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.