Terror from the Inside
June 2, 2005 4:47 AM Subscribe
"If you don't like that, I'm sorry." Jon Bolton, Bush nominee for Ambassador to the UN, discusses the United Nations with humility and patriotic aplomb.
Thanks for the link - some scary shit. Brings into sharp relief what an asshat tool the man is.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:55 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:55 AM on June 2, 2005
That is absolutely amazing.
What a wonderful appointment. Sigh.
posted by blacklite at 4:57 AM on June 2, 2005
What a wonderful appointment. Sigh.
posted by blacklite at 4:57 AM on June 2, 2005
How is this controversial? Of course the US will follow its national interest first and second and everything else third. The same goes for every other country in the UN.
Sure, it's common to sugar-coat that message with some courtesy phrases about the "international community" and "world peace" and "fighting poverty" and some other yada-yada, but we all know that is just sugar-coating.
I for one welcome some plain-speakin'.
posted by dagny at 4:57 AM on June 2, 2005
Sure, it's common to sugar-coat that message with some courtesy phrases about the "international community" and "world peace" and "fighting poverty" and some other yada-yada, but we all know that is just sugar-coating.
I for one welcome some plain-speakin'.
posted by dagny at 4:57 AM on June 2, 2005
I for one welcome some plain-speakin'.
Personally, I have had enough of (double) plain-speakin' these past five years. I'd settle for some actual ability at this point.
posted by psmealey at 4:59 AM on June 2, 2005
Personally, I have had enough of (double) plain-speakin' these past five years. I'd settle for some actual ability at this point.
posted by psmealey at 4:59 AM on June 2, 2005
Indeed, it is time for us to take the diplomacy out of diplomat! We've tried talking to these people for years and we only got our way like 80% of the time. Now, it is time to demand that we do things our way and try to raise that percentage to 40%.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:03 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:03 AM on June 2, 2005
Sure, it's common to sugar-coat that message with some courtesy phrases about the "international community" and "world peace" and "fighting poverty" and some other yada-yada, but we all know that is just sugar-coating.
I think one great argument for the UN's existence and utility is that such things need not simply be empty words; if our government is not committed to such political goals, though, perhaps we should just withdraw from the UN entirely. But that will not happen, of course.
posted by clockzero at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2005
I think one great argument for the UN's existence and utility is that such things need not simply be empty words; if our government is not committed to such political goals, though, perhaps we should just withdraw from the UN entirely. But that will not happen, of course.
posted by clockzero at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2005
Of course the US will follow its national interest first and second and everything else third. The same goes for every other country in the UN.
Blah. Take a good long look at a list of Conventions the U.S. hasn't signed on to. Then look at what other countries have. Most nations are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of self-interest for a greater good, providing that other nations are willing to do the same. The U.S. is even pulling out of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, the Convention that tells you how to interpret all other treaties. You think all nations do this? Really?
posted by dreamsign at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2005
Blah. Take a good long look at a list of Conventions the U.S. hasn't signed on to. Then look at what other countries have. Most nations are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of self-interest for a greater good, providing that other nations are willing to do the same. The U.S. is even pulling out of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, the Convention that tells you how to interpret all other treaties. You think all nations do this? Really?
posted by dreamsign at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2005
Why is Bush pushing Bolton? Surely Bolton is supremely inappropriate and has been shown to be disliked by many people. What does Bush get out of it? What would he lost if Bolton were not appointed?
posted by sien at 5:37 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by sien at 5:37 AM on June 2, 2005
Most of what he said seems an accurate assessment of reality. I would prefer it if American policy would generally be that honest rather than hiding behind all the shit about America and it's mission to bring democracy to the world, etc when it is actually fucking people over in its own interests. Sure it would be nice if the US aspired to higher goals, but really, it doesn't.
posted by biffa at 5:38 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by biffa at 5:38 AM on June 2, 2005
Holy smokes... I knew Bolton was abrasive but I didn't understand until now that he's absolutely batshit insane,
I think Bolton is a marvelous choice, we need to inject some life into that staid deliberative body and Bolton is the man for the job. Bolton should send a clear message that the United Nations exists solely to further US interests. If they don't like it they can pack up their dashikis, lederhosen and berets and move to Geneva. What are they going to do, invade Duluth?
Gawd, this makes me sad. I remember when I was a kid on a field trip to the UN -- we really believed that this was the solution to war, poverty and hunger. Now it just seems pointless; humanitarian efforts are riddled with corruption, peacekeeping efforts only serve to increase tensions and horrible tyrannical regimes sit on human rights committees. Bolton should be the final nail in the coffin of a body that should have been put out of it's misery a decade ago. We're not ready and probably never will be.
posted by cedar at 5:42 AM on June 2, 2005
I think Bolton is a marvelous choice, we need to inject some life into that staid deliberative body and Bolton is the man for the job. Bolton should send a clear message that the United Nations exists solely to further US interests. If they don't like it they can pack up their dashikis, lederhosen and berets and move to Geneva. What are they going to do, invade Duluth?
Gawd, this makes me sad. I remember when I was a kid on a field trip to the UN -- we really believed that this was the solution to war, poverty and hunger. Now it just seems pointless; humanitarian efforts are riddled with corruption, peacekeeping efforts only serve to increase tensions and horrible tyrannical regimes sit on human rights committees. Bolton should be the final nail in the coffin of a body that should have been put out of it's misery a decade ago. We're not ready and probably never will be.
posted by cedar at 5:42 AM on June 2, 2005
Of course the US will follow its national interest first and second and everything else third
Ah yes, the ethics of the cancer cell.
Wonderful.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:45 AM on June 2, 2005
Ah yes, the ethics of the cancer cell.
Wonderful.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:45 AM on June 2, 2005
Bolton is the political equivalent of a straw man argument.
Put him up, let him destroy the last bit of potential for international consent left. Then complain about the UN being now totally irrelevant.
Result: Even less opposition at home when fucking the UN over, no need to bother with them ever again.
posted by uncle harold at 5:53 AM on June 2, 2005
Put him up, let him destroy the last bit of potential for international consent left. Then complain about the UN being now totally irrelevant.
Result: Even less opposition at home when fucking the UN over, no need to bother with them ever again.
posted by uncle harold at 5:53 AM on June 2, 2005
I for one welcome some plain-speakin'.
There's a difference between "plain speakin" and being a raging asshole. Unforunately, USers these days, seem to equate plain, straight-forward talk with inflexible, insulting arrogance.
You want to see the UN become (in conservative US eyes) even more of a useless artifact? Confirm Bolton. Hey...wait...maybe that's the point?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 AM on June 2, 2005
There's a difference between "plain speakin" and being a raging asshole. Unforunately, USers these days, seem to equate plain, straight-forward talk with inflexible, insulting arrogance.
You want to see the UN become (in conservative US eyes) even more of a useless artifact? Confirm Bolton. Hey...wait...maybe that's the point?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 AM on June 2, 2005
I don't like it, but something tells me he's not really sorry. This is truly frightening. The man is a un-fucking-believable asshole, and I hope someone gives him the physical ass-kicking he deserves. Any takers?
posted by ghastlyfop at 6:14 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by ghastlyfop at 6:14 AM on June 2, 2005
What dreamsign said. The US is always the first to tout the merits of a "global village" and then the first to build a mote around their yard and shoot France's dog.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:19 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by es_de_bah at 6:19 AM on June 2, 2005
Currently Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is suggesting a new dress code, so thermostats in government offices can be set at 28 degrees C, even in summer. Why? To reduce electricity use and help reduce carbon dioxide emissions to meet Japan's obligations for the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
This is but a small example of another country's small sacrifice for the greater good, but dagny seems to think that every country "will follow its national interest first and second and everything else third..."
Really, dagny? Or are you just blind to the fact that even I would be a better U.N. ambassador than this utter and complete disaster of a nominee Bolton?
posted by zardoz at 6:29 AM on June 2, 2005
This is but a small example of another country's small sacrifice for the greater good, but dagny seems to think that every country "will follow its national interest first and second and everything else third..."
Really, dagny? Or are you just blind to the fact that even I would be a better U.N. ambassador than this utter and complete disaster of a nominee Bolton?
posted by zardoz at 6:29 AM on June 2, 2005
Bolton is the political equivalent of a straw man argument.
