West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Don Rizzle on March 29, 2005, 04:14:44 AM
-
Ex-US diplomats round on Bolton
Fifty-nine former US diplomats have written to the chairman of a key Senate committee in protest at the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
The diplomats, who served under both Republican and Democrat presidents, described Mr Bolton, a known critic of the UN, as "the wrong man" for the job.
They urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to block his appointment.
Mr Bolton served as under-secretary of state responsible for arms control during President Bush's first term.
Chief among the objections was Mr Bolton's stated view that the UN "is valuable only when it directly serves the United States".
Veterans object
In addition, Mr Bolton was criticised for his record as US arms control supremo.
He had an "exceptional record" of undermining potential improvements to US national security through arms control, the diplomats complained.
Among the most senior signatories was Arthur Hartman, former ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard Nixon.
John R Bolton cannot be an effective promoter of the US national interest at the UN.
Ex-diplomats' letter
Princeton Lyman, a former ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria, Monteagle Stearns, US representative in Greece and Ivory Coast, and Spurgeon Keeny Jr, Jimmy Carter's deputy director of arms control, also signed the letter.
Mr Bolton requires approval from the foreign relations committee - made up of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats - before being told he can head to the UN's New York headquarters.
Announcing his nomination at the start of March, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described him as a "tough-minded diplomat" with "a proven track record of effective multilateralism".
But the former diplomats insist his hard-line views on states such as Cuba and Syria, as well as previous paid employment for the government of Taiwan, make him an unsuitable candidate.
"Given these past actions and statements, John R Bolton cannot be an effective promoter of the US national interest at the UN," they wrote.
"We urge you to oppose his nomination."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4389639.stm
In my opinion it is very counter productive to place him as the abassidor to the UN when he has previously been very negative about the UN.
-
depends upon what the US wants to acheieve with the UN.. with certain things in mind he'd be perfect.. for destablisation ;)
-
the un is discussing reform and america sends him, america must learn they cannot dictate everything, and they all too often alienate their allies by their policies
-
Looking foward to Kofi reforming the security council. Hopefully it will create global stabilization and losen US grip on the globe. I think Japan is being nominated, but China and Korea are having a bitch about it. But they know Japan will oppose China's commie bullshit so they are having a whine about it, fucking commies....
-
Looking foward to Kofi reforming the security council. Hopefully it will create global stabilization and losen US grip on the globe. I think Japan is being nominated, but China and Korea are having a bitch about it. But they know Japan will oppose China's commie bullshit so they are having a whine about it, fucking commies....
or because those Chinese havent forgotten for a single second over the last 70 years what those Japanese did to them in WW2?
-
(http://www.ticketservice.com/assets/images/michael_bolton1.jpg)
I runnnn the UNNNNNNNN
-
Looking foward to Kofi reforming the security council. Hopefully it will create global stabilization and losen US grip on the globe. I think Japan is being nominated, but China and Korea are having a bitch about it. But they know Japan will oppose China's commie bullshit so they are having a whine about it, fucking commies....
or because those Chinese havent forgotten for a single second over the last 70 years what those Japanese did to them in WW2?
I wouldn't don't think china should be the dominating force in the region but i would also be against japs getting a security council seat, i think brazil is the only worthwhile candidate for expansion It would be nice to have an african nation too but currently there isn't a country suited to SA maybe but not after how they suck up to mugabe, neglecting the people of zimbabwae.
-
Of course CHina should have the dominating position in the region. The Koreas are a unification and 30 years of economic catch up away from being dominant, and the Japs raped too many fuckers 70 years ago for the region to ever accept them as a power.
-
and the Japs raped too many fuckers 70 years ago for the region to ever accept them as a power.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=23357.0
Damn, the Holocaust is an "irrelevant historical event" but you sure hold a grudge aginst the japanese...
You're a pathethic anti-Semite.
-
and the Japs raped too many fuckers 70 years ago for the region to ever accept them as a power.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=23357.0
Damn, the Holocaust is an "irrelevant historical event" but you sure hold a grudge aginst the japanese...
You're a pathethic anti-Semite.
Man you're the one who is being pathetic
-
and the Japs raped too many fuckers 70 years ago for the region to ever accept them as a power.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=23357.0
Damn, the Holocaust is an "irrelevant historical event" but you sure hold a grudge aginst the japanese...
You're a pathethic anti-Semite.
Man you're the one who is being pathetic
Shut up. You're a dunce.
Here you have a faggot who won’t excuse one atrocity, but gives another a pass.
Please tell me how I'm being pathetic?
-
Looking foward to Kofi reforming the security council. Hopefully it will create global stabilization and losen US grip on the globe. I think Japan is being nominated, but China and Korea are having a bitch about it. But they know Japan will oppose China's commie bullshit so they are having a whine about it, fucking commies....
or because those Chinese havent forgotten for a single second over the last 70 years what those Japanese did to them in WW2?
Yeah of course they are still pissed about that, the old fellas in Australia haven't forgiven them either. But Japan may not of apologised or sufficiently admitted remorse, it has been at times the country with the largest foriegn aid pay outs to most Asian countries including China. I think Japan's vicious pacifism and its modern economy and values make it a top choice for security council permanency. The Chinese just see an opportunity to eliminate rivalry in the region, a dominant China will be terrible for Asia. Sure great economic benefits but they have no sense of morality.
-
and the Japs raped too many fuckers 70 years ago for the region to ever accept them as a power.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=23357.0
Damn, the Holocaust is an "irrelevant historical event" but you sure hold a grudge aginst the japanese...
You're a pathethic anti-Semite.
The Holocaust is a historical event.
The Holocaust is irrelevent to current Israeli policies re: Palestinians
Do you care to dispute the above facts faggot?
Why is everything black and white to you? Do you lack the required backround knowledge to understand the context of the discussion?
I was talkin about how Jews use the holocaust to justify everything the Israeli govt does.
Your lungs too small to hot box with God