “former Bush administration official who was there,” Newsweek said Straw told Powell that Bolton — Powell’s undersecretary for arms control and international security — was making it impossible to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. :
I read the article. There is a deial in it and support for Bolton.
The UN needs more than just a tweeking. The cdorruption makes the US government look like Boyscout troop by comparison. Sometimes when an animal suffers, the bust thing to do is to put them out of their misery.
That’s what the UN is- a suffering animal that needs put down. It needs dismantled, or the US needs to withdraw, which woould in the long term lead to it’s dismantling.
Ted
no money..no problems!
… and dig deeper into isolationism? Not smart.
Actually, it is very smart. We should not associate with such a corrupt institution. We, as a country, are better than that.
If the founding fathers endorsed it, it seems smart. I am of the opinion that even 200 years later, they are still light years ahead of anybody today.
Besides, globalism is a major factor to our recent economic downturn. NAFTA, giving China MFN trading status and now CAFTA. Our foreign debt is outrageous. Our foreign aid is nuts- we need to withdraw all of it and re-evaluate it’s distribution making domestic concerns have priority.
I see you say isolationism isn’t smart. I gave you several very good reason why it is, and here is another- if we were isolationists, we wouldn’t be in Iraq now. Even though I support our actions in Iraq, I do so because I am a realist. However I also realize that if we completely pull out of the ME, we would have no reason to be in Iraq or even Afghanistan.
Now, you need to give me reasons why it isn’t, instead of just proclaiming it.
Ted
1. It’s a world economy.
2. We still rely on other countries for oil.
3. We have commitments around the world.
4. No nation can go it alone these days. We all need allies.
5. Diplomacy and international communication cries against isolationism.
6. It’s plain stupid.
… for starters.
“Our foreign debt is outrageous.” … and getting worse with administration policies, as is the deficit.
I still have yet to see you show us how we are benefitting by being in the U.N.
9. Let me ask you, how would we replace the diplomatic entres the UN provides? I don’t think direct channels would work as well as a body dedicated to thet. If the UN exists, where is the benfit in quitting? As a respected (well, not so respected these days) memeber of the world community, we cannot walk away from such an organization. Work to tweak/overhaul/whatever – yes; be a conspicuous absentee – no.
1. It’s irrelevant. Isolationism does NOT stop trade. It does however, restrict debt to other nations.
2. Yes, we do. We always will too, unless we take steps to the contrary. The ONLY way we will be able to cut this dependence is through “mother necessity”.
3. We have “commitments”? Like what, for instance? Withdrawing from the UN would null our treaty with them, and thus would end many of our commitments and do so legally. Withdrawing from the WTO would only benefit us by allowing us not to abide by unfair trade practices that specifically target the US.
4. Allies are one thing. At the moment, I would say we have one or two- great Britain, and perhaps Canada. How would isolationism change that?
5. No, it doesn’t. It seems to me you don’t understand what isolationism is.
6. Thus far your best argument, although non-sequitur.
Isolationism does not preclude diplomacy nor trade at reasonable and responsible levels at all, even the founding fathers understood this with their limited means. It will cull our dependence from other nations though, and make us strong again. The end result in globalization is a lower standard of living for Americans overall and a weaker America.
That is a fact that there is no way getting around. The programs I have pointed to earlier, such as NAFTA and granting China MFN trading status, is just a small piece that is already drastically effecting our economy. We have typically enjoyed a much stronger economy than the rest of the world but if we fully globalize, the American economy as we know it will cease to exhaust and so will the America we all know.
I know- that’s what some people want, but not I. The thing is, that is what you are asking for Ellis.
Now, tell what’s stupid?
Ted
Ted
10,
Direct channels work FAR better- why do you think we have embassies in most countries? Corrupt member of the UN use it as a platform of equal voice with reasonable nations to elevate their to an equal status and thus corrupt honest messages.
The benefit in quitting the UN is simply America, as a nation- being true to ourselves. It is hypocritical for America to stay in the UN simply for the veto power (which is our only real benefit).
Ted