Bolton resigns
 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/...n/edbolton.php
Well-well, it's very (not really) surprising news indeed. John Bolton, the current US's ambassador of United Nations has recently resigned and I see this as good thing, since he was appointed as permanent representative, he does nothing diplomatic and almost no different with Bush in term of being unilateral.

Anyway, despite his hostile diplomatic attitude toward UN, and not forgetting, revising the entire draft of World Summit 2005 few weeks before the d-day, he's very powerful diplomat indeed. I actually dont have a lot of knowledge of american diplomats, what do you think of his resignation? Also, do you prefer an ambassador such as Bolton, or the softer ones?

I've often wondered how much difference it makes who is chosen to be an ambassador, aside from differnce in the obvious diplomatic skills. No matter who is chosen, the ambassador's job is to promote the foriegn policy of the country he represents as defined by his government, not by his own personal political convictions. So in other words, no matter who is chosen, it doesn't signal a change in foreign policy. That is determined at higher ranks.

Yes, of course, diplomats are supposed to carry out their national interest, but what differs them are they approach to other, and dont forget about bureaucratic approach, we shouldnt seen state as single entity because the national interest could be considered as agreement between the officials.

Also, were the diplomats chosen before Bolton also tend to bash UN unilaterally? My lecturer even said that he is not even diplomatic.

What exactly was wrong with the way Bolton approached the UN? He clearly reflected the Bush Administration's attitude towards the UN and I can see his departure as a bad thing. Bolton was the best UN ambassador we've had since the UN's formation.

The problem of Bolton is, he is putting pressuring UN too much and being famous as UN-bashing ambassador. And also, his unilateral diplomacy raises critic even in bush administration itself. CMIW.

http://www.southcom.com.au/~angels/rejoice.jpg

And there was much rejoicing.

Also, I love how to NP, "best" refers to "is an absolute affront to the entire world." Or have you really become so fucking ethnocentric that you believe in a father knows best mentality now, NP?

If Bolton's approach was getting results, then this would be a bad thing for the U.S. Unfortunately, Bolton has failed to advance American interests in the world body. For example, there hasn't been any substantial overhaul of the UN's administrative structure - a major goal of his going into the job - and two weak resolutions with respect to Iran and North Korea, two states contemplating the acquisition of nuclear fucking weapons. Mr. Bolton has done nothing so far to improve the U.S. standing in the world, nor improve its relations with the rest of the world. All he's managed to do is alientate traditional allies and further erode the U.S. image abroad. A change wouldn't hurt.

Yeah, Max Power was a superb ambassador. Playing the biggest nuisance you possibly can and working toward near-universal disdain will work tops.

Good riddance to rubbish.

Like him or loathe him, I'm anxious to see how giving "the people" what they want works out for foreign policy.

Why do all you liberals want an ambassador that advocates policies that make America weaker? I don't understand that shit.

I guess the idea of foreign policy is to work together with other countries for the good of humanity and not to be the strongest.

And why do YOU want an ambassador that considers Diplomacy as analagous to armed robbery?

Hard to respect an international body when it pretty much gave us thumbs-up for an "illegal" invasion.

This is all empty politicking and bullshit. Bolton being out of the office doesn't change a single goddamned thing, it only means that el Presidente doesn't want to be caught with his pants down when a Democratic Congress turns down his appointment.

Not like unilateral actions from a belligerent Executive are a new thing.

You have not the slightest idea of what a foreign policy is or what it is for. This statement proves it. Please refrain from speaking on the matter at hand until you learn the definition of the term.

That is a total bastardization of John Bolton's approach. He is very diplomatic, but just because he doesn't sign off on every thing the fuckin' Europeans want to do doesn't mean he's against Diplomacy.

Can't say I liked Bolton, but with the bias and anti-west mentality of the UN, he was needed I think. I just hope the next ambassador has similar balls, as it were.