Only if you want him to be. The UN is perfectly capable of collapsing under the weight of its own uselessness without Bolton.
posted by Witty at 6:37 AM on June 2, 2005
Only if you want him to be. The UN is perfectly capable of collapsing under the weight of its own uselessness without Bolton.
posted by Witty at 6:37 AM on June 2, 2005
Why is Bush pushing Bolton? Surely Bolton is supremely inappropriate and has been shown to be disliked by many people. What does Bush get out of it? What would he lost if Bolton were not appointed?
posted by sien at 7:37 AM CST on June 2 [!]
Because Bush is a stubborn jackass, that's why.
The man, like all ultra-conservatives, is absolutely assured of his unfailing accuracy on all issues, always.
To admit he suggested the wrong man in the first place would be admitting weakness and admitting fallibility. This simply will not do.
You have to remember, this is a man who believes that cloning stem cells is "killing babies".
His own wife has proclaimed how he doesn't like to "think" about things, how he likes to just make snap decisions based on feelings as opposed to facts.
The "sticking to your guns" act plays incredibly well with Bush's base. A base that is founded on religious beliefs that are also infallible, and where acting with certainty based on BELIEFS, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not only desired, but required.
I don't buy the whole "Bush is trying to wreck the UN" argument, simply because he's too stupid.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:38 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by sien at 7:37 AM CST on June 2 [!]
Because Bush is a stubborn jackass, that's why.
The man, like all ultra-conservatives, is absolutely assured of his unfailing accuracy on all issues, always.
To admit he suggested the wrong man in the first place would be admitting weakness and admitting fallibility. This simply will not do.
You have to remember, this is a man who believes that cloning stem cells is "killing babies".
His own wife has proclaimed how he doesn't like to "think" about things, how he likes to just make snap decisions based on feelings as opposed to facts.
The "sticking to your guns" act plays incredibly well with Bush's base. A base that is founded on religious beliefs that are also infallible, and where acting with certainty based on BELIEFS, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not only desired, but required.
I don't buy the whole "Bush is trying to wreck the UN" argument, simply because he's too stupid.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:38 AM on June 2, 2005
Another reason to hate John Bolton: he uses "I'm sorry" in a passive-aggressive manner. Like I needed another reason.
posted by goatdog at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by goatdog at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2005
I'm sorry, but he's a raging hemorrhoid of a human being.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:39 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:39 AM on June 2, 2005
God, y'know what pisses me off? That people have no fucking clue as to what the UN actually does, and why being a part of the United Nations is fucking vital TO AMERICAN INTERESTS! You heard me, you douchebags! The UN administers things from the WHO to peacekeeping missions and development loans all with an infrastructure smaller than WYOMING's. Fucking Wyoming, you retards.
From the Security Council, which actually does do a lot of good when we're not acting to directly fuck it over (most of it is involved with developing regional security organizations to deal with local problems at a local level), to ECOSOC to the HDI index, the UN not only works with a high degree of efficiency, it works IN OUR INTEREST.
OUR INTEREST IS THE GLOBAL INTEREST, you short-sighted arrogant fucks. Our interest is in stabilizing emerging markets in developing nations, so that we can sell them things and give them aid in American products. Our interest is in reducing poverty and disease, as that limits our risk of catching shit like SARS. It is in our interest to have developing nations become more energy efficient, as that reduces the overall competition for the resources that we need for growth. It is in our interest to increase global communication. It is in our interest to HAVE A FUCKING MEETING PLACE WHERE DISPUTES CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT WAR! WAR IS BAD FOR BUSINESS, douchebags!
God, it always pisses me off when a bunch of conservative pisspots are willing to try and fuck the globe when all it does is make us into the global assholes, and stymies our long-term goals with regard to our economy and our general human development. Raising someone out of poverty in Bhutan will give them a dollar to go and see a Hollywood flick. Making sure that people aren't slaughtered in the Ivory Coast will make it easier to industrialize their labor, and to harvest their resources. But refusing to play with the UN when we can't dictate their every move is only going to make countries seek economic, social and cultural ties with other countries. And that hurts us in every way, from our trade deficit to terrorism.
I'll be the first one to argue that the UN does need reform, like all bureaucracies do. But this bullshit about "America right or wrong" only serves to make us wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 8:48 AM on June 2, 2005
From the Security Council, which actually does do a lot of good when we're not acting to directly fuck it over (most of it is involved with developing regional security organizations to deal with local problems at a local level), to ECOSOC to the HDI index, the UN not only works with a high degree of efficiency, it works IN OUR INTEREST.
OUR INTEREST IS THE GLOBAL INTEREST, you short-sighted arrogant fucks. Our interest is in stabilizing emerging markets in developing nations, so that we can sell them things and give them aid in American products. Our interest is in reducing poverty and disease, as that limits our risk of catching shit like SARS. It is in our interest to have developing nations become more energy efficient, as that reduces the overall competition for the resources that we need for growth. It is in our interest to increase global communication. It is in our interest to HAVE A FUCKING MEETING PLACE WHERE DISPUTES CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT WAR! WAR IS BAD FOR BUSINESS, douchebags!
God, it always pisses me off when a bunch of conservative pisspots are willing to try and fuck the globe when all it does is make us into the global assholes, and stymies our long-term goals with regard to our economy and our general human development. Raising someone out of poverty in Bhutan will give them a dollar to go and see a Hollywood flick. Making sure that people aren't slaughtered in the Ivory Coast will make it easier to industrialize their labor, and to harvest their resources. But refusing to play with the UN when we can't dictate their every move is only going to make countries seek economic, social and cultural ties with other countries. And that hurts us in every way, from our trade deficit to terrorism.
I'll be the first one to argue that the UN does need reform, like all bureaucracies do. But this bullshit about "America right or wrong" only serves to make us wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 8:48 AM on June 2, 2005
Egad, I haven't seen a rant like that on mefi since the Ann Coulter post a few doors down.
Well played.
posted by plexiwatt at 8:59 AM on June 2, 2005
Well played.
posted by plexiwatt at 8:59 AM on June 2, 2005
Well, I learned more from that than almost anything else I've read on UN in a long while.
Well put.
posted by docpops at 9:08 AM on June 2, 2005
Well put.
posted by docpops at 9:08 AM on June 2, 2005
Think of this video as a trailer from the future. In the future, people will look at this speech, and footage of Bush explaining the word "disassemble" at the press conference the other day, and Rumsfeld dismissing the charges of torture at Gitmo, and they'll say to themselves, "It was so obvious. How could Americans not see it? How could they be fooled for so long?"
posted by digaman at 9:08 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by digaman at 9:08 AM on June 2, 2005
It's so painfully obvious that the only reason Bush wants Bolton to the Ambassador to the UN is so that Bolton can then undermine the UN's effectiveness, possibly destroying it in the process. The UN is a thorn in the Bush administration's side.
posted by camworld at 9:24 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by camworld at 9:24 AM on June 2, 2005
I've read those Bolton quotes before, but there's definitely something chilling about seeing the footage. The man acts like he has some kind of personal vendetta against the UN. Good link.
posted by gurple at 9:29 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by gurple at 9:29 AM on June 2, 2005
Perhaps there will be an advantage to having this guy confirmed.
He's confirmed. He pisses everybody off. Everybody refuses to work with us. International creditors who this country owes buttloads of debt begin to call in those debts, crashing our economy. No more money for war, no more money for bankrolling/subsidizing 'free enterprise', the veil is lifted off the hypocrisy of this country once and for all, and in the end arrogant, stupid 'muricans learn one of the harshest lessons in humility that has ever been taught.
At long last, those who think of themselves as conservatives or 'free market enthusiasts' are exposed for the absolute fools and bumblers they are and no one, not even 'their own kind' will ever want to work with them or give them any legitimacy ever again. They'll be lucky if they can get jobs scrubbing toilets.
posted by mk1gti at 9:47 AM on June 2, 2005
He's confirmed. He pisses everybody off. Everybody refuses to work with us. International creditors who this country owes buttloads of debt begin to call in those debts, crashing our economy. No more money for war, no more money for bankrolling/subsidizing 'free enterprise', the veil is lifted off the hypocrisy of this country once and for all, and in the end arrogant, stupid 'muricans learn one of the harshest lessons in humility that has ever been taught.
At long last, those who think of themselves as conservatives or 'free market enthusiasts' are exposed for the absolute fools and bumblers they are and no one, not even 'their own kind' will ever want to work with them or give them any legitimacy ever again. They'll be lucky if they can get jobs scrubbing toilets.
posted by mk1gti at 9:47 AM on June 2, 2005
What klangklangston said and in addition, let's go out and buy a bumper sticker, coffee mug, big frickin' flag to point out the obvious.
