John Bolton Should Stay at U.N.

[glockmail]

You cannot win when being diplomatic except when you have the military and economic power to either gain what you want or deny your adversary what he wants.

Since GWB and Company all seem to have one-tract minds that keeps them from admitting defeat while squandering our military and economic power, you are not likely to win diplomatically, militarily or economically.

That's the second time tonight that you have been half-right. Normally you are all wrong.

 

[flaja]

Our enemies only respect power and when you show weakness they see that as an opening to kill you.

Our enemies may respect our power, but do they fear it? Do they fear it enough to lay down their guns and bombs and beg for mercy?

Either you are wrong regarding what our enemies respect, or we are not as powerful as you wish to believe, or GWB and Company don’t know how to use it very well.

 

[Dr Grump]

Too bad he's supposed to be Americas' voice--not Israels. I bet that's a tough choice for some folks.

Then again maybe not that tough. From what I've seen, he is America's voice...

 

[flaja]

To deny the obvious, that Iran is central to the war on terrorism, is beyond stupidity.

If Iran is central to the war on terrorism, why on earth does GWB have us fighting in Iraq?

And if you meant to say Iraq, when you said Iran, let me point out that the terrorists we are fighting are Islamic. The center of Islam is in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

 

[flaja]

Because now we have Iran surrounded.

We cannot pacify either of Iran's neighbors, which we have invaded, and you think we can take the war to that country?

 

[glockmail]

Our enemies may respect our power, but do they fear it? Do they fear it enough to lay down their guns and bombs and beg for mercy?

Either you are wrong regarding what our enemies respect, or we are not as powerful as you wish to believe, or GWB and Company don’t know how to use it very well.

The third is correct.

 

[flaja]

Explain.

Israel

 

[glockmail]

If Iran is central to the war on terrorism, why on earth does GWB have us fighting in Iraq?

And if you meant to say Iraq, when you said Iran, let me point out that the terrorists we are fighting are Islamic. The center of Islam is in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

The terrorists are radical Isalmists, which is centered in Iran. Iraq was controlled by a big mouth who was begging to get his ass kicked, thereby giving us the excuse, and enabling us to surround Iran.

I believe we are allowing Iran to get the Bomb, and when they lob one over our head at Israel we will have all the excuse we need to finish this thing.

 

[flaja]

The third is correct.

Misuse power long enough and the power will no longer exist.

 

[jillian]

The fact that GWB had to use a recess appointment to get around a GOP controlled Senate, shows just how inept the Republicans have been. The GOP didn't deserve to be the majority party in Congress, because the Republicans don't know how to act like a majority.

I think the major problem is that it appeared that Bush chose the candidate who would be most offensive. The truth is, that Bolton was being sent into an organization he pretty well said he hated. That's poor diplomacy, regardless of how one seesthe U.N. It's still something we're a part of. Now, he's turned out not to be overly heavy-handed in that regard, though he's had criticisms. I have no problem with criticism, it was what it was presumed he would be like that was the problem. Perhaps Bush should have focused more on easing concerns and less on insisting on ramming through whatever nominee he chose.

Is Bolton the reason why GWB (like all other U.S. Presidents since Eisenhower) forced Israel to accept a cease-fire in its latest battle with terrorists, i.e., Hamas in Lebanon?

No.... from what I can see, that would be Condi.

It is interesting the God promised Isaac that He would bless the people that blessed Isaac and curse the people that cursed Isaac. Isaac transferred this promise to his own son Jacob: Genesis 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

In October 1956 Egypt’s president took over the Suez Canal and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The British and French invaded the canal region while Israel captured Sharm el Sheik to re-open the straits. When the Israelis, British and French (OK mostly the Israelis and Brits) were on the verge of total victory over Egypt Eisenhower and the UN forced them to accept a ceasefire and Israel was compelled to return Sharm el Sheik to Egypt. About 2 week or so later the Republicans lost both Houses of Congress.

Sound familiar?

Well, I am not much on presuming a biblical mandate for the existence of Israel and I'm not going to comment on the coincidence you presume and the reasons for it. But Israel does, in fact, exist and should be able to continue to do so. It has always seemed to me that the world, in general, asks restraint of Israel that it asks of no other country. If a terrorist group dug in on the southern border of Canada and could not be controlled by the Canadian government, and was lobbing missiles into Detroit, we'd have flattened the southern part of Canada and not another country in the world would have objected. In fact, they'd have cheered us on and sent their own troops to help. So Hezbollah put its weapons on civilian targets and then forbade the civilians from leaving in order to maximize civilian casualties but that didn't make a difference in terms of world opinion.

And, yes, I know any other country would have been allowed carte blanche. In part, that's because there are a bunch of Arab Nations sitting on an awful lot of oil on which we're dependent. (I've always seen conservation of energy as a secuirty issue... but that's for another convo). But part of it is also a little bit of good ole fashioned anti-semitism and a while the world is sympathetic to Israel when its vicimized, when it fights back, not so much......

 

[flaja]

No.... from what I can see, that would be Condi.

Thus illustrating GWB’s incompetence. If he appoints people who will work at cross purposes, his administration cannot implement a consistent policy, which is the antithesis of leadership.

 

[red states rule]

Thus illustrating GWB’s incompetence. If he appoints people who will work at cross purposes, his administration cannot implement a consistent policy, which is the antithesis of leadership.

Who cares about working with the pinheads at the UN?

 

[dilloduck]

I think the major problem is that it appeared that Bush chose the candidate who would be most offensive. The truth is, that Bolton was being sent into an organization he pretty well said he hated. That's poor diplomacy, regardless of how one seesthe U.N. It's still something we're a part of. Now, he's turned out not to be overly heavy-handed in that regard, though he's had criticisms. I have no problem with criticism, it was what it was presumed he would be like that was the problem. Perhaps Bush should have focused more on easing concerns and less on insisting on ramming through whatever nominee he chose.

Did you expect Bush to choose a candidate that was going to suck up to one of the most corrupt, wasteful and inefffective organizations in the world?Bolton didn't like the UN for the very reason so many others want us to pull out of it. Has he been an obstructionist there? No--he is working within the system to try to give the place some semblence of legitimacy.

Why do all the democrats want to enter power positions in the government when they claim they are so screwed up ? Because they hate our government?

 

[flaja]

Who cares about working with the pinheads at the UN?

What does the UN have to do with appointing people who want opposing policies? If Bolton is pro-Israel while Rice is anti-Israel, what does that make GWB if not incompetent? If the administration cannot speak with one voice, it cannot speak with any voice.

 

[flaja]

Did you expect Bush to choose a candidate that was going to suck up to one of the most corrupt, wasteful and inefffective organizations in the world?

Are you talking about the UN or U.S. GOP-lead Congress?

 

[dilloduck]

Are you talking about the UN or U.S. GOP-lead Congress?

Bolton was a UN choice---read current events.

 

[flaja]

Bolton was a UN choice---read current events.

Considering the corruption in both it's hard to tell the difference. And I guess you are so busy being GWB's lapdog that you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it.

 

[dilloduck]

Considering the corruption in both it's hard to tell the difference. And I guess you are so busy being GWB's lapdog that you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it.

no--it's really pretty easy to tell the difference between the UN and Congress. So far-----

 

[glockmail]

.... you are so busy being GWB's lapdog ....

Are you comfy there with the rest of us neocons, dilloduck?

 

[dilloduck]

Are you comfy there with the rest of us neocons, dilloduck?

You got me---been called so many things I can't remember what I am anymore !

I ain't comfy tho-----30 degees and windy is damn cold for Austin.