John R. Bolton

[jimmoyer]

I like Bolton's remarks, but the US Senate is investigating how policy makers change the facts.

We all know what our boss wants to hear.

This is also true of any bureaucracy and Bolton went too far in making sure that the bureaucracy will not dare present any facts the policy makers (the bosses) don't want to hear.

America can find another guy, better than Bolton, to squeeze the UN's flawed balls.

 

[Said1]

Who is the World Bank's President and how is he Elected?
James D. Wolfensohn is the ninth president of the World Bank Group. He is chairman of the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors and president of five interrelated organizations. The President is selected by the Bank's Board of Executive Directors. The Articles of Agreement do not specify the nationality of the president, but by custom the United States executive director makes a nomination. By a long-standing, informal agreement, the president of the Bank is a United States national, while the managing director of the International Monetary Fund is a European. The initial term is five years while a second term could be five years or less.

link

 

[Reverend Blair]

I do believe you intuitively know that the UN has many flaws as I do. Our reasons for those flaws may differ, however.

There's nothing intuitive about it. I know (not believe) that the UN has many flaws. I have looked into those flaws and I have looked in Annan's proposed reforms. Those reforms are valid and positive. They address real problems in a realistic way. The only thing that would make them better is dumping the veto of the permanent members of the SC.

I propose that truth is only found in an adversarial way.

There is a difference between your "adversarial way" and the ugly political witch hunt being carried out by the representatives of your nation and the malinformed in mine.

only problem is i like Bolton, the UN is a joke and needs a guy like this to shake out the dead crap.

Bolton is a dangerous idiot. He should be dragged out behind the woodshed and whipped like red-headed stepchild. He does not want to make the UN better and he was not appointed to do so. Instead he is there to marginalize the UN so that the US can do as it pleases without question. That is unacceptable.

 

[Jo Canadian]

He should be dragged out behind the woodshed and whipped like red-headed stepchild

I'm going to remember that one!!

 

[badboy]

I do believe you intuitively know that the UN has many flaws as I do. Our reasons for those flaws may differ, however.

There's nothing intuitive about it. I know (not believe) that the UN has many flaws. I have looked into those flaws and I have looked in Annan's proposed reforms. Those reforms are valid and positive. They address real problems in a realistic way. The only thing that would make them better is dumping the veto of the permanent members of the SC.

I propose that truth is only found in an adversarial way.

There is a difference between your "adversarial way" and the ugly political witch hunt being carried out by the representatives of your nation and the malinformed in mine.

only problem is i like Bolton, the UN is a joke and needs a guy like this to shake out the dead crap.

Bolton is a dangerous idiot. He should be dragged out behind the woodshed and whipped like red-headed stepchild. He does not want to make the UN better and he was not appointed to do so. Instead he is there to marginalize the UN so that the US can do as it pleases without question. That is unacceptable.

Always with your $0.02 and it's very acceptable, VERY, next will be their ass kicked out of NYC. move them over to France or some other useless country.

 

[Reverend Blair]

We could put them right here in Winnipeg, Badboy.

I doubt that the US will kick them out though. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to try that. Whether you like it or not, the US has no right to try to run the world. The backlash if they try to destroy the only mechanism we have for true communication between nations will be huge. We've all seen how well the US manages without the cooperation of the world.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Reverend Blair]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jimmoyer]

Bolton is wrong for making sure the bureaucracy tell him only what he wants to hear.

Anan is also wrong for not being as accurately forthright about the UN Food for Oil Program.

Kofi Annan is still the better man, however.

His reform plans are only good for the reason they suggest a change in the UN structure, but the specific requests to change the permanent security council require a far better debate than I've seen on this board.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Why don't you like the changes to the SC? He gave two options in his report. Both are valid, both address the very real problem that many of the functions of the UN are run by 5 nations who act only in their own self-interests. All five of those nations have at least some history of imperialism (China the least, the US the most since WWII). Their power and influence needs to be mitigated. Annan's proposed reforms will do that to some extent.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the veto and the concept of permanent member status is not a possibility, so Annan's options are likely the best that can be done. I certainly haven't seen a better plan.

 

[jimmoyer]

Your implied definition of imperialism is a whole other debate to be had at another time in another thread.

Likewise so is your belief that China's lack of imperialism or potential for true imperialistic expansion (not the metaphorical economic kind, but the military land grabbing kind) is yet another issue for another thread.

But the idea of this thread concerning Bolton is we pretty much agree and so we come to your question on the Kofi Annan's suggestions for changing the security council.

If we are to go with the biggest GDP economic powers you would have to exclude Britain and France and Russia (whose GDP barely rivals the Netherlands or Los Angeles county).

On this basis you would see US, Japan, India, China (and possibly Taiwan), South Korea.

ON an economic basis this would not be fair to the EU countries as a whole, and so it should be the EU that has a seat on the security council rather than any one individual European country.