Not all 'muricans support ignorant, arrogant, stupid, paranoid, pants-wetting dipshits.
posted by mk1gti at 9:52 AM on June 2, 2005
Not all 'muricans support ignorant, arrogant, stupid, paranoid, pants-wetting dipshits.
posted by mk1gti at 9:52 AM on June 2, 2005
Put him up, let him destroy the last bit of potential for international consent left. Then complain about the UN being now totally irrelevant.
Hate to post the same image two days in a row, but once again, the interaction between the U.S. and international law/the U.N. always reminds me of this.
posted by dreamsign at 10:10 AM on June 2, 2005
Hate to post the same image two days in a row, but once again, the interaction between the U.S. and international law/the U.N. always reminds me of this.
posted by dreamsign at 10:10 AM on June 2, 2005
It's vital and neccessary that the United States destroy the UN so that the New American Century can commence.
posted by mosch at 10:11 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by mosch at 10:11 AM on June 2, 2005
Wow, I've never seen the audio or video before, and my reaction is: strip away all of the yelling and assy tones, what this guy is saying is more or less true, but advancing the cause of America isn't going to happen if you go about it his way. Besides the fact that he is an ass, Bolton has dropped the ball on everything from Korea to Syria to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - not to mention the NSA intercepts. An ass is an ass is an ass - but if he can't do the job, why should he be the US's Ambassador (besides being a Cheney man)?
posted by plemeljr at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by plemeljr at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2005
An ass is an ass is an ass - but if he can't do the job, why should he be the US's Ambassador (besides being a Cheney man)?
Emperors have known, at least since Augustus, that loyalty matters more than talent. Bolton was nominated because he is Cheney's man; in the psychology of government within the Bush administration, there is no other qualification.
Bolton is being sent to the United Nations not because he is qualified in the least to go there, or even because he is vaguely compentent. He's going because, in the estimation of his masters, he's the one most likely to do exactly what they want.
posted by graymouser at 10:22 AM on June 2, 2005
Emperors have known, at least since Augustus, that loyalty matters more than talent. Bolton was nominated because he is Cheney's man; in the psychology of government within the Bush administration, there is no other qualification.
Bolton is being sent to the United Nations not because he is qualified in the least to go there, or even because he is vaguely compentent. He's going because, in the estimation of his masters, he's the one most likely to do exactly what they want.
posted by graymouser at 10:22 AM on June 2, 2005
He was tossed into this job because Condi didn't want him shitting in her nest over at state.
They were trying to get rid of him by putting him in as ambassador to the UN.
Promoted out of the area where he might have caused more trouble. What a bunch of reach-arounds.
posted by dglynn at 10:32 AM on June 2, 2005
They were trying to get rid of him by putting him in as ambassador to the UN.
Promoted out of the area where he might have caused more trouble. What a bunch of reach-arounds.
posted by dglynn at 10:32 AM on June 2, 2005
so
can the US possibly get kicked off of the security council?
John Bolton wants to know.
can we (the global "we," not just we in the US) just reconstitute another UN to make it more democratic already? isn't 50 years long enough? didn't the cold war end, fifteen years ago?
like putting wolfowitz at the head of the world bank, will this nomination just expose to everyone how US-dominated the current multilateral institutions really are, down to their very constitutions? why can't we rewrite the constitutions so that they aren't?
I mean, i'm not looking forward to the bullshit that will be haunting us all, probably for the rest of my lifetime, but we are already a few years into this bloody and meaningless escapade in Iraq, how much more insane can we let things become, before we realize how little there is to lose?
posted by eustatic at 11:11 AM on June 2, 2005
can the US possibly get kicked off of the security council?
John Bolton wants to know.
can we (the global "we," not just we in the US) just reconstitute another UN to make it more democratic already? isn't 50 years long enough? didn't the cold war end, fifteen years ago?
like putting wolfowitz at the head of the world bank, will this nomination just expose to everyone how US-dominated the current multilateral institutions really are, down to their very constitutions? why can't we rewrite the constitutions so that they aren't?
I mean, i'm not looking forward to the bullshit that will be haunting us all, probably for the rest of my lifetime, but we are already a few years into this bloody and meaningless escapade in Iraq, how much more insane can we let things become, before we realize how little there is to lose?
posted by eustatic at 11:11 AM on June 2, 2005
can we (the global "we," not just we in the US) just reconstitute another UN to make it more democratic already?
The history of the U.N. is a checkboard of successes and failures, but not for the reasons that most people think. The first initial failure, which haunted the U.N. from that point on, was the unwillingness of states to devote soldiers to the proposed rapid reaction force. Industrialized nations weren't about to put their citizens into combat under a foreign commander. So the enforcement arm of the U.N. was the first thing to go. You hear people ask what law was broken when the U.S. invaded Iraq the second time? Article 24(1) looks unassuming, but in the light of the original intent of the U.N., to have its own force at the ready, it takes on added significance:
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
The original structure envisioned was also not premised on democracy but on stability, which is easy enough to see in the five permanent members' veto power. The history of the U.N. Security Council is basically (the first) half Soviet vetoes and (the second) half U.S. vetoes. You can't even condemn state actions without getting past the veto. Currently, China is threatening to veto expansion of the Security Council, presumably because they don't want Japan on it, but it's hard to say whether the other S.C. nations would also support expansion if it came to that.
Of particular note, mind you (and this is something I researched at school), is the precedent set by the U.S. in failing to come back to the S.C. table prior to the invasion of Iraq. At that point, one other permanent seat member was threatening to veto, and another was promising it. The U.S. was still spouting infraction of U.N. resolutions as justification for invasion, but it was clear to all that the invasion would never get through the S.C..
So they just didn't go back.
If the refusal of nations to put forward troops under U.N. control was the first death knell for the institution, some sixty years ago, this was the second.
(oh, and on preview: it's worth noting that the notoriously ineffective League of Nations failed precisely because of democratic structure. Member nations could not agree on anything)
posted by dreamsign at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2005
The history of the U.N. is a checkboard of successes and failures, but not for the reasons that most people think. The first initial failure, which haunted the U.N. from that point on, was the unwillingness of states to devote soldiers to the proposed rapid reaction force. Industrialized nations weren't about to put their citizens into combat under a foreign commander. So the enforcement arm of the U.N. was the first thing to go. You hear people ask what law was broken when the U.S. invaded Iraq the second time? Article 24(1) looks unassuming, but in the light of the original intent of the U.N., to have its own force at the ready, it takes on added significance:
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
The original structure envisioned was also not premised on democracy but on stability, which is easy enough to see in the five permanent members' veto power. The history of the U.N. Security Council is basically (the first) half Soviet vetoes and (the second) half U.S. vetoes. You can't even condemn state actions without getting past the veto. Currently, China is threatening to veto expansion of the Security Council, presumably because they don't want Japan on it, but it's hard to say whether the other S.C. nations would also support expansion if it came to that.
Of particular note, mind you (and this is something I researched at school), is the precedent set by the U.S. in failing to come back to the S.C. table prior to the invasion of Iraq. At that point, one other permanent seat member was threatening to veto, and another was promising it. The U.S. was still spouting infraction of U.N. resolutions as justification for invasion, but it was clear to all that the invasion would never get through the S.C..
So they just didn't go back.
If the refusal of nations to put forward troops under U.N. control was the first death knell for the institution, some sixty years ago, this was the second.
(oh, and on preview: it's worth noting that the notoriously ineffective League of Nations failed precisely because of democratic structure. Member nations could not agree on anything)
posted by dreamsign at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2005
klangklangston, I'm normally not one for vitrol and swearing, but it's nice to hear something that's so obvious to some, yet so impossible to understand for other, put so -- well, dramatically.
I've had many two conversations with two people who were convinced that the UN is useless and that the UN's interests and our own are always and forever at odds, and in both cases -- it was eerie -- when I though they finally understood, they looked off into the sky for a moment, silent, then said "that doesn't make sense."
These aren't stupid people, either; on the contrary, they're quite bright. I guess when you've been indoctrinated into something at a young enough age (both people have highly politically active and vocal right-wing fathers) it's really, really hard to shake it off, no matter how much it is contradicted by logic or reason.
On preview: Why does America hate Bolton so much? Heh.
posted by davejay at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2005
I've had many two conversations with two people who were convinced that the UN is useless and that the UN's interests and our own are always and forever at odds, and in both cases -- it was eerie -- when I though they finally understood, they looked off into the sky for a moment, silent, then said "that doesn't make sense."
