Dune wrote: Yeah, what an idotic move to appoint an ambassador that has verbally spoken about his disgust for the UN. Stupid.

Its like the NAACP making a Klansmen in chagre of relations.

Hey, nice marmot!

agentwhale007. wrote: Dune wrote: Yeah, what an idotic move to appoint an ambassador that has verbally spoken about his disgust for the UN. Stupid. Its like the NAACP making a Klansmen in chagre of relations.

Unfortunately you're right. If Bush would have looked to see what Voinavich was trying to prove by going against the grain maybe he could have seen Bolton as not the correct pick. But he won't look past his nose.

reclusivetorrid wrote: A theocracy doesn't sound all that bad to me, strangely.

I presume you mean by this that a theocracy doesn't sound so bad, SO LONG AS IT HAPPENS TO BE BASED IN YOUR RELIGION.

Somehow I don't think you would be a fan of a theocracy led by, say, Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini.  They both like(d) theocracies as well.

Which is of course the central problem with theocracies...

But on point - before we cheer or jeer the Prez on his choice for UN ambassador, perhaps we should consider what we are trying to accomplish?  What function do we want this ambassador to serve?  How does he fit into our vision for US/UN relations?  For that matter, what IS our vision for US/UN relations?  Hard to judge merit without a measuring stick.

1. I think of the UN being a defunct, useless organization that was flawed from the beginning. It has a history of anti-US action that is completely counterproductive.


2. I'm in favor of completely dismantling the UN. However, since that's too extreme to get past the whole group that would need to agree, this is the next best thing.


3. Is it really so wrong for the President to use powers given to him by the Constitution? Oops, I forgot, you leftists are opposed to the Constitution.


4. I'm with Justice on this one. The democrats lost in 2000 and they lost again in 2004. Quit whining. You have no say, because YOU LOST.
   

DBibeau855 wrote: The only thing i know about this guy. Is he LOOKS stupid, he needs to get rid of his mustache.

Ditto on the mustache.  And his hair, too - ugh.  This guy needs a Fab Five makeover.

Carrr wrote: Dune wrote: Is it a bad thing that the UN refuses to allow the US to walk all over all other countries? Is it bad that a nation on a power trip needs to be kept in check? No. The UN serves a purpose, unfortunately too many of you have parents that have no idea what the UN actually does and just spews the lack of knowledge down the family ladder. They are weak yes, because we as a country are too arrogant to follow their advice and go about things in a peaceful manner. This ambassador is an dolt, and the president did not pay much attention to even what some republican senators were telling him not to do. I would be willing to bet that I am older then your parents. You, my son are a self hating american that knows not of what you speek. Hello, 3/4th of the world is living out of the dark ages because of USA aid. That's right pal, off the american tax payers back. We built them just so they can turn around and dictate to us on what our way of life should be. I don't think so.

You definitely underestimate my age. We have no right as a country to turn our backs on an organization we helped create to protect and help others. So when they check us for being wrong we just call them useless? That's stupid. I am not self-hating, it's the common sense that allows me to see through this smoke screen that makes people believe they aren't allowed to disagree with their government's actions. I won't be a robot to the administration, as I can see with my own eyes how we want Iraq to comply with UN sanctions, yet we appoint someone with little experience and a disgust for the UN? Then people are allowed to hate this organization? Come on, is the United States that arrogant? The UN's aid has been very helpful for many countries.

Carrr wrote: Dune wrote: Is it a bad thing that the UN refuses to allow the US to walk all over all other countries? Is it bad that a nation on a power trip needs to be kept in check? No. The UN serves a purpose, unfortunately too many of you have parents that have no idea what the UN actually does and just spews the lack of knowledge down the family ladder. They are weak yes, because we as a country are too arrogant to follow their advice and go about things in a peaceful manner. This ambassador is an dolt, and the president did not pay much attention to even what some republican senators were telling him not to do. I would be willing to bet that I am older then your parents. You, my son are a self hating american that knows not of what you speek. Hello, 3/4th of the world is living out of the dark ages because of USA aid. That's right pal, off the american tax payers back. We built them just so they can turn around and dictate to us on what our way of life should be. I don't think so.

Amen Brother Carr!

Carrr wrote: We as americans have more rights than any other people on the earth.

We do?

The rest of the world sees that and want to take that kind of freedoms away from us.

They do?

Those statements may be true for SOME furrerners, but certainly not all - not even close.

Yes the world does precive us as arrogant. Thats because we have something they shall never have.

Again, you may be right as to SOME parts of the world, but this is nowhere close to correct as a blanket statement.  The US has done plenty to earn its reputation as arrogant.

And it's all because "They will not stand up to there own governments and demand them". So the only option they have is to take away what we do have.