That's determination is just based on economic power.

What other ways to choose the security council?

Moral Authority?

Nah.

Military authority?

Maybe.

Historical authority? As defined as being part of the original history and growth of the UN?

If that is the determination, then you leave the Security Council be.

But that would still be a problem for the emerging economic might of Brazil as well.

In short I don't see any body getting a good idea here.

Sunset of any bureaucracy is a good rule however.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Your implied definition of imperialism is a whole other debate to be had at another time in another thread.

Fire it up.

Likewise so is your belief that China's lack of imperialism or potential for true imperialistic expansion (not the metaphorical economic kind, but the military land grabbing kind) is yet another issue for another thread.

Except that isn't what I said. I said they had the least history of it since WWII. Again, if want to discuss it in another thread, fire it up. I'm not shy.

But the idea of this thread concerning Bolton is we pretty much agree and so we come to your question on the Kofi Annan's suggestions for changing the security council.

As long as we come in one way or another. That's what I always say...at least when it might be considered inappropriate. :wink:

If we are to go with the biggest GDP economic powers

Why would we do that?

ON an economic basis this would not be fair to the EU countries as a whole, and so it should be the EU that has a seat on the security council rather than any one individual European country.

Europe already has a voice though, and would have a larger one under Annan's plan.

The issue really isn't Europe though, but South America and Africa. You ignore them at your peril, but your insistence on measuring everything by present economic worth demands that you do so.

It is a weakness in your your basic way of thinking. Population means little, potential for negative effects means nothing at all. All that counts is money. Sorry...people can't eat money.

 

[jimmoyer]

We will fire up those issues on China and Imperialism I'm sure.

Your moralism prevents you from a certain practicality.

The fact that you don't go downtown and pick up the homeless to live in your home shows that in some way you deserve credit for practicality.

Try transferring what you would personally do or not do when really calculating how to get things done in this world.

You really are just a movie critic.

I want to talk to the guy who created the movie instead.

 

[Reverend Blair]

This isn't a movie, Jim. Repressed people, when they feel they don't have a voice, eventually resort to insurrection. The policies of the USA, the World Bank, and the IMF are creating a new generation of terrorists.

The USA's policies on AIDS are doing the same.

Do you really believe that terrorists attacked the USA because they hated your freedoms? Isn't it far more likely that they attacked the USA because of your foreign policies? Of course it is. You keep on pushing those same policies.

Now let's consider the facts...people are dying in Africa every day because of AIDS. The US has, because of the international gag order on abortions and the religious beliefs of your administration, pulled funding from the most effective NGOs. You have also refused to take a serious role in the UN's AIDS, Malaria, and TB program, instead running your own parallel program that has undermined many of the UN initiaves. While doing that you have fought, at every turn, attempts to get generic AIDS drugs to sick people in the midst of a pandemic.

So in ten or fifteen when the millions of AIDS orphans become politicized and somebody blows up a pharmaceutical plant in the US, what will you say?

The same goes for South America. You privatised the water there, now children are dying from water-borne diseases. You've funded every union-busting, anti-democratic movement on the continent. You've supported death squads. You've trained torturers and military strongmen at your School of the Americas. You've undermined democratically elected governments. You've used the war on drugs as an excuse to install and guard oil pipelines.

What will you say when the people there rise up and fight back against the US in any way they can?


We already know what you will say in both cases don't we. "They hate us because of our freedoms." "They are just jealous because we are rich."

It will be nothing but self-delusion and willful ignorance, but it's a lot easier than recognizing that your policies caused generations of resentment until somebody finally stood up and struck out at you.

 

[jimmoyer]

You latch on the shallow level of headline facts with no fair analysis.

Gleefully you look for anything you can throw.

I understand thoroughly your point of view even if your facts are not the complete picture.

There's no monopoly on the truth.

Don't shut the door because you think all of the truth resides in your little room.

You read about privatizing water rights. Tell me more about that.

I got a friend down here who wrote for the agriculture magazines and was furious how some of the large seed companies don't want new fruit to bear seeds, thus forcing you to buy seeds from their cornering of the market.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yeah, I know about the agri-business too, Jim.

I don't just read headlines, btw.

Thanks for being obtuse and patronizing though...it's good to have something I can count on.

 

[jimmoyer]

Sorry Reverend.

I don't think you just read the headlines either.

I don't want you to count on me being obtuse and patronizing.

LOL.

You're okay, my friend. And don't consider that patronizing. I'm just going to question you and you of course will do the same.

 

[mrmom2]

Hey jim look how good your country is doing on the war on terror :roll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

 

[jimmoyer]

Yes, we're screwed.

You should rejoice.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: John R. Bolton

Yes, we're screwed.

You should rejoice.

Yeah baby!!! I got dibs on Texas... 8)