From D.C. with Love ... a big "F*** you" to the U.N.

Remove all ads!

T2 - Oh, yeah? Does this look familiar?

hmmmm...

Yes, take Iraq...George Bush did...

[ March 17, 2005, 01:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Take the South. Lincoln did

 

Has anyone found a neutral article on Bolton? I keep finding stuff written by far-right or far-left organizations that obviously distort to facts to support their views. I'm just trying to find a credible unbiased article giving strengths and weaknesses -- although it may be moot, it's sounding like the confirmation with be rough (especially now that Wolfowitz has also entered the fray).

Chandos: Are you planning on going to law school at some time in the future?

 

Aldreth,

OK, so that's 10 major military conflicts (meaning we average a major milirary conflict about once every 23 years - pretty much every generation) and only 3 (#1, #3, and #10) started by the U.S.


You have missed the Mexician-American war in the 1848(?) And of course the Spanish American wars in 1898, both were I would say America was the aggressor, doubtless you will disagree.
Not too mentioned all the Native American nations destroyed by the US. When the American genocide was completed, the US did it’s best to join the colonial race, even preying on the weaker European powers like Spain. (The US joined the multinational force that went to China after the boxing-rebellion for example.)
Then there was the bloody subjugation of the Philippines, and several interventions in Latin America, like the creation of Panama.


2. War of 1812 - This one is on the British. It's sometimes referred to as "second war of Independence".

In all books I have read this war was an opportunistic American attempt to conquer Canada, while Britain was occupied with its titanic war with Napoleonic Europe.
I must confess I wonder how anyone can think otherwise. Why would Britain chose to fight the US this point?

If your point is that no Russian soldier ever fired a shot at an American during the Vietnam War, then I agree in principle with your statement. The point I was making was not to necessarily place blame on the USSR, but state that the US was not responsible for those conflicts.

This is almost funny. Is this what is taught in American schools?

 

Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars were not major. Probably why Aldeth skipped them. Same for the Indians, Panama, Phillipines, and so on.

'Course, I wouldn't have considered the War of 1812 major, myself, but...well, D.C did burn, so *shrug*

 

Ok, guys. We now have a thread - courtsey of Aldeth, to discuss America's military adventuring. It would be a much better place to argue the War of 1812.

http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/34/130.html

 

Bringing this thread back on topic again ... I read some more news about John Bolton and his ongoing nomination process.

Everyone remembers retired supervillain Ghaddafi surrendering his pathetic nuclear program? That was hailed as a big US success, even though it was mostly a british achievement. Conditions of the Libyans for the deal were: The US give up their regime change bullsh*t and Libya gives up the program.

That's were it became tricky, be cause one US official going by the name John Bolton would not negotiate with evil. So British officials "at the highest level" insistently asked the White House to leave him out of the negotiations to prevent him from f*cking up the deal in his unimitable boltonesque style.

What a compliment.

Bolton's job at the UN would be purely diplomatic, with an emphasis on 'diplomatic'.

I remember that Bolton's hardline approach to about everything was described as an asset at the UN, to make the US voice heared in the world (as if it isn't already).

Thinking about that Libya episode, what sort of an 'asset' is one 'diplomat' you have to leave out of the loop to succeed diplomatically?

 

Yes, let's get rid of the U.N. and the absurd idealism that founded it. Let's get back to the basics of human civilization: war, rapine and pillage, unfettered and unhindered. Back to Hitler & Stalin & Mussolini and their uncounted forebears. Back to the good old days when men were men.

And John Bolton is the man for the job. A no-bull**** guy who isn't afraid to say what he thinks, no matter how crazy it sounds; who isn't afraid to act on his impulses, however bizarre. Our guy....Oh No!...The nomination's hit a rock...Can John be sinking??...Quick!...The concrete life preserver.....