These aren't stupid people, either; on the contrary, they're quite bright. I guess when you've been indoctrinated into something at a young enough age (both people have highly politically active and vocal right-wing fathers) it's really, really hard to shake it off, no matter how much it is contradicted by logic or reason.
On preview: Why does America hate Bolton so much? Heh.
posted by davejay at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2005
You look wonderful in that dress today Mrs. Cleaver.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2005
And you look wonderful in that dress today Mrs. Cleaver.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2005
the refusal of nations to put forward troops under U.N. control
What about the Korean War and Croatia & Bosnia and Herzegovina?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2005
International creditors who this country owes buttloads of debt begin to call in those debts, crashing our economy.
Treasuries don't have holder's puts.
Also, dreamsign, I did not know that. Thanks.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:09 PM on June 2, 2005
Treasuries don't have holder's puts.
Also, dreamsign, I did not know that. Thanks.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:09 PM on June 2, 2005
I wish there was a way to awaken this country's people from decades of brainwashing, but there it is: This country's right-wing zealots are brainwashed and I'm not just slingin' hash here.
Their viewpoints have no historical basis in fact, it's all based on 'faith', which is a direct opposite (in my opinion) to 'reason'. I don't mean to be harsh to those who have 'faith', but those who are heavily involved with their church really have no concept of democracy or freedom or independent thought because, in their view, it's all about 'subservience to a higher power', be that God, their employer, or their idealized leader.
I just wish they would take an oath to be involved in their church or their government, but not both.
posted by mk1gti at 12:13 PM on June 2, 2005
Their viewpoints have no historical basis in fact, it's all based on 'faith', which is a direct opposite (in my opinion) to 'reason'. I don't mean to be harsh to those who have 'faith', but those who are heavily involved with their church really have no concept of democracy or freedom or independent thought because, in their view, it's all about 'subservience to a higher power', be that God, their employer, or their idealized leader.
I just wish they would take an oath to be involved in their church or their government, but not both.
posted by mk1gti at 12:13 PM on June 2, 2005
I am looking forward to his appointment, and the place being shaken up. It's appointments like these that make me proud of President Bush and hopeful that my country is not headed down the Euro-toilet of corruption.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2005
/grrr lousy double posting work computer
posted by Smedleyman at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2005
I finally found a Bolton statement that I totally agree with!
He's sorry. He's damn sorry. He's a sorry piece of s*it! He's so sorry his own mother won't claim him. etc...
posted by nofundy at 12:27 PM on June 2, 2005
He's sorry. He's damn sorry. He's a sorry piece of s*it! He's so sorry his own mother won't claim him. etc...
posted by nofundy at 12:27 PM on June 2, 2005
Did I just smell someone piss on this thread?
Oh, look, a peepee!
posted by nofundy at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2005
Oh, look, a peepee!
posted by nofundy at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2005
Dreamsign: Well, not quite. The League Of Nations failed because it didn't have any enforcement arm (so when, say, Germany invaded Poland, the League couldn't do anything). The UN is, on the whole, a success, especially if you look at the bulk of their activities (i.e. not SC related).
The Vetos issue of the SC is tough to deal with, and I'm not sure I see any real solution besides a committed internationalist US administration... But with the US, China and France together, well, there used to be things they could all agree on... (And still are, so long as the area is small and no one has ever heard of it. Oh, and if it's cheap to deal with.)
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2005
The Vetos issue of the SC is tough to deal with, and I'm not sure I see any real solution besides a committed internationalist US administration... But with the US, China and France together, well, there used to be things they could all agree on... (And still are, so long as the area is small and no one has ever heard of it. Oh, and if it's cheap to deal with.)
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2005
Bolton is not just about "standing up for American interests." This is about the US being an enlightened leader amongst nations; of highlighting and condemning corruption. The rest of the world needs a non-joke UN much more than the US does.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2005
Paris: Aww. You took a moment out of huffing gas to give us your well-considered opinion. What, exactly, are the policy changes that you hope Bolton will make? What, exactly, is the role of the UN that you envision? What, exactly, is the basis of your "Euro-corruption" quip?
Never mind. You're the type of jackass that will shit in your own pants to keep others from borrowing them.
posted by klangklangston at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2005
Never mind. You're the type of jackass that will shit in your own pants to keep others from borrowing them.
posted by klangklangston at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2005
The country's right-wing zealots?! Funny, I think the left-wing zealots are weakened, but still in control. But, that's what the voting booth is all about.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:34 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 12:34 PM on June 2, 2005
PP: Highlighting and condemning corruption? Are you fucking high? Oh, no, I'm gonna guess that you're still on about the non-story of the Oil for Food program, and are willing to take your ideological marching orders from those uninformed pundits that write your script.
God, does Annihilus know that you're in the Negaverse?
posted by klangklangston at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2005
God, does Annihilus know that you're in the Negaverse?
posted by klangklangston at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2005
The country's right-wing zealots?! Funny, I think the left-wing zealots are weakened, but still in control. But, that's what the voting booth is all about.
If the government goes further to the right than George W. & Co. people aren't generally allowed to vote...
posted by labyrinthinedreams at 12:45 PM on June 2, 2005
If the government goes further to the right than George W. & Co. people aren't generally allowed to vote...
posted by labyrinthinedreams at 12:45 PM on June 2, 2005
It's like nominating a vegan to the Dairy Council.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:46 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:46 PM on June 2, 2005
Sorry you're all so miserable about the state of the US. I think things are pretty good these days and getting better.
Enjoy your protests...hope you get the sex and affirmation you're really, unconsciously after. Also, remember: you may hate your parents, but they weren't raised by perfect people either.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:48 PM on June 2, 2005
Enjoy your protests...hope you get the sex and affirmation you're really, unconsciously after. Also, remember: you may hate your parents, but they weren't raised by perfect people either.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:48 PM on June 2, 2005
Wow. Bolton's such a crosseyed, frothing, raving maniac! His interpersonal skills are so bad I'd guess that he's sociopathic. It wouldn't surprise me if the UN wrote a clause into their bylaws that required Bolton to wear the dunce-cap at all times.
So, what's the reasoning behind shooting ourselves in the foot like this? It seems as though appointing Bolton to the UN is like appointing David Duke as ambassador to Israel.
Since it's obvious that this will only further alienate ourselves from the UN, maybe this administration is looking for the backdoor out of involvement.
But once we cease diplomacy with the world, the world will cease with us. Bolton certainly will shake things up, ParisParamus, but it won't be any sort of constructive dialogue. It'll be a hornets nest.
Putting ourself at odds with the international community so drastically can only decrease our role as a superpower. And, for the time being, that might not be a bad thing. But what happens when the pendulum swings back and America becomes a positive power again? By then, the EU will be more consolidated and China will be a fully developed industrial state. Are we really going to be able to regain what we had when competing against two other superpowers?
If we distance ourselves from the UN, we'll no longer be able to make the decisions or have the influence that allows us to operate globally with the freedom that we currently do. We will be uninvolved and the UN will be able to exert more control, influence, and have more effective decision-making in our absence as the institutions greatest stumbling-block. They'll shut us out of the world and allow the world to organize against us. With the rise of power in Europe and China, they won't need America anymore.
We need the UN, Europe, and Asia. We don't need them merely to go along with us, we need to go along with them, too. It's not just a matter of being one big happy planet and hugging your neighbor (which itself is enough motivation) it's entirely in our national interest.
posted by Jon-o at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2005
So, what's the reasoning behind shooting ourselves in the foot like this? It seems as though appointing Bolton to the UN is like appointing David Duke as ambassador to Israel.
Since it's obvious that this will only further alienate ourselves from the UN, maybe this administration is looking for the backdoor out of involvement.
But once we cease diplomacy with the world, the world will cease with us. Bolton certainly will shake things up, ParisParamus, but it won't be any sort of constructive dialogue. It'll be a hornets nest.
Putting ourself at odds with the international community so drastically can only decrease our role as a superpower. And, for the time being, that might not be a bad thing. But what happens when the pendulum swings back and America becomes a positive power again? By then, the EU will be more consolidated and China will be a fully developed industrial state. Are we really going to be able to regain what we had when competing against two other superpowers?
If we distance ourselves from the UN, we'll no longer be able to make the decisions or have the influence that allows us to operate globally with the freedom that we currently do. We will be uninvolved and the UN will be able to exert more control, influence, and have more effective decision-making in our absence as the institutions greatest stumbling-block. They'll shut us out of the world and allow the world to organize against us. With the rise of power in Europe and China, they won't need America anymore.
