Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bolton Inaccurately Filled Out Senate Questionaire
Topic Started: Jul 29 2005, 07:37 AM (469 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:49 AM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:11 AM
What is he going to do besides rant and rave?  How is that going to accomplish anything?

Oh grow up. Seriously.

You really think that is all he does in life. This is beyond pathetic.

If I ever saw an example of him acting like a rational person (unlike his congressional testimony) then maybe I'd have another opinion.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:55 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:49 AM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:11 AM
What is he going to do besides rant and rave?  How is that going to accomplish anything?

Oh grow up. Seriously.

You really think that is all he does in life. This is beyond pathetic.

If I ever saw an example of him acting like a rational person (unlike his congressional testimony) then maybe I'd have another opinion.

When have you seen him NOT act in that fashion? Or have you just read news reports of a bunch of sissy whiners who complain that he is such a meanie? :loling:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I specifically recall his testimony before congress. He seemed a little nuts to me.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:50 PM
I specifically recall his testimony before congress. He seemed a little nuts to me.

To you, maybe. To me he seemed both a coherent and capable guy who doesn't take s&%# from badgering senators, and not a milquetoasty kowtowing UN-schmoozer.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 01:56 PM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:50 PM
I specifically recall his testimony before congress.  He seemed a little nuts to me.

To you, maybe. To me he seemed both a coherent and capable guy who doesn't take s&%# from badgering senators, and not a milquetoasty kowtowing UN-schmoozer.

Well, I'm not sure how that kind of personality is suposed to "reform" the UN. Are you?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:57 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 01:56 PM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:50 PM
I specifically recall his testimony before congress.  He seemed a little nuts to me.

To you, maybe. To me he seemed both a coherent and capable guy who doesn't take s&%# from badgering senators, and not a milquetoasty kowtowing UN-schmoozer.

Well, I'm not sure how that kind of personality is suposed to "reform" the UN. Are you?

You keep going back to personality. I prefer competence, but that's just me. I'll bet you're just a blast at parties... :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
I've always wondered exactly how Bolton is going to "reform the UN", myself. It's great rhetoric and plays well to the conservative base, but exactly what do they think he can do? (They do understand that the UN is not just another federal department of the US, don't they? He can't just waltz in and take control.) If it's merely threatening to cut off our funding unless there is more accountability for its spending, well, couldn't any lackey of the administration carry that message? They must feel he has some hidden talent for diplomacy that is unapparent to the casual viewer. (And hotly contested by many not-so-casual coworkers.) I think it's really all about loyalty. From Bush to Bolton, and from Bush's supporters to Bush. And the wishes of the UN be damned...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 02:03 PM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:57 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 01:56 PM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:50 PM
I specifically recall his testimony before congress.  He seemed a little nuts to me.

To you, maybe. To me he seemed both a coherent and capable guy who doesn't take s&%# from badgering senators, and not a milquetoasty kowtowing UN-schmoozer.

Well, I'm not sure how that kind of personality is suposed to "reform" the UN. Are you?

You keep going back to personality. I prefer competence, but that's just me. I'll bet you're just a blast at parties... :rotfl:

How do you think he will reform the UN admiral?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Mainiac
Jul 29 2005, 01:05 PM
I've always wondered exactly how Bolton is going to "reform the UN", myself.  It's great rhetoric and plays well to the conservative base, but exactly what do they think he can do?  (They do understand that the UN is not just another federal department of the US, don't they?  He can't just waltz in and take control.)  If it's merely threatening to cut off our funding unless there is more accountability for its spending, well, couldn't any lackey of the administration carry that message?  They must feel he has some hidden talent for diplomacy that is unapparent to the casual viewer.  (And hotly contested by many not-so-casual coworkers.)  I think it's really all about loyalty.  From Bush to Bolton, and from Bush's supporters to Bush.  And the wishes of the UN be damned...

Bush loyalty? What has Bolton been in the Bush Administration? Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I believe that ranks up there with Under Secretary for Sno Cone Size Enforcement.

I think, quite simply, that Bolton is the guy who will take the message to the UN that pissant third-world organizations won't be affecting US policy any more. How can he do it? Let's see... the UN can be evicted, we can cut off both funding and the personnel for several UN missions. In other words, we can starve them of resources until they decide to hold their leaders accountable for the incredible corruption this joke of an organization has become known for.

Bolton is merely the instrument. He is convincing and he won't wither under pressure like certain others (Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright) in the past. He will most likely argue for Kofi Annan's resignation (unfortunately, nor for a prison cell).