(Note: The rock occurred after the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced that of course Bolton would be approved on a straight 10-8 party line vote, and Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, countered that, based on the testimony he'd heard, he didn't believe he could vote for Bolton. The administration is scrambling hard; i.e., trying to get Voinovich to recant or a Democrat to turn his coat, but if the committee doesn't report favorably, the Senate will never vote on this nomination.)

[ April 26, 2005, 06:01: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

I'm gonna get slaughtered here for simplistic thinking, but I'm going to use a Tom Clancy scenerio to illustrate my opinions on the issue.

After Jack Ryan becomes the de facto president by the near annihilation of the US government, he asks the voters, when sending in a new Congress, not to elect politicians, but rather elect people who can get things done. I think Clancy has a point here that can apply to the UN.

They spend so much time talking, meeting, negotiating, backpedalling, appeasing and otherwise dithering that they are pretty well hamstrung. This is a failing of all bureacracies (pardon the spelling). I'm not a fan of rushing in half cocked with all guns blazing, but a balance should be struck between decisive action and a black hole of yammering that allows genocide to continue while rich folks talk about why they can't send in help.

As for the US government's appointment of this renegade neocon Bolton, I would say it's not a F*** you to the organization so much as a message that the US, right or wrong, will act in its own best interests regardless of the international bean counting community. Please don't anyone think I believe the US is always right, but they do have the right, as all nations do, to make their own decisions. Sadly, they are so tough that they can get away with playing outside the rules.

 

While that is certainly a part of Marxist theory, the USSR was founded upon Marxist-Leninism, or Bloshevism, which was futher adapted by Stalin to suit his own needs resulting in Stalinist-Leninist Theory which is based upon the principle of Socialism in one country, the rapid industrialisation and eventual self suffiencey of all communist nations. In order that they may survive and prosper in a sea of hostile capitalist nations. The idea of World revolution died after the treaty of Brest-lovik in 1918 for most Russian Bolsheviks and was permenantly erradicated from the Soviet Union with the death of Trotsky in Mexico.

However if, as your quote implies, that is true then the USA would not be responisble for those conflicts but would certainly have to bear significant responsibility for many other conflicts, indeed it can be constructed that the USA is at fault for starting many of the wars and then interveaning against those it originally aided. The USA has armed or otherwise given not insignificant contributions to, Nazi Germany, Iraq, The USSR and Afganistan. That is four without doing any research into the issue.

 

I do not see how my quote implies such, so I'm afraid I need you to spell in out for me to reply more fully. As I stated my point wasn't to place blame on the USSR, but to shirk blame away from the US. As I wasn't asserting blame on a specific country, then how does it logically follow that I could be implying that in an entirely different situation I would be asserting blame on a specific country? - namely the US in your example.

As an aside though - assuming I'm missing something and your assertion is valid - in the four examples you listed, only two of them are good examples of what was happening in Vietnam (Iraq and Afganistan) - namely a regime change. As such I think the comparison is invalid for USSR and Nazi Germany. There was never a US-induced regime change in USSR. Yes, the wall fell, but things aren't THAT much different in Russia today as the former Soviet Union as evidenced by the recent actions of Putin. The end of the cold war caused much more change in former Iron Curtain countries (like Poland for example) than Russia itself. While regime change was the end result in Nazi Germany, certainly there were reasons for WWII beyond not liking the Nazi party.

Beyond this, you can stretch the comparison to ludicrous levels. I wasn't saying that any country that provides indirect or direct military aid to another country is responsible for the conflict - in fact I asserted the opposite was possible - and I doubt that was what you thought I was implying. By that logic, France could be considered culpable for the US War of Independence.

EDIT: Also, all of this is way so if we want to continue this discussion, a PM may be the better forum.

[ April 29, 2005, 18:25: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Well, Senator Voinovich did cave in and voted for Bolton, which sends the nomination to the floor of the Senate. The good Senator gave a fighting speech castigating Bolton, calling him, among other things, a "poster boy" for everything a diplomat shouldn't be, then contradicted himself by voting for the man.