We need the UN, Europe, and Asia. We don't need them merely to go along with us, we need to go along with them, too. It's not just a matter of being one big happy planet and hugging your neighbor (which itself is enough motivation) it's entirely in our national interest.
posted by Jon-o at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2005
PP: What the fuck are you on about, Bizarro? "Yes, but am us hate America?"
posted by klangklangston at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2005
This is about the US being an enlightened leader amongst nations; of highlighting and condemning corruption.
The US cannot be an "enlightened leader of nations." It has habitually subverted, undermined and destroyed democracies for at least the past sixty years. It is the only nation ever to use an atomic weapon in war. Its government has made it completely legal for its members to be bribed within certain rules. It is a nation ruled by a pro-corporate oligarchy, with both ruling parties bending over backward to please the corporate establishment, and having gone so far as to use laws in most states to undermine efforts at challenging two-party rule. It is a nation that has legally justified torture and extraditing prisoners for purposes of torture.
The US can think of itself as an enlightened leader in the world, but it will never be viewed as one.
posted by graymouser at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2005
The US cannot be an "enlightened leader of nations." It has habitually subverted, undermined and destroyed democracies for at least the past sixty years. It is the only nation ever to use an atomic weapon in war. Its government has made it completely legal for its members to be bribed within certain rules. It is a nation ruled by a pro-corporate oligarchy, with both ruling parties bending over backward to please the corporate establishment, and having gone so far as to use laws in most states to undermine efforts at challenging two-party rule. It is a nation that has legally justified torture and extraditing prisoners for purposes of torture.
The US can think of itself as an enlightened leader in the world, but it will never be viewed as one.
posted by graymouser at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2005
Jon-o: Yeah, something that's worth remembering in international affairs is that there's only one planet that we can really live on at the moment, and so we've all kinda got to work together. Kind of like how no matter how much I think my neighbor is a retard, I still don't actively try to fuck with him, because it would be a pain in the ass to move.
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005
Yeah. But our administration's policy seems to be:
"My neighbor's retarded. I'll go over to his house and give him brain surgery with a spoon to try to free him from his affliction."
and then not move when the neighborhood community board gets upset.
posted by Jon-o at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2005
"My neighbor's retarded. I'll go over to his house and give him brain surgery with a spoon to try to free him from his affliction."
and then not move when the neighborhood community board gets upset.
posted by Jon-o at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2005
graymouser. It's a relative thing. As long as we're less corrupt and/or oppressive than France, or Syria, or Iran, we have the moral authority to do just that.
Or course,you may be one of the ninnys who endorses the Amnesty International view that the US has Gulags operating. In which case, you can go fuck off.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2005
Or course,you may be one of the ninnys who endorses the Amnesty International view that the US has Gulags operating. In which case, you can go fuck off.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2005
The country's right-wing zealots?! Funny, I think the left-wing zealots are weakened, but still in control.
What? And are they in control of, exactly, the dogcatcher's office of Westerly, Rhode Island?
posted by Snyder at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2005
What? And are they in control of, exactly, the dogcatcher's office of Westerly, Rhode Island?
posted by Snyder at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2005
Yes, much of the world lives in societies that are retarded. The difference is that it's the societies; not the people. And while you can't de-retard a person, you can a society.
OK: developmentally disabled....
posted by ParisParamus at 1:11 PM on June 2, 2005
OK: developmentally disabled....
posted by ParisParamus at 1:11 PM on June 2, 2005
It is a lot lot drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Totally uneccessary, but what a great "fuck you."
posted by four panels at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by four panels at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
It is a lot like drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Totally uneccessary, but what a great "fuck you."
posted by four panels at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by four panels at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
They are in control of a sufficient number of institutions that YOU have come to exist in your present form.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2005
I hope he does well in the swimsuit competition because he really jumped the shark in the congeniality portion.
posted by spock at 1:13 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by spock at 1:13 PM on June 2, 2005
They are in control of a sufficient number of institutions that YOU have come to exist in your present form.
What the fuck does this mean? What institutions? How did they create this corporeal humanoid frame?
posted by Snyder at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2005
What the fuck does this mean? What institutions? How did they create this corporeal humanoid frame?
posted by Snyder at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2005
But seriously, what, pray tell, is my present form? Care to show off your mind-reading for me?
posted by Snyder at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Snyder at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2005
[N]innys who endorses the Amnesty International view...
Since when is Amnesty International an organization that's not to be trusted? Since when do they have an agenda beyond the rights and objective benefit of the world's citizens?
Oh, right! When they disagree with your warped fanaticism.
"Why does Amnesty International hate America?"
posted by Jon-o at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2005
Since when is Amnesty International an organization that's not to be trusted? Since when do they have an agenda beyond the rights and objective benefit of the world's citizens?
Oh, right! When they disagree with your warped fanaticism.
"Why does Amnesty International hate America?"
posted by Jon-o at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2005
Paris, since you've stopped responding to anything, and are instead just slinging incoherent bullshit, I've got to assume that you're here mostly because you're in the middle of a wicked mescaline trip and you don't know how to deal with the world.
Try some soothing jazz. It'll help.
posted by klangklangston at 1:19 PM on June 2, 2005
Try some soothing jazz. It'll help.
posted by klangklangston at 1:19 PM on June 2, 2005
It's like nominating a vegan to the Dairy Council.
Or appointing a pyromaniac to the Fire Department?
posted by spock at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2005
Or appointing a pyromaniac to the Fire Department?
posted by spock at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2005
Amnesty International is now about as credible as Michael Moore. And that's tragic.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2005
graymouser. It's a relative thing. As long as we're less corrupt and/or oppressive than France, or Syria, or Iran, we have the moral authority to do just that.
Actually, the US government really don't have the moral authority to condemn anyone at this point. Its pronouncements are just hot air, like when China condemns a country for human rights abuses.
Or course,you may be one of the ninnys who endorses the Amnesty International view that the US has Gulags operating. In which case, you can go fuck off.
You're doing great at this discourse thing. I think Amnesty International's "gulag" remark is much less important than the actual several pages' worth of human rights abuses it detailed in the US. Quite frankly, I'm annoyed that people are focusing on the word "gulag" instead of the substance of the human rights problems; but that's the corporate media for you: if you scream loud enough about a tree, people won't see the forest.
posted by graymouser at 1:34 PM on June 2, 2005
Actually, the US government really don't have the moral authority to condemn anyone at this point. Its pronouncements are just hot air, like when China condemns a country for human rights abuses.
Or course,you may be one of the ninnys who endorses the Amnesty International view that the US has Gulags operating. In which case, you can go fuck off.
You're doing great at this discourse thing. I think Amnesty International's "gulag" remark is much less important than the actual several pages' worth of human rights abuses it detailed in the US. Quite frankly, I'm annoyed that people are focusing on the word "gulag" instead of the substance of the human rights problems; but that's the corporate media for you: if you scream loud enough about a tree, people won't see the forest.
posted by graymouser at 1:34 PM on June 2, 2005
Why is let less credible? Because they say something disagreeable? Last year they were credible, this year they aren't? What changed? What about their evidence gathering and conclusions from such evidence make them less credible? Or is it simplay a matter that they something you disagree with, which makes them uncredible, therefore, being uncredible, they'll say things you disagree with?
posted by Snyder at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Snyder at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2005
Again, Paris, on Bizarro World, where love is hate and hate is love.
posted by klangklangston at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2005
"This is about the US being an enlightened leader amongst nations; of highlighting and condemning corruption. "
I was, ParisParamus, going to respond cogently and civilly to this, but since you insist on blanket insults (paraphraseing); "ninnys who endorse the Amnesty International view" and " hope you get the sex and affirmation you're really, unconsciously after"
I'll simply ask given the poor level of discourse you've brought why you don't just report us to littlegreenfootballs again?
If your so interested in disruption why not just post 'fuck you all' over and over again and flood the thread?
(Not that you have the stones to answer me at all, so again, why I even bother addressing it...)
Anyway, I'm not sure why it's such a big deal overall. Bolton isn't going to last that long, certainly not if an opposition party president is elected - so three years on the outside. I don't see how he can do much good or ill in the short time he's certain to have. We're on the shit list now, what more having the man as ambassador does, I'm not clear on.
