no john bolton un?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The UN Ambassdor does not have any policy making ability. He only does what the president tells him to do. I agree with John Bolton's assessment of the UN, and agree with just about everything he has said on world politics, but he is not a constructive person to have in that role.

I here Bush wants to replace him with Harriet Miers.;)
 
Already been discussed. And they're floating Jim Leach, who is an anti, for replacement. Compliance with the small arms nonsense would seem likely, if so.
 
i haven't really been keeping up with that small arms issue,i just admire his style ,and since so many in the un hate us anyway,he was perfect for the job, imho.
 
A strong ambassador is critical for making sure that other nations realize that a matter is of particular importance to the represented nation. If an ambassador is wishy-washy on a particular issue or personally inclined in a way antagonistic to the represented nation, they can be swayed or even assist in swaying the represented nation. Even how they communicate information to the other nations and the represented nation affects the negotiations.
 
I was fortunate enough to see Ambassador Bolton speak this fall. John Bolton is exactly what the UN needs right now. We need someone who knows how the UN works and will has the backbone to stand up to other members of the permanent security council namely Russia and China. Russia and China have not behaved as responsible members of the international community when it comes to critical issues such as Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We must persuade them to do so.

John Bolton does see the UN has a body that can do some good but is in sore need of real reform. When listening to him speak it became very clear that the notion offered by critics that he is “out to destroy the UN” is pure fiction.
 
When listening to him speak it became very clear that the notion offered by critics that he is “out to destroy the UN” is pure fiction.
Click to expand...

People think that because John Bolton wrote several articles stating how the UN needs to be keel hauled and rebuilt. He is also quoted for saying "The secretariat building in New York has 38 floors, if it lost 10 it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It's his own fault that people think he's out to destroy the UN, since he publicly criticizes how "useless" the UN is and how badly it's constructed.
 
quatin,

Those comments were deliberately taken out of context in order to derail his confirmation. The most his critics were ever able to offer was to call him a bully. They would have made a better case if they had something substantive to offer.
 
People think that because John Bolton wrote several articles stating how the UN needs to be keel hauled and rebuilt. He is also quoted for saying "The secretariat building in New York has 38 floors, if it lost 10 it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It's his own fault that people think he's out to destroy the UN, since he publicly criticizes how "useless" the UN is and how badly it's constructed.
Click to expand...

Even if they weren't out of context, all that would prove was that he was the perfect man for the job because he had that most rare of combinations: the ability to see the truth and the willingness to speak it.

The UN's activities (or lack thereof) over the last decade have established it's inability to do anything except line of the pockets of its officials with bribe money.
 
What the u.n. (uncapitalized on purpose) NEEDS, is an eviction notice. Why we continue to grant this useless, anti-american organization legitimacy is beyond me.

kick the bums out.
 
quatin,

Those comments were deliberately taken out of context in order to derail his confirmation. The most his critics were ever able to offer was to call him a bully. They would have made a better case if they had something substantive to offer.
Click to expand...

I've actually not see the whole interview where he made that comment. Exactly what context was it in when he implied that secretariat building could have 10 floors removed and not make a difference?
 
The reason for an ambassador is to promote an image of the country he represents. John Bolton is the man for the job because he believes in his country, has resolve, and won't back down to critics. All of which the current Senate stands against.
 
i had never heard of john bolton,until bush appointed him.and he has kicked a
$$ ever since,even his critics know this. the only reason he wasn't appointed was partisan b.s.
 
I support generally everything Bolton has said about the UN, but don't think he is the right man for the job as a diplomat. I would be all for getting out of the UN, but if we are going to stay (which we obviously are), then we don't need a name-calling, rabble-rousing bully serving in the role of Ambassador. Not that there is anything wrong with any of that, its just that it is silly to think you can make comments like that and then expect people to be be friendly with you.

Diplomats can only do what Presidents let them, so I am not particularly concerned by his loss, and think it will probably be a positive thing for him to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top