Again, I wonder who you are talking about?  Most of the world does not fit into this mold.

We as americans have alway been isolationists.

200+ years of foreign policy says otherwise.

...the world, AGAIN looks to the USA to solve all there probems. Just like during the first two world wars.

I am pretty sure that "the world" did not look to the USA to invade Iraq.  I am also pretty sure that "the world" did not look to the USA to "solve all their problems" during WW I/II.  Sure, the help was appreciated when it came, but you vastly overstate the underlying politics - particularly as to WWI.

I am not sure that either current reality or historical fact support your position.

http://www.un.org/english/ - http://www.un.org/english/

Just for people that seem to think they know what it is.

Hairball!!! wrote: Dune wrote: We have always had a stake in the world, and I think that our attempt to become not just a superpower, but the only superpower is scary. I fail to see how we are trying to become the only superpower. We aren't trying to destroy Russia or China, or even Europe, and nothing in the Middle East could even begin to be considered a superpower. China is struggling with its own economy and food supply, and Russia is still building itself up after converting to capitalism.

Spreading our version of democracy in the middle east seems to extend our sphere of influence and power quite well. Although we have not attacked other superpowers, are refusal of dealing arms with China and other countries show our distrust and possible preperation of something.

We have often refused China many of our exports, although they are a large trade partner otherwise. I don't necessarily believe we will take down the other countries in another world war; however, our refusal to cooperate with China and Russia, even Germany and France for that matter allows me to speculate what our intentions are.

He should have appointed Michael Bolton

And also Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown to the supreme court

Those European countries posses much more power than you give them credit for. However, I do not feel like this war in Iraq is really a "war on terror" step. That's pretty ridiculous, so the countries that are not participating in it are using better judgement.

DBibeau855 wrote: Dune wrote: We have often refused China many of our exports, although they are a large trade partner otherwise. I don't necessarily believe we will take down the other countries in another world war; however, our refusal to cooperate with China and Russia, even Germany and France for that matter allows me to speculate what our intentions are. You know what, if we did do arms dealing with them like you origionaly stated, all your little libral buddies would run around saying. "ZOMG! T3h USA is teh Uber war monger!" Your kinda like Micheal Moore sometimes you know that?

How so? My liberal buddies? Did this little jist of ignorance come to you or had you planned this out? I am not saying our decision to trade weapons with them is good or not, nor do I care. Or is it time for me to say something back like "your fox news sucks?" I mean, this is what you're pulling it down to.

Hairball!!! wrote: Dune wrote: Those European countries posses much more power than you give them credit for. However, I do not feel like this war in Iraq is really a "war on terror" step. That's pretty ridiculous, so the countries that are not participating in it are using better judgement. They're using better judgement by preferring that sadistic, terrorist-harboring, terrorist-funding torturers with chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons stay in power? Great judgment skills right there.

I see no proof that the Saddam, in the past few years had harbored terrorists, funded them, and used biological or chemical weapons. They do not feel as if it is there place to go at it with an invasion. Yeah, it's pretty smart judgement.

DBibeau855 wrote: The war in Iraq is unrelated to the war on terror. Insurgents have flocked to it and made it a theater of operations because thats where US soldiers are.

It didn't become a war on terror until the occupation began.

DBibeau855 wrote: Dune wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: The war in Iraq is unrelated to the war on terror. Insurgents have flocked to it and made it a theater of operations because thats where US soldiers are. It didn't become a war on terror until the occupation began. Are you serious? The war on terror started in Afganistan And Saudi Arabia..

Started in Saudi Arabia? Our "allies" are sure doing a lot there.

I'm saying the war in Iraq didn't become a war on terror until after our occupation.

paintmagnet420 wrote: I think the Dumacrats are mad because they suck, and have to get the senate to do everything for them, while the president laughs and kicks them in the face. And they just line up for more......... hm.

Ignorance at its best.

Lemon wrote: Dune wrote: I see no proof that the Saddam, in the past few years had harbored terrorists, funded them, and used biological or chemical weapons. They do not feel as if it is there place to go at it with an invasion. Yeah, it's pretty smart judgement. Surely you jest... http://www.husseinandterror.com/ - 1, 2, http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html - and 3. Though I'm sure you'd rather trust Saddam on this one...

Naah, I'll trust the 9-11 commission that cleared those things up. As well as the military commanders in Iraq as they admit there are no WMD's. I think you should watch where you get your information as well.

All right, people, cool it.

It's one thing to have a heated debate - it's another to go to outright name-calling.

That means you, mbro.  That means you, Frozen Balls.  And the rest of you as well.

Cut the personal attacks back a couple of notches, or I will start raining strikes down on this thread.