(ancillary arguments about how Bolton distorted intelligence aside as it's clear we're not getting an investigation any time soon)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:45 PM on June 2, 2005
I was, ParisParamus, going to respond cogently and civilly to this, but since you insist on blanket insults (paraphraseing); "ninnys who endorse the Amnesty International view" and " hope you get the sex and affirmation you're really, unconsciously after"
I'll simply ask given the poor level of discourse you've brought why you don't just report us to littlegreenfootballs again?
If your so interested in disruption why not just post 'fuck you all' over and over again and flood the thread?
(Not that you have the stones to answer me at all, so again, why I even bother addressing it...)
Anyway, I'm not sure why it's such a big deal overall. Bolton isn't going to last that long, certainly not if an opposition party president is elected - so three years on the outside. I don't see how he can do much good or ill in the short time he's certain to have. We're on the shit list now, what more having the man as ambassador does, I'm not clear on.
(ancillary arguments about how Bolton distorted intelligence aside as it's clear we're not getting an investigation any time soon)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:45 PM on June 2, 2005
Snyder, your reasoning is not reasonable. Just because an organization's perversion is latent doesn't mean its perversion didn't exist last year. "Gitmo" is a Gulag? May 1000 more Gitmos open to house the world's terrorists!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:45 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:45 PM on June 2, 2005
"I wish there was a way to awaken this country's people from decades of brainwashing"
Are you sure about just which of those people it is who have been brainwashed. There are those who would say that putting any faith in the UN would take a significant amount of that.
posted by Carbolic at 1:48 PM on June 2, 2005
Are you sure about just which of those people it is who have been brainwashed. There are those who would say that putting any faith in the UN would take a significant amount of that.
posted by Carbolic at 1:48 PM on June 2, 2005
Also - I agree with Jon-o 's comments, but given that it appears we're headed for Pax Americana and control of the oil supply....I'm not so sure we'd need the rest of the world. Um, short term.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:49 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 1:49 PM on June 2, 2005
Paris: May 1000 more Gitmos open? May you find yourself in one of them.
posted by klangklangston at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2005
Kinda harsh klangklangston. We're just talking here. Not that I don't understand the frustration.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:04 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 2:04 PM on June 2, 2005
May 1000 more Gitmos open to house those who dare question Dear Leader!
posted by stenseng at 2:06 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by stenseng at 2:06 PM on June 2, 2005
ParisParamus = shoving foot in mouth while shoving head up ass. Imagine what he looks like walking . . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:09 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 2:09 PM on June 2, 2005
Smedley- At Guantanamo, detainees who were nabbed for anything from opposing the local warlord to simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time are tortured and held without rights. I can think of nothing so fitting as for one who champions such a deep affront to justice then to be caught up in the Kafka-esque system themself.
posted by klangklangston at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2005
Carbolic
In answer to your brainwashing comment, it's the left that is derided by this administration as living in the 'reality based community' vs. the right which lives in the 'delusional-based community' Think about it.
We live in reality. You live in lies and deception and self-manufactured truths. Read some history, son. Get a grip. Take some thorazine.
posted by mk1gti at 2:18 PM on June 2, 2005
In answer to your brainwashing comment, it's the left that is derided by this administration as living in the 'reality based community' vs. the right which lives in the 'delusional-based community' Think about it.
We live in reality. You live in lies and deception and self-manufactured truths. Read some history, son. Get a grip. Take some thorazine.
posted by mk1gti at 2:18 PM on June 2, 2005
Yeah, mk1gti, I'd say I'm the one who needs the thorazine...
posted by Carbolic at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by Carbolic at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2005
Well then, hop into that doctor's office and get hooked up then . . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2005
Bolton isn't going to last that long, certainly not if
an opposition party president is elected
I don't know how that's going to happen. An honest and honorable candidate would run on a platform of "Fixing up this hideous mess before it's too late, if it's not already, and yes, it's going to hurt." He'll be creamed, because the Repubs will put up another liar who'll tell us it's morning in America and everything's going to be just fine. People vote their aspirations, not harsh reality, and nobody's going to vote for what it's going to take to fix all the shit this Administration's broken.
/derail
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2005
an opposition party president is elected
I don't know how that's going to happen. An honest and honorable candidate would run on a platform of "Fixing up this hideous mess before it's too late, if it's not already, and yes, it's going to hurt." He'll be creamed, because the Repubs will put up another liar who'll tell us it's morning in America and everything's going to be just fine. People vote their aspirations, not harsh reality, and nobody's going to vote for what it's going to take to fix all the shit this Administration's broken.
/derail
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2005
Don't forget the rigged electoral system/Wombats from hell eating votes problem . . . /further derail
posted by mk1gti at 2:34 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 2:34 PM on June 2, 2005
Not to derail the rants and wombats from hell, but some of the best Bolton coverage around is over at The Washington Note. Steve Clemons is fighting the good fight.
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:47 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:47 PM on June 2, 2005
Everyone's still talking about the extreme right wing's favourite orgy enthusiast?
Let's face it, at this point the votes have already been decided, and I don't envy the fate of the Republican senator who'll vote against him (getting flailed alive, roasted and eaten by Cheney and Rove in a romantic tête-à-tête)...
posted by clevershark at 3:26 PM on June 2, 2005
Let's face it, at this point the votes have already been decided, and I don't envy the fate of the Republican senator who'll vote against him (getting flailed alive, roasted and eaten by Cheney and Rove in a romantic tête-à-tête)...
posted by clevershark at 3:26 PM on June 2, 2005
What's in those documents the WH refuse to release? ...Some of the information that the White House has refused to provide to Congress for its review of the nomination of John Bolton includes the names of American companies mentioned in intelligence reports on commerce with China and other countries covered by export restrictions, say government officials who have been briefed on the documents....--Left Coaster
posted by amberglow at 3:35 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by amberglow at 3:35 PM on June 2, 2005
I don't envy the fate of the Republican senator who'll vote against him (getting flailed alive, roasted and eaten by Cheney and Rove in a romantic tête-à-tête)...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't leave out Jeff Gannon/Guckert, he'll just be 'tho pitthed . .
posted by mk1gti at 3:39 PM on June 2, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't leave out Jeff Gannon/Guckert, he'll just be 'tho pitthed . .
posted by mk1gti at 3:39 PM on June 2, 2005
Is ParisParamus the Bevets of political threads?
(s)he sure appears to be.
unsupported extreme statements
more insults than real points
i smell a troll.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 3:43 PM on June 2, 2005
(s)he sure appears to be.
unsupported extreme statements
more insults than real points
i smell a troll.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 3:43 PM on June 2, 2005
Snyder, your reasoning is not reasonable. Just because an organization's perversion is latent doesn't mean its perversion didn't exist last year.
Ok, fine, Mr. Reasonable Reason, when did AI get all perverted? You said: "Amnesty International is now about as credible as Michael Moore. And that's tragic." This implies that they weren't, at some point, perverted. Since you weren't talking about AI last year, (tough reconciling things you said a few years ago and things you say now is a fools game,) I assumed that they were more credible a year ago then now. In any event, they were at one point credible, yes?
When did they become less credible/perverted? Was it when they criticized the U.S., again falling into a tautology, or can you pick something about either their evidence gathering mechanisms or methodology they use to reach conclusions that is evidence of their perversion? And the $64, 000 question is will you actually answer this, or are you just going to keep repeating yourself without offering anything substantive?
posted by Snyder at 3:49 PM on June 2, 2005
Ok, fine, Mr. Reasonable Reason, when did AI get all perverted? You said: "Amnesty International is now about as credible as Michael Moore. And that's tragic." This implies that they weren't, at some point, perverted. Since you weren't talking about AI last year, (tough reconciling things you said a few years ago and things you say now is a fools game,) I assumed that they were more credible a year ago then now. In any event, they were at one point credible, yes?
When did they become less credible/perverted? Was it when they criticized the U.S., again falling into a tautology, or can you pick something about either their evidence gathering mechanisms or methodology they use to reach conclusions that is evidence of their perversion? And the $64, 000 question is will you actually answer this, or are you just going to keep repeating yourself without offering anything substantive?
posted by Snyder at 3:49 PM on June 2, 2005
Swinging John's oratorical delivery reminded me of the style once displayed by an Austrian painter who became prominent in Bavarian politics during the Depression years.
posted by rdone at 3:55 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by rdone at 3:55 PM on June 2, 2005
i wonder if parisparamus is one of those uptight white men with no lips, whose face skin is stretched so tight from a general condition of anger and intolerance, that it just creates a thin slit in the lower portion of the face for all this crap to pour out of?
posted by tarantula at 6:08 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by tarantula at 6:08 PM on June 2, 2005
rdone -- Good one! Hitler comparisons win every argument.
posted by esquire at 6:36 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by esquire at 6:36 PM on June 2, 2005
This is about the US being an enlightened leader amongst nations; of highlighting and condemning corruption.
