Close Topic Options

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton

A man once bragged his most valuable contribution as the United States' Ambassador to Indonesia was to protect the interests of large US companies in the impoverished nation.

Just over a month ago this same cartoon character, aka Paul Wolfowitz, perhaps the most hated of the Neo Cons, was Bush's nomination (appointment) as the next head of the World Bank.

What does the World Bank actually to do one may ask? Well in theory their aim is to eliminate world poverty.

In practice Wolfowitz's nomination has to be one of the most ridiculous foreign policy decisions the Bush administration could make when showered with growing global contempt.

However, just this week it seems the neo con farmers were sewing their seeds again when they announced John Bolton as the new US ambassador to the UN.
Bolton is well known for his contempt of the UN and has openly said the US should control this "international" organisation and if nobody liked it they should get stuffed.
I really can't understand the logic behind these decisions and how each of these lunatics could serve US or anyone's interest.
Is this an attempt to sew republican seeds for the future or just Bush and his cronies on smack?
I would also like to openly condemn Bush's ridiculous comparison of Saddam's statue falling with the demolition of the Berlin wall. Is he trying to be the laughing stock of world politics, or has he just been sniffing too much crude oil?
Can someone please help me make sense of this.

Bolton and Wolfowitz First

Sure, I will attempt to help you make sense of it.

BUSH WON THE ELECTION!

Your constant harping on the stupidity of these moves shows how intolerant you are of conservative thought. You especially focus on the concept of "neocon".

Bush highly supports these two men, as do many, many Americans. The majority of voters in the November election supported GWB. He has the right to guide the country according to his ideals. His predecessor did so as well.

Americans are getting tired of the fact that the UN is an anti-Semitic, anti-American institution apparently devoted to the destruction of western civilization and the establishment of worldwide socialism. It is also apparently dedicated to the abolition of individual liberty. This is one good reason to have Bolton there, because he might just have the guts to stand up to some of the inmates attempting to run the asylum there. The same with Wolfowitz.

Again - Bush WON!. That pretty much sums it up. We are trying to keep things running the way they have for a very long time, very successfully. Socialism has a proven record of failure. Capitalism has a proven record of success. Capitalism has built the strongest economies in history, with the greatest prosperity for EVERYONE involved. Socialism has destroyed economies, environments, and civilizations. Capitalism has done the opposite.

So, BUSH WON! And his policies and choices will go forward, despite the obstruction of the Left, which is rapidly falling in ever greater disfavor in the United States.

I hope this has helped to clear up any confusion you might have regarding the policies of the United States. BUSH WON! And the Republicans grew STRONGER in the House and the Senate! Even better - DASCHLE LOST!

I think that last line pretty much sums it all up. Don't you?

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton History & Civil Business Politics

Well thanks for stating the obvious Night Hawk. I actually thought Kerry had won for a second.

You have a very ignorant or naive understanding of how the UN works. Do you honestly believe it currently functions without US authority? Why do you think those barbaric sanctions were in place in Iraq for so long. It makes no difference who the US Ambassador is, we both know who pulls the gold-plated strings. Bolton is as much a symbolic choice as anything because the neo cons will sharpen their knives regardless of which muppet sits in the UN hot seat.

As for Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq war. It amazes me that you actually believe people like him. Find me the proof? As far as the world is concerned, and he receives a frosty reception virtually everywhere he goes, he is probably the most hated politician in the current US administration. That is saying something. But of course you wouldn't know that living in the heart of rebulicanville. Not that the US seems to give a nonsense about how hated their diplomats are. Only America matters. Maybe the World Bank should change its name to the Bank of America? If not it should certainly change its now meaningless charter.

The above quote is absolute right-wing nonsense, It's so ridiculous I shouldn't even bother acknowledging its existence with a response? It strikes me as remarkable how little you know about the UN and the world. Where do you get your information from, the Republican party propaganda machine or Fox News? Find me one iota of evidence to back up this outrageous statement. And I fail to see how the UN is anti-semitic. It amazes me how judaism has a term that religiously demonises anyone who doesn't agree with something they do.

I too would still be celebrating Bush's victory, it surely will go down as one of the great Republican victories given how much his administration has failed. Running things successfully? What on earth has Bush's administration done that has been successful apart from inflame terrorism? He couldn't even invade a weak, defenceless country without turning it into a quagmire. Is he is running his own country well? Enlighten me on this because most reports we get over here suggest quite the opposite. I would like to believe he is doing something rigth for the sake of the US people.

You're right for once, but I fail to understand what socialism has to do with this topic, let alone anything I have said? I'm all for capitalism, it is a proven way to successfully run a country but it shouldn't come at the cost of basic human rights.

I think the main point I am trying to make is that the US is making very unpopular foreign policy decisions that will one day come back to haunt them. While your country is currently the only superpower, it certainly isn't strong enough to hold the world at ransom while it goes on a crusade to colonise countries with resources. Furthermore, at the current rate of development China will soon (within a few decades) overtake the States in the geo-political power game. Perhaps its time to start drafting war plans against them?

Bolton and Wolfowitz First

User arvhic desist immediately from your personal insults to members of this community or your account will be suspended or deleted. Disagreements are permitted but not personal insults directed at their level of intelligence or knowledge.