The funny thing is, quite a few of the democrats that originally were against his appointment were just recently mentioning how well a job he was doing. Seems a bit odd to now throw a hissy fit. Oh well, as long as the next person to fill the postion doesn't bend over, well, let's hope some good comes from it all... ;)

I wasn't even specifically referring to Bolton's approach. Your view has always seemed to be "We're America. We're the strongest, we're the best, so everyone else should bow to our will." That's not Diplomacy.

And your view has always seemed to be "Everything America does is wrong, we should be more like Europe and allow them to set what our policy should be." That's not diplomacy either, fuck boy.

On the other hand, if you can give the Europeans the idea that they are "setting our policy," when in fact that are not, then it would be infinitely better than saying "fuck you" in not so many words. A most effective form of diplomacy is one where you get what you want out of your neighbors while they are under the delusion that it somehow works in their favor.

But what the Europeans unequivocally want is a weaker, neutered America that is forced to fall in lock-step with them, meanwhile, they find themselves being taken over by Arabs in their own countries and refuse to do anything to stop the eventual transformation into Eurabia.

I'm not saying that we should just say 'Fuck you' to Europe, but c'mon, you can't take them seriously and that's what a liberal's idea of Diplomacy is - being Europe's bitch.

This Europhobia thing of yours is ridiculous, Night Phoenix. I can hardly believe you're seriously afraid of being "Europe's bitch".

I don't even understand what you mean by being "stronger" or "weaker" in this sense. Don't make it sound like America is at war with Europe, for god's sake.

We might as well be. Europe's already doomed to be taken over by a flood of Islamic immigration. They are still on that appeasement shit after we bailed them out in World War II. Europe's gonna die, I'm just not sure if America's doomed to the same fate yet, but I see the writings on the wall. If we follow the lead of Europe, America's gonna die.

Who feeds you conservatives this shit?

Europeans.

It ain't shit, it's the truth.

And yet, it does nothing that changes the fact that we did in fact save Europe's ass. Twice.

Lol, your kind of people are always good for a chuckle...
First of all, Arab =/= Muslim, Arab is an ethnicity like Hispanic, and an Arab can be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhistic, or just whatever the fuck he or she wants to be.
The vast majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe aren't even Arab.... in the UK, Muslims are pretty much exclusively Pakistani and Indian, which are Asian.
In The Netherlands/France/Belgium/Germany, most Muslims are North Africans (Algerians/Moroccans/Tunisians, some of which are indeed Arab, but most in Europe are Berbers, the original peoples of North Africa from before the Arab conquest), black Africans, and Turks. (and those aren't Arabs either, obviously)

Second, yes, there's lots of Muslim immigrants.... does this mean they're taking over?
Are Mexicans taking over in America? (actually, considering the type I'm talking to here, the answer would probably be yes :D)
I'm sick and tired of these paranoid islamophobic assholes spewing their shit about Europe, which, in 9/10 cases, they've never even been out of their own country.
Muslims aren't some hostile takeover machine like you would love to think... most of them are born here and some immigrants even have grandchildren who are born here now... they are forever part of our country and anyone who doesn't like it can suck a big fat one, that's the only thing you can really do about it.
And don't think you (random paranoid American guy) can come and tell me about this supposed islamic takeover of Europe... I was born and raised smack dab in the middle of a largely Muslim part of Amsterdam, went to a high school mostly attended by Muslims (which, ironically, was a Christian school :D), and I wouldn't have had it any other way.

No, not on that fact alone, however, like the illegal Mexican population of the United States, these are people who do not assimilate into European culture very well - in fact, the degree of racism Europeans display towards Muslims regardless of ethnicity pales in comparison to almost anything you can recall after the 1970s in the United States. They don't want these people to assimilate. You couple that with the abysmal economies of most of Western Europe and their weak job markets, you get intensely dissatisfied, unassimilated, and segregated people that start up shit - Example: The car burnings in France in 2005 that went largely unchecked.