If anyone really believes that the U.S. is an "enlightened leader amongst nations", I must assume that they are eating the funny mushrooms / are hydrocephalic / have no critical thinking skills / or are most likely completely brainwashed.
Seriously.
Oh, and greymouser nailed it.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:44 PM on June 2, 2005
If anyone really believes that the U.S. is an "enlightened leader amongst nations", I must assume that they are eating the funny mushrooms / are hydrocephalic / have no critical thinking skills / or are most likely completely brainwashed.
Seriously.
Oh, and greymouser nailed it.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:44 PM on June 2, 2005
ParisParamus writes "This is about the US being an enlightened leader amongst nations; of highlighting and condemning corruption."
And this would be done by a man who attempted to falsify intel reports because of political motivations. Real fucking cornerstone of integrity, evidently.
I have to ask -- does PP actually believe what he writes (which would at least give him the "out" of intellectual honesty), or is he getting paid to post his drivel here?
posted by clevershark at 8:23 PM on June 2, 2005
And this would be done by a man who attempted to falsify intel reports because of political motivations. Real fucking cornerstone of integrity, evidently.
I have to ask -- does PP actually believe what he writes (which would at least give him the "out" of intellectual honesty), or is he getting paid to post his drivel here?
posted by clevershark at 8:23 PM on June 2, 2005
What about the Korean War and Croatia & Bosnia and Herzegovina?
You know how the "Korean War" was referred to repeatedly as a "police action"? (to much barbed hilarity on M*A*S*H*) Well... it was. This was a successful U.N. coalition -- the way that Iraq should have worked had this actually been about infringing U.N. resolutions. Harken:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It's not up to member states to make those determinations, or to decide what to do about it in the case of an infraction.
In any case, you're right, the Korean "police action" shall we say, was a working example of coalition forces. It still wasn't what was originally envisioned, however. While there was U.N. coordination, coalition forces were not operating under foreign/U.N. commanders. Article 42 is about miltary measures. If you contrast it to Article 41 (non-military measures) Article 42 talks about taking action, while Article 41 talks about calling upon member states to take action. The original idea wasn't to have member states undertake military action on behalf of the U.N.. The U.N. would do that itself. Now what kind of threat would that have been to modern U.S. hegemony?!
Croatia, Boznia/Herzogovina was a frickin mess. First, the U.N. Charter specifically allows for regional military associations (ie: NATO) but actions here were largely considered to be illegal. Not immoral, mind you -- except for how some of the bombings were carried out -- but try to remember that bureaucracy and bureaucratic hang-ups at the international level are a symptom of a system which is not working as it was intended to work. The founders of the U.N. did not predict decades of cold war (and accompanying vetoes). Action should follow authorization. If you want a clean legal take on any issue, you should really look to the Bar Associations of the U.S. and Canada. These guys don't protest willy-nilly, and they had a lot to say on this topic.
There are a few examples of actions that have slipped through the S.C. cracks -- and it's almost always because one nation that would oppose sits it out instead, saying that if the other members are unanimous, it won't oppose. Occasionally, the Council has been boycotted by a member and measures have gotten through that way (since they aren't there to veto -- but everyone's smarter than that now).
Finally: Amnesty International can't be trusted?
Amnesty. International.
You know, it does occur to people that, even if they aren't familiar with the range of human rights organizations out there that some might in fact have greater and lesser credibilities, yes? So when you're deciding to pick on an organization, you might want to find out what that rep is first, otherwise it's like suing a eunuch for patrimony -- someone is going to look awfully stupid.
posted by dreamsign at 9:29 PM on June 2, 2005
You know how the "Korean War" was referred to repeatedly as a "police action"? (to much barbed hilarity on M*A*S*H*) Well... it was. This was a successful U.N. coalition -- the way that Iraq should have worked had this actually been about infringing U.N. resolutions. Harken:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It's not up to member states to make those determinations, or to decide what to do about it in the case of an infraction.
In any case, you're right, the Korean "police action" shall we say, was a working example of coalition forces. It still wasn't what was originally envisioned, however. While there was U.N. coordination, coalition forces were not operating under foreign/U.N. commanders. Article 42 is about miltary measures. If you contrast it to Article 41 (non-military measures) Article 42 talks about taking action, while Article 41 talks about calling upon member states to take action. The original idea wasn't to have member states undertake military action on behalf of the U.N.. The U.N. would do that itself. Now what kind of threat would that have been to modern U.S. hegemony?!
Croatia, Boznia/Herzogovina was a frickin mess. First, the U.N. Charter specifically allows for regional military associations (ie: NATO) but actions here were largely considered to be illegal. Not immoral, mind you -- except for how some of the bombings were carried out -- but try to remember that bureaucracy and bureaucratic hang-ups at the international level are a symptom of a system which is not working as it was intended to work. The founders of the U.N. did not predict decades of cold war (and accompanying vetoes). Action should follow authorization. If you want a clean legal take on any issue, you should really look to the Bar Associations of the U.S. and Canada. These guys don't protest willy-nilly, and they had a lot to say on this topic.
There are a few examples of actions that have slipped through the S.C. cracks -- and it's almost always because one nation that would oppose sits it out instead, saying that if the other members are unanimous, it won't oppose. Occasionally, the Council has been boycotted by a member and measures have gotten through that way (since they aren't there to veto -- but everyone's smarter than that now).
Finally: Amnesty International can't be trusted?
Amnesty. International.
You know, it does occur to people that, even if they aren't familiar with the range of human rights organizations out there that some might in fact have greater and lesser credibilities, yes? So when you're deciding to pick on an organization, you might want to find out what that rep is first, otherwise it's like suing a eunuch for patrimony -- someone is going to look awfully stupid.
posted by dreamsign at 9:29 PM on June 2, 2005
Paris Paramus = kokulkukuksheim. It's how Hitler's generals refered to his grasp of reality. Cloud Cuckoo Land.
posted by mk1gti at 9:31 PM on June 2, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 9:31 PM on June 2, 2005
The League Of Nations failed because it didn't have any enforcement arm
Also a problem. But the U.N. hasn't had such an arm, and it has been, comparatively, quite successful.
Oh, I should note, to be fair, that Iraq Invasion I was considered to be a shining success -- after so many deadlocks for so long -- for the S.C.. I wasn't sure about that myself. My impression had been that the U.S. was prepared to go ahead with or without U.N. approval, and the U.N. basically hurried up to give that authorization. But my international law prof -- who is much more knowledgable than I, assured me that that was not the case. It was the S.C. finally working as it was intended (if without the central U.N. force to do its own work).
posted by dreamsign at 9:34 PM on June 2, 2005
Also a problem. But the U.N. hasn't had such an arm, and it has been, comparatively, quite successful.
Oh, I should note, to be fair, that Iraq Invasion I was considered to be a shining success -- after so many deadlocks for so long -- for the S.C.. I wasn't sure about that myself. My impression had been that the U.S. was prepared to go ahead with or without U.N. approval, and the U.N. basically hurried up to give that authorization. But my international law prof -- who is much more knowledgable than I, assured me that that was not the case. It was the S.C. finally working as it was intended (if without the central U.N. force to do its own work).
posted by dreamsign at 9:34 PM on June 2, 2005
Paris Paramus = kokulkukuksheim.
It's unfortunate.
It's never good to be so one-sided that people know what you're going to say before you say it. No reason to listen to you then, is there?
posted by dreamsign at 9:35 PM on June 2, 2005
It's unfortunate.
It's never good to be so one-sided that people know what you're going to say before you say it. No reason to listen to you then, is there?
posted by dreamsign at 9:35 PM on June 2, 2005
It's never good to be so one-sided that people know what you're going to say before you say it. No reason to listen to you then, is there?
-----------------------------------------------
right back atcha, sweety
posted by mk1gti at 9:47 PM on June 2, 2005
-----------------------------------------------
right back atcha, sweety
posted by mk1gti at 9:47 PM on June 2, 2005
dreamsign
Everyone on this thread pretty much doesn't like John Bolton. Everyone in the free world who has some semblance of a grip on reality doesn't like John Bolton. ParisParamus *loves* John Bolton. You are defending ParisParamus, therefore John Bolton.