Since the Republicans hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate, it seems likely Mr. Bolton will soon be embarrassing us and offending everyone else at the U.N.

 

The good senator is aleo facing a nice portion of GOP smear for "stabbing the president in the back" by GOP loyalists.

Just have a look at Move America Forward's* audio clip targeting Voinovic.

Chant with me: 'Traitor, traitor, traitor ...'

There is a price tag attached for defying the White House, and everyone knows it. Voinovic deserves respect for his step. It takes guts and spine to be willing to face the GOP smear mashine.

* (Tired of the constant bashing of America from the shamelessly liberal media and left-wing politicians? Well, we will only tell you what you wanted to hear anyway)

 

Voinovich did allow the nomination to go to the Senate floor, but it went without the recommendation from the committee. He voted "no" to giving it a recommendation and "yes" for moving it to the floor for a popular vote. That having been said, the Dems could still throw a wrench in the entire thing if they attempt to fillabuster the vote. The only way around that would be to pass a law preventing the fillabusters, and that doesn't have widespread support even on the Republican side of things.

 

Right, isn't that referred to as the 'nuclear option'? Besides, can anyone explain why?

 

This issue should begin to play out tomorrow on the Senate floor. And indeed the Bolton issue will be near the top of the agenda. If the nuclear option is used, there will be a long, lingering "nuclear winter" in relations between many in the Senate, and the country will suffer as a result. Tomorrow they will look the devil in the face and it will be up to just a few to decide what will happen.

If the Repulicans "nuke" the Senate, and the next election, only a year and a half away, turns against them (and it might as badly as things are going for the GOP) then they may find themselves on the wrong side of the nuclear blast of their own making. America is on the verge of being torn to pieces over the arrogance of one man. The Bolton issue is one example of this man's arrogance. But what goes around comes around in time. The arrogant will fall victims to there own conceit. All the Dems need to do is give these men enough rope and they will hang themselves. Count on it.

 

@Ragusa

This issue won't be fully decided until September in all liklihood, as the Senate isn't going to take up this painstaking procedure prior to the summer recess.

I don't know who initially used the term "nuclear option" as it pertains to fillibusters, but you can read all about this particular use: here.

 

They are supposed to finish some highway deal today, or tomorrow, and then begin on the issue this week. But Bolton is expected to be voted on sometime this week as part of the Republican agenda as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857156/site/newsweek/

 

Ragusa,

By Democrats it is the "nuclear option", but most Republicans call it the “constitutional option”.

There is a lot of hair splitting going on about this subject on both sides of the isle. The constitution provides for "advice and consent". Whether on not someone believes this means that nominations should always be subject to an up or down vote, or if extraordinary means are suitable to keep unacceptable candidates from ever receiving a vote depends on who is in power, who is nominated and who is trying to block them:
" During the Clinton Administration, almost 70 judicial nominees were bottled up in the Judiciary Committee and never received floor votes. In addition, Republicans engaged in explicit filibusters on the floor against a number of Clinton judges, and defeated a number of President Clinton’s executive branch nominees by filibuster. Some of the loudest proponents of the nuclear option opposed cloture on those nominees. "

That included Harry Reid. I can't find the quote online, but it has been well sited on talk radio lately.

Chandos,

Whether or not this action bites the Republicans in the ass is going to be dependent on who has the better spin machine. Neither side is clean on this issue, and whoever can do the best whitewash on it will win the point, but I seriously doubt that most Americans give a rat's ass about this issue, as they are more interested in who is dominating Survivor whatever island they are on, who killed the Colonel in the library on CSI and which Desperate Housewife will fool around with the pool boy (gardener, neighbor’s husband, whatever they do on that show), to even notice that Congress is in session right now, never mind whether or not Bolton gets appointed to represent us to an organization that a large part of our population would like to see exported to Paris, and I am not speaking Paris Kentucky.

I really doubt this will be a defining momment for the next election.