Skip to comments.America angry over "hypocrites" remark [Bolton got into it with British UN official.]
Posted on 06/09/2006 12:04:26 AM PDT by familyopEdited on 06/09/2006 10:00:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
New York: Deputy Secretary-General of the U.N. was on Wednesday night accused of making ``a very, very grave mistake'' after calling the Bush administration hypocrites who were feeding a right-wing anti-U.N. frenzy in middle America.
Washington's Ambassador to the U.N. responded with undisguised fury to a speech by Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, in which he accused Washington of using the international body ``almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool'' while failing to defend it at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at hindu.com ...
BTW, you'll see many omissions and obfuscations from the British press on the issue in the days to come.
Oh, yes, please! Can it be tomorrow? Off to Africa with you! Or France. Or Algiers. Anywhere else. Don't hesitate; don't delay; and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
It's bad enough I have to wet-nurse Montgomery,I don't have to stand for that!
-George Patton, "Patton"
Mr. Brown, you will notice, was very careful to "side step" any possible notion that "middle America" might have REASONS not to support the UN. Just an observation.
U.N.= Ultimate Nothing
By the way, the U.S. will stay in the U.N. because Bill Clinton wants to be the king of the U.N. and will probably be someday, sadly.
Who did the UN decide to name as head of their "Human Rights" Council?
Let me guess... Zimbabwe? Sudan? North Korea?
If you really want to see it hit the fan, order the UN out of the US. We cannot tell them where to go, but we could say "Not Here!" And we would not pay for the relocation either.
If the US President had a good speech writer, we could answer the UN Deputy in kind. Mr. Bush cannot articulate complex concepts off the cuff but the UN really needs a shot across the bow from someone who can.
On another thread of a similar topic, a Freeper was kind enough to post a quote someting to the affect of
"I would rather have in my tent pissing out than outside my tent pissing in".
Regardless of your feelings about the UN, as long as it exists, it is to US advantage to have them in New York.
Malloch, you are a pathetic socialist lapdog who's only benefit at the UN is that it keeps you occupied, off British streets and away from small children. I'm sure the entire Island sleeps easier on that thought.
Or maybe the entire thing is a slush fund for totalitarian nutjobs the world over, anyway.
"Popular opinion media," or the Whore of Babylon, as I like to call it, is a major CAUSE. They are not "behind" it. They are right up front with it. It is not that media is for one side or the other. It is what they can do to keep people divided against themselves. THAT is what makes news.
The real sad story is that for those who take in the Whore are bound to catch an STD (Sensually Transmitted Disease). It spreads among the viewers like an AIDS virus. Worse yet, are those who use the media to legitimize a certain world view, a perspective, or situation....mostly based on a 15 second soundbite.
The Whore may be one problem, but the harlots who lay down for her is what gives her her power.
Boycott mainstream media.
What about the harlots who pay for the advertising and dictate the opinions? For about a decade, I worked quite a few office contracts for corporations that pay for the advertising. Before that, I attended some English classes with relatives (now journalists) of some of the corporate bosses. They are far worse than what they publicly reveal through the popular, so-called "news" media that they pay.
Free speech in the US is so inconvenient. The world would be better off if all the EU smartypants and the UN ran everything.
The UN is a bunch of third world thugs. Period.
Agreed! In content anyway. But, not in name. They are not the harlots. They are the Pimps. ;^)
That's a good point.
I submit that "one way or another" is to continue business as ususal at the U.N.
Let it be known that the discourse that I feel towards the UN has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Fox News - the agency is beyond useless, and is simply a front used by thieves to steal money away from the US taxpayer.
Harare, Zimbabwe seems t0 be a perfect l0cati0n f0r the UN t0 me.
I don't know what you're smokin' but I don't want any. To think that the UN has had a positive effect on international relations is naive at best. It is no more useful than was the league of nations.
"Mr. Bush cannot articulate complex concepts off the cuff"
I beg to differ! "Off the cuff", IMO, is when the President is at his best! Second best is when he reads from notes. He apparently has a history of dyslexia, and I think the teleprompter format is his downfall.
My first impression of Bolton was that he was a goofy looking putz with a 'carpet that doesn't match the drapes' cookie duster moustache, but after reading some of his co-workers comments I thought he might actually be the right man for the job.