Bolton and Wolfowitz First

That is a great laugh. Thank you. You see, I live in the heart of the most leftist part of the US outside of Boston and San Francisco - Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Why do you think I am a Republican? I tend strongly towards conservative libertarianism.

Why do I like Wolfowitz? Because of the Iraq invasion. I believe it was needed, and should have happened in 1991 rather than 2003. All of the Democratic leaders knew the exact same things that Bush and Wolfowitz knew in early 2003, and all had made statements in the late 1990s and early 2000s that Saddam Hussein was one of terrorism's greatest friends. They all also believed that he had WMDs, as did the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia, as well as the US and Britain. I think that the Australian leadership had the same basic information and believed in the existence of the WMDs.

Is that why so many countries joined in the coalition? Yes, we make unpopular foreign policy decisions, because so much of the world is envious of our prosperity and freedom.

Now, here is a column explaining why many of us think that Mr. Bolton is the right man for the job.
https://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCommentary.asp...M20050413d.html

One thing we know about Mr. Bolton is that he will work for the United States, not for the United Nations. His job will be to represent the interests of the government of the US within the UN, not the other way around. Ms. Albright, a former Ambassador to the UN, tended to do the opposite, as did her boss.

Offtopic but, If you would like to discuss the anti-Semitic, anti-American nature of the UN, we have a discussion ongoing about the UN. The same with the socialist activities that are coming out of it. If you would like to talk about the way Mr. Bush has run his administration, we also have a couple of topics open on that subject. I suggest that you read through all of the discussions in any such topics before you post on them, though. I, along with many others, have posted a lot of information already, much of it that would answer many of your criticisms of my posts.

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton

Where do I start ?

I believe the above statement to be a myth. No way, do we canadians or the great majority of european countries envy of the American way. How can one talk of freedom when the US is currently living under a siege of paranoia. Prosperity you say? 40 million americans without any medical plan/assistance.

With freedom comes justice, when the US closes Guantanamo and allows for real justice to take place (ie fair trials) then you can talk about freedom

Isn't the above the exact reason why the UN doesn't work. The americans only interest in the UN is their own self interest?

To sum things up, I think both Wolfowitz and Bolton are the wrong people at the wrong time.

Edited: MrB on 15th Apr, 2005 - 5:02pm

First Wolfowitz & Bolton

So, you are saying that the Canadian ambassador to the UN is primarily there to help figure out how to make Canada more like the UN wants it to be? Or is your ambassador there to represent Canadian interests? I am very confused here. Perhaps I don't understand the whole idea of ambassadors.

Please take this part of the discussion to the proper place. I won't discuss it with you here, especially as it has nothing at all to do with this topic.

Of course not! Anyone that GWB nominates, for essentially any office, will be objectionable to you, and to everyone else on the Left. Tell me - who WOULD be acceptable for these offices? Teddy Kennedy? John Kerry? (Hey, maybe those two would be good ideas. Perhaps Massachusetts would provide us with Senators worth something....) (Sorry, Tena, I just couldn't pass it up )

Seriously, who could GWB possibly nominate that would be acceptable?

First Wolfowitz & Bolton Politics Business Civil & History

Nighthawk,

I would like to apologise if I offended you in any way, sorry mate. I don't mean offence, but I shouldn't label you because I hate being labelled myself.

Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice seperately told US TV audiences in months prior to September 11 that Saddam was not a threat, did not have WMDs and that sanctions were working. I saw this on TV. Of course their tact changed with the wind of war. There is mountains of evidence from previous UN weapons inspetion teams that backed up these claims. Saddams regime was paralysed, and as eventualy proven, no threat to anyone.

By terrorists I am assuming you mean Al Quaeda? There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam was a friend of this terrorist group, in fact quite the opposite. Saddam ran a very strict secular regime and despised fanatical religous terrorist groups. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest he was their friends.

The coalition was very small in size. How many genuine contributions were there? One thing you have to realise mate is that the countries who supported the US did so because they wanted something back from the US, not because they feared Iraq. If Turkey had decided to invade Iraq for the same reasons do you think they would have received any support? Australia only supported the US because it was viewed as significantly strengthening Aus-US ties and we secured a free trade agreement out of it, that was the carrot which our government couldn't resist. I know this for a fact. It was the most unpopular decision of John Howard's career and he still cops criticism about it.

The only reason why any leaders of the above mentioned countries believed there might be WMDs is because of the outright lies fabricated as evidence from the US and Britain. Colin Powell's address to the UN was surely the low point of his career.

I agree that the ambassador to the UN should look our for the interests of their nation, but should also respect world democracy. It is largely the US and other veto holding countries that paralyse the UN's effectiveness. Bolton is not an ideal candidate because he doesn't believe in world democracy and has openely stated before the US should go it alone.

Mate there are many countries around the world that are more prosperous per capita than the US. There are also many countries whose citizens enjoy greater freedom. If you actually visit another country you might discover that its people are far from jealous of the US. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country where McDonalds is considered a restaurant and children are shooting other children because guns are legal. But that is just my humble opinion.