You are a douchebag. Sorry to let facts get into your threadbare logic.
posted by mk1gti at 10:36 PM on June 2, 2005
Everyone on this thread pretty much doesn't like John Bolton. Everyone in the free world who has some semblance of a grip on reality doesn't like John Bolton. ParisParamus *loves* John Bolton. You are defending ParisParamus, therefore John Bolton.
You are a douchebag. Sorry to let facts get into your threadbare logic.
posted by mk1gti at 10:36 PM on June 2, 2005
"Amnesty International is now about as credible as Michael Moore. And that's tragic."
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM PST on June 2
Hmm. Organization A says something about Country X that may or may not be correct. Person B in Pountry X doesn't like it. Therefore, Organization A is automatically incorrect.
That don't follow, methinks.
Now, about Amnesty's appraisal of Guantanamo and Iraq: whether you call Guantanamo a gulag or a US army installation doesn't change what takes place there. Whether you have a good or bad opinion of what takes place there, it still takes place there.
The worldwide balance of *opinion* about what takes place in Guantanamo and Iraq is that it is bad. You might think that's a sissy opinion but the current administration of your country stands almost alone in the world on this question. A person is not 'well-treated' or 'badly-treated' without a generally-accepted opinion to make it so.
Also, what is Guantanamo there to accomplish?
If it's to get additional intelligence, there doesn't seem to be much payback so far.
If it's to keep actual terrorists locked up, fair enough, as long as you give them due process in public, make sure they're actual terrorists, and imprison them in an international court. End result: terrorist neutralised. AND everyone would be happier, as well.
posted by paperpete at 2:59 AM on June 3, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM PST on June 2
Hmm. Organization A says something about Country X that may or may not be correct. Person B in Pountry X doesn't like it. Therefore, Organization A is automatically incorrect.
That don't follow, methinks.
Now, about Amnesty's appraisal of Guantanamo and Iraq: whether you call Guantanamo a gulag or a US army installation doesn't change what takes place there. Whether you have a good or bad opinion of what takes place there, it still takes place there.
The worldwide balance of *opinion* about what takes place in Guantanamo and Iraq is that it is bad. You might think that's a sissy opinion but the current administration of your country stands almost alone in the world on this question. A person is not 'well-treated' or 'badly-treated' without a generally-accepted opinion to make it so.
Also, what is Guantanamo there to accomplish?
If it's to get additional intelligence, there doesn't seem to be much payback so far.
If it's to keep actual terrorists locked up, fair enough, as long as you give them due process in public, make sure they're actual terrorists, and imprison them in an international court. End result: terrorist neutralised. AND everyone would be happier, as well.
posted by paperpete at 2:59 AM on June 3, 2005
Is it just me, or does it seem that ParisParamus is getting crazier? He's made looney statements in this thread that make his usual spew seem somehow ordinary.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2005
Is it just me, or does it seem that ParisParamus is getting crazier?
Thats what happens when you continually rationalize evil behavior as being a benefit for the "greater good".
posted by Balisong at 11:16 AM on June 3, 2005
Thats what happens when you continually rationalize evil behavior as being a benefit for the "greater good".
posted by Balisong at 11:16 AM on June 3, 2005
ParisParamus *loves* John Bolton. You are defending ParisParamus, therefore John Bolton.
Don't know where to begin, mk. You might want to get off the cheap drugs, for starters.
Please point to where I defend PP.
Then explain to me how, if I were "defending" another poster, how that means that I automatically hold their viewpoint.
You have the rhetorical skills of a six-year old. Go back to kindergarten (you're not ready for grade 1 yet).
I should for others' benefit, that progressive views of torture would include the "bright room" technique of sleep deprivation, a regular occurrence at Gitmo. In fact, only antiquated notions of torture get Gitmo off the hook, any way you cut it.
posted by dreamsign at 4:13 PM on June 3, 2005
Don't know where to begin, mk. You might want to get off the cheap drugs, for starters.
Please point to where I defend PP.
Then explain to me how, if I were "defending" another poster, how that means that I automatically hold their viewpoint.
You have the rhetorical skills of a six-year old. Go back to kindergarten (you're not ready for grade 1 yet).
I should for others' benefit, that progressive views of torture would include the "bright room" technique of sleep deprivation, a regular occurrence at Gitmo. In fact, only antiquated notions of torture get Gitmo off the hook, any way you cut it.
posted by dreamsign at 4:13 PM on June 3, 2005
Wait... are you talking about THIS?:
It's never good to be so one-sided that people know what you're going to say before you say it. No reason to listen to you then, is there?
YOU. It's never good to be so one-sided that people have no reason to listen to YOU, the one-sided person (ie: Paris P).
Again. Cheap drugs. Get off of them.
posted by dreamsign at 4:14 PM on June 3, 2005
It's never good to be so one-sided that people know what you're going to say before you say it. No reason to listen to you then, is there?
YOU. It's never good to be so one-sided that people have no reason to listen to YOU, the one-sided person (ie: Paris P).
Again. Cheap drugs. Get off of them.
posted by dreamsign at 4:14 PM on June 3, 2005
I can think of nothing so fitting as for one who champions such a deep affront to justice then to be caught up in the Kafka-esque system themself.
Oh, I get the irony, klangklangston. I'm not trying to be a cop or anything. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to it because I'm probably more prone to it. I did say he in essence had no testicles since he refuses to reason or accept any invitation to dialogue beyond sniping - in contrast to other counterpoint folks, say, dios for example, who genuinely appears to be arguing an (often contrary) point rather than simply disrupting smooth communication. I grant that is often hard to do and I would concede that PP has often been attacked on the board, I would go so far to say I would probably not want to talk with someone who thinks of me as many think of PP (or someone who says you have no balls) but I don't wish PP any specific harm (other than that which enlightenment would do to his sensibilities).
To cast PP into that situation supports the situation.
...yes, I'm reaching. It's just metaphor, I know. But that's sort of my point. We're just talking here.
If I wasn't irritated by your comment as much as the commentary I've read on LGF (folks need to be put into the marines, under a DI, hardship, etc.) I'd be a hypocrite.
Anyway, all that to say, it just slightly irritated me, but I'm not saying I don't see why or whether it's warrented. Not judging it really, I'm just prone to it myself, so I try to check it and I don't know that it does much good to type out.
It is an amusing irony at least (as opposed to LGF comments such as "filth" etc.) and so it has some value.
Hope that's clear. Not an argument for civility really, more just to stave off viciousness. (and not that your comment was...)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:42 PM on June 3, 2005
Oh, I get the irony, klangklangston. I'm not trying to be a cop or anything. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to it because I'm probably more prone to it. I did say he in essence had no testicles since he refuses to reason or accept any invitation to dialogue beyond sniping - in contrast to other counterpoint folks, say, dios for example, who genuinely appears to be arguing an (often contrary) point rather than simply disrupting smooth communication. I grant that is often hard to do and I would concede that PP has often been attacked on the board, I would go so far to say I would probably not want to talk with someone who thinks of me as many think of PP (or someone who says you have no balls) but I don't wish PP any specific harm (other than that which enlightenment would do to his sensibilities).
To cast PP into that situation supports the situation.
...yes, I'm reaching. It's just metaphor, I know. But that's sort of my point. We're just talking here.
If I wasn't irritated by your comment as much as the commentary I've read on LGF (folks need to be put into the marines, under a DI, hardship, etc.) I'd be a hypocrite.
Anyway, all that to say, it just slightly irritated me, but I'm not saying I don't see why or whether it's warrented. Not judging it really, I'm just prone to it myself, so I try to check it and I don't know that it does much good to type out.
It is an amusing irony at least (as opposed to LGF comments such as "filth" etc.) and so it has some value.
Hope that's clear. Not an argument for civility really, more just to stave off viciousness. (and not that your comment was...)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:42 PM on June 3, 2005
Attack the idea not the person. I suppose. Since again, this is all just conversation. No one's DOING anything per se.
Of course, one could argue PP is being disruptive.
Just thinking out loud....er...typing. I'm certainly not a paragon of this, just trying.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:46 PM on June 3, 2005
Of course, one could argue PP is being disruptive.
Just thinking out loud....er...typing. I'm certainly not a paragon of this, just trying.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:46 PM on June 3, 2005
Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns & Libya the Subjects of One Bolton NSA Intercept Request
posted by amberglow at 8:19 PM on June 7, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:19 PM on June 7, 2005
« Older UBC Botanical Garden | In The Future, Everyone Will Be Hitler For 15... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mokujin at 4:54 AM on June 2, 2005