Now I KNOW he is the right man for the job.
Way to go JB! Sticking up for hard working middle America.
..and why is this UK fag so upset by what Rush or Fox News has to say about the UN? Annan is a pathetic failure as head of the UN and should have stepped down long ago.
I don't think you're going to fit in here.
...or Useless Nattering.
You have a gift for stating the obvious. The General Assembly is made up of a large number of tin-pot dictatorships whose people didn't elect their representatives in the first place. The Security Council is stymied by France, Russia and China.
No one is saying we are going it alone, simply that US interests are no longer served by the UN, which is not just a little bit corrupt but corrupt from the head (Kofi and Kojo Annan) to the toe (UN peacekeepers in Rwanda). We can accomplish a lot more through bilateral efforts and NATO.
The UN has outlived its usefulness.
Disagree. We've had them for 60 years. Now let's have the UN in Addis Ababa for the next 60. We may take them back after that, we'll see.
Costs would be considerably lower in Addis and it would be a real boost to the Ethiopian economy to have all those high-living UN diplomats spending tax free money.
The UN is a forum for the representatives of tin-pot dictators to strut around and feel important while bashing the US, which funds their paychecks. As far as foreign policy goes, the UN is useless at best, dangerous and counterproductive at worst.
Is he saying, "those rubes who change their own oil, watch Gilligan's Island and don't read the NY Times"?
Haiti. That's a shining symbol of their policies...
I would admit that the short sentiments on this thread would prompt a response like yours. However, in their defense, if you understood the root of these sentiments, you might give them some more credo.
The one thing the heart of Americans will never compromise, despite what the world at large thinks is better, are the principles that constitute and foster "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Those principles are eternal in nature; and their Author (not being associated with any one particular government, including our own, heck, maybe especially our own), has conveyed that they have a universal application to ALL people. In other words, if those principles are applied, people will live, live free, and, for the most part, be happy.
However, if those principles are violated, there is no promise.
What you are witnessing here are sentiments who have observed a "long train of abuses" from a body who tries to force peace upon nations by instigating wars. Nevermind the misuse of "oil for food" program and others like it. This kind of abuse can be expected at any level of governing power, no matter who or what it represents.
The real complaint here is the effectiveness of a world governing body that kills hundreds of thousands of peoples needlessly in the name of peace as if they should be the angst arbitor that they are of national affairs. Nations should do as they have always done throughout history: Work out their problems with whomever they have a problem with.
This would keep the greedy grubbing money hoarders and the financial/industrial cartels in check and separate governments who do espouse the principles of Life, Liberty, and Happiness from those who do not.
One of those principles is the principle that ultimately, people, individuals, are to be self-governing and independent of social structures for their sustenance. The more governing, as they suppose, they might need is a proportional admission of their lack in abiding those principles. The chief mission for any government should be to protect and defend those principles and their exercise from the evil of greed and murderous theft.
Greedy men for want of power and wealth are those who orchestrate a constant reminder that we, as a human race, are incapable of exercising those principles; of actually becoming what our divine heritage would have us become; which is why they must continue feeding the propaganda machine that we can never agree upon those universal principles if they want to keep their power.
You see Sir, whether our government is a righteous government or not is not the issue. It is what is burned within the hearts of Americans as their faith in the Almighty would have them be free. Anything less than this would be a waste of time and money. Therefore, as inept as the UN has shown the world to be-and indeed, the very instigator of that which they hypocritically oppose, can you actually blame those in this thread for their stand? Especially for a body who has exercises the very evil which seeks out and destroys those aforementioned principles of Life, Liberty, and Happiness?
No Sir, what really smells is your lack to see things as they should be, and not what they must be because that is the way they are. The UN sucks! That is a economic as well as a metaphoric fact. So, why should we keep them around?
You're complaining now that the US uses its veto? I should hope so! We should be a lot more obstructionist than we are. Putting a stop to the more egregious UN silliness is our job, as I see it.
As far as the rest of the world subsidizing our debt, that's true. Of course, they do it at market rates and it's historically a very good investment. No foreigner is investing in the US to lose money. To the contrary.
May 30, 2006...Why "Necro's" a newbie! (Smells of ye olde troll).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.