Combine that with the unwillingness to even acknowledge that Islam and its followers are the enemy that most greatly threatens the West and you have a problem.

Iran will take over the Middle East and turn its sights to Europe, which will be ill-equipped and completely unwilling to fight back. Europe will fall and then the only thing left is the United States. America will likely die because the tide is turning towards electing those who will advocate policies that will weaken America and make it's foreign policy more Euro-centric in nature.

The West is in its last days. So about 20 years from now, when my Grammy Award winning-album Dark America is required listening in your kids' classes detailing the fall of Western Europe and the United States, don't act like I didn't tell you.

But I mean, hey, I'm paranoid right? Psh. Mark my words.

God, it's so fucking hard to take you seriously when you're on these bullshit self-promotion kicks. YOU'RE NOT AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE. God, NP, you can be good as a gimmick some days, like a clown at a kid's party, but not tonight you aren't. Go back to Sass and Dope. Your clown shoes seem to be fitting a little snugly in here.

Why are you such a damn hater? I'm working on a classic album right now and all you can do is sling petty insults, trying to throw salt in my game.

I happen to like your rhymes, mate. I've dug the albums you've tossed up. But required learning in a history class? Come on.

All I'm saying is this - my knowledge of history and what the hell is going on over there tells me that Western Civilization is about to be destroyed if Europe and the United States don't get on the right page together and crush these Islamofascists decisively.

But my knowledge of people and political trends also tell me that Europe is too far gone and America is nearing the point of no return. It's the reason why I named my sophomore album (though, technically it's my national, major label debut) Dark America because I see dark days ahead for my country.

Well, I'm not going to debate the west is falling with you, because I agree... though we disagree on the solution. And I'm also not going to say you don't know your political history, because you do. However, I'm just saying I wouldn't take a history class seriously if they made me listen to "We Didn't Start the Fire."

But maybe you would if you heard "The Preamble" or "What They Say"

Is this Megalith.

http://content.imagesocket.com/image...ig_2910a5f.gif

I was watching a news program (it may have been the Daily Show but it could have been something else), and they were interviewing a former US ambassador to the UN (I don't remember which one). It's only really important that he was a former ambassador to the UN.

According to him, pretty much all of the policy, statements, resolutions, votes, etc. were scripted pretty thouroughly by the State department. I got the impression from him that mostly what a diplomat brings to the table is their personality, and even then, interactions in the UN aren't exactly make or break moments for diplomacy, usually. Although there have been some notable exceptions.

So, with that in mind, let's look at Bolton's personality: Brutish, arrogant, and flippant. He failed to achieve goals he set out for himself, he didn't seem like he was doing anything to actually help along the diplomatic process, and he certainly wasn't making any friends. All he seemed to have to offer were flippant remarks and a walrus-sized (and style) moustache.

Night Phoenix claimed Bolton to be "the best" ambassador. If by "best" he means "most representative of the attitudes of the administration he serves," then sure, I agree. If, on the other hand, he meant something more along the lines of a conventional defenition of best -- i.e. improving relations with other countries, strengthening America's diplomatic position worldwide -- then he is a complete and utter failure.

NP and others can continue to live in their fantasy land, but in the real world, it's pretty clear that Bolton, even doing a job you're not really supposed to be able to screw up, has managed to do pretty much exactly what everyone expected him to do: fail at accomplishing, and spend the rest of his time being a sourpuss.

Although, to be fair, this is the first time in a while that an ambassador to the UN has provided such a goldmine of comedy material. Negroponte only could really give you Greek and Iran Contra jokes, but that moustache, sour demeanor, and those horrible analogies made Bolton a dream come true for comedy writers everywhere.

I'm sure they're all sad to see him go.

It was sad Boltan proved he actually was trying to clean up the UN but he was charater assigenated by the US media and Democrates because of getting a power base nothing to do with his ability.

You're some kind of troll, aren't you?