Bolton resigns

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/...n/edbolton.php

Quote:

John Bolton's decision to resign as America's envoy to the United Nations was a wise move. He averted a distracting and divisive fight at a time when both Congress and the Bush administration have better things to do. He has also provided President George W. Bush with an opportunity to show the kind of bipartisan leadership he talks about so frequently and exercises so seldom.
An ambassador to the United Nations should be someone who believes the organization deserves to exist. Bolton has always been hostile to the United Nations, and to the whole spirit of consensus-seeking diplomacy it embodies. When Democrats and moderate Republicans kept Bolton's nomination tied up in the Senate, Bush characteristically insisted on having his own way by giving Bolton an interim appointment while Congress was out of session.
But the interim appointment was about to expire, and the battle would have had to begin all over again once the new Congress arrived. Attempts to get the lame duck Senate to confirm Bolton ran aground when Lincoln Chafee, the Republican senator from Rhode Island, refused to support the nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee, leaving Bolton's fate hung up on a tie vote.
Chafee is the prime example of a moderate Republican who was popular with his constituents but who lost his seat because of Bush's hard-edge partisanship and insistence on having his own way in Iraq. The White House was left contemplating schemes to keep Bolton at work without Senate confirmation - like making him deputy ambassador and leaving the top job unfilled.


The United Nations doesn't need any further proof of how little the Bush administration thinks of it. And the Bush administration doesn't need to insult the world at a time when it is becoming increasingly clear how much help America needs to stabilize Afghanistan, extricate itself from Iraq and curb the nuclear appetites of North Korea and Iran. Bolton's withdrawal gives the president a chance to improve his relationship with both the United Nations and Congress. There are plenty of experienced, internationalist Republicans who could get near-unanimous support in the Senate and send a signal to the world that Bush understands that the United States is not the only nation on the planet whose opinion matters.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by eriol33

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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...

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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 thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Who feeds you conservatives this shit?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Cal

Who feeds you conservatives this shit?

Europeans.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Who feeds you conservatives this shit?

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

Quote:

What about saving your own hide? Do you seriously think Hitler would have stopped after conquering Europe and securing the U.S.S.R?

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

Europe's already doomed to be taken over by a flood of Islamic immigration

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 )
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 ), and I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Jam it back in, in the dark.