Some here make excuses for the UN corruption and think we should still support them, even though this body has worked against OUR national interests for decades.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
Admiralbill_gomec Posted on Jul 29 2005
02:44 PM
Bush loyalty? What has Bolton been in the Bush Administration? Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I believe that ranks up there with Under Secretary for Sno Cone Size Enforcement.

I think, quite simply, that Bolton is the guy who will take the message to the UN that pissant third-world organizations won't be affecting US policy any more. How can he do it? Let's see... the UN can be evicted, we can cut off both funding and the personnel for several UN missions. In other words, we can starve them of resources until they decide to hold their leaders accountable for the incredible corruption this joke of an organization has become known for.

Bolton is merely the instrument. He is convincing and he won't wither under pressure like certain others (Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright) in the past. He will most likely argue for Kofi Annan's resignation (unfortunately, nor for a prison cell).

Some here make excuses for the UN corruption and think we should still support them, even though this body has worked against OUR national interests for decades.


I really think you are just making my point here, abg. Your opinion of the UN and past US policy with regard to it is clear, but I do not understand your rationale. As you yourself say, "Bolton is merely the instrument." Richardson and Albright did exactly as they were instructed, as any Ambassador does. They represent US policy, they don't form it. You have made no case for why Bolton is the only one who can do the job Bush wants done at the UN. If I need to dig a hole, and the shovel I would prefer to dig it with is unavailable, I grab another one. I don't make a huge scene until I get "my" shovel... Bush is the President, and if the ambassador to the UN doesn't do what he wants, he fires him and appoints another. In this case it seems to be much more important to the administration to have the "right" man in the position than it is to have anyone at all. (He'll be appointed next week, after congress adjourns.) And by the way, I personally would NOT want Madeleine PO'd at me. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

As I said, it's clearly just an FU to the UN.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Mainiac
Jul 29 2005, 02:29 PM
Admiralbill_gomec Posted on Jul 29 2005
02:44 PM
Bush loyalty? What has Bolton been in the Bush Administration? Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I believe that ranks up there with Under Secretary for Sno Cone Size Enforcement.

I think, quite simply, that Bolton is the guy who will take the message to the UN that pissant third-world organizations won't be affecting US policy any more. How can he do it? Let's see... the UN can be evicted, we can cut off both funding and the personnel for several UN missions. In other words, we can starve them of resources until they decide to hold their leaders accountable for the incredible corruption this joke of an organization has become known for.

Bolton is merely the instrument. He is convincing and he won't wither under pressure like certain others (Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright) in the past. He will most likely argue for Kofi Annan's resignation (unfortunately, nor for a prison cell).

Some here make excuses for the UN corruption and think we should still support them, even though this body has worked against OUR national interests for decades.


I really think you are just making my point here, abg. Your opinion of the UN and past US policy with regard to it is clear, but I do not understand your rationale. As you yourself say, "Bolton is merely the instrument." Richardson and Albright did exactly as they were instructed, as any Ambassador does. They represent US policy, they don't form it. You have made no case for why Bolton is the only one who can do the job Bush wants done at the UN. If I need to dig a hole, and the shovel I would prefer to dig it with is unavailable, I grab another one. I don't make a huge scene until I get "my" shovel... Bush is the President, and if the ambassador to the UN doesn't do what he wants, he fires him and appoints another. In this case it seems to be much more important to the administration to have the "right" man in the position than it is to have anyone at all. (He'll be appointed next week, after congress adjourns.) And by the way, I personally would NOT want Madeleine PO'd at me. ;)

US policy toward the UN has changed since the Clinton Administration.

In addition, the scandals such as Oil-for-Food and raping 12-year old girls in Rwanda were not known.

He is the president's pick. I like him (Bolton). How about making a case as to why someone else should get the job, and what they should do.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

That's a dodge if I ever saw one. Why don't you admit that the reason you like him is simply because it's an FU to the UN?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 02:49 PM
That's a dodge if I ever saw one.  Why don't you admit that the reason you like him is simply because it's an FU to the UN?

Once again, as I said in another thread, I don't have to justify it to you.

If you can't figure out why I like him from what I have written in this thread, then too bad... even though you are going to insist that I like Bolton because of a supposed "FU to the UN". Think whatever you want. I really don't care. Frankly, you've made up your mind about this, and you won't accept anything I say as anything but "this is just an FU to the UN." I believe I am being perfectly straightforward, and you are trying to parse everything I say and draw your own conclusion. Try looking at something at face value for once. :wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

You seem to think he'll reform the place but I can't figure out how you feel he will do that. I'm just trying to understand this aspect of your theory.
| Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus