America's next GREAT Ambassador. Is he ready for the U.N.?

I present to you, quotes from America's next GREAT Ambassador to the U.N.:

“There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the United States, when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along.”

“Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories, if you lost 10 stories today it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

“The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work. And that is exactly the way it should be because the only question, the only question to the United States is what’s in our national interest and if you don’t like that I’m sorry, but that is the fact.”

Does anyone else think that he needs to brush up on his diplomacy skills? And I am interested as to what some of our american friends who frequent this board think about this rube?

He is rather plain speaking for a diplomat, always has been.

However, it is difficult to fault his logic. There isn't a single country that does not operate by that last principle.

True, but the first two things are kinda harsh to say about a place you will have to spend a considerable amount of time

Like I say, plain speaking. There are plenty who think it but don't say it. If the US wants to send a man like that, then the message is very clear- they are sick of diplomatic niceities. It happens sometimes.

Very True

Very true but incredibly stupid...

Like we don't have enough problems already, yeah he might hate the U.N. but is he somebody that would make that organisation work? No. If he somebody that could help improve it? No. All the US is doing by sending that SOB is hurting the organisation and kicking it down even further... Not really the way to go

I would like to believe that you can be honest or plain speaking while also being diplomatic.

However, from what I have seen and read, this man has no desire to be diplomatic. And I agree with Ushgarak, I believe that the U.S. is sending a message just by appointing Bolton.

That being said, after the message is sent, I hope they are prepared for the potential response to that message.

If this guy is how the US feels about the UN then why don't they leave?

Well I think that in itself would (for the moment, provide quite a few problems for the UN) altho in the long run I consider it an option

btw can't the next president appoint another diplomat?

Of course it would create problems, but if the US appoints a person that is clearly against the UN as a free organisation and its ideals then they are basically saying screw the UN. If thats the message they want to send then they should take the consequences for it and leave.

IMO you should either try to make it work or just forget about it, the US isn't doing either at this time and is only making problems worse... Thats not helping anybody not even themselves.

True Fishy, but tons of ppl in the world still consider them to be the only superpower, and well the UN wouldn't be very representative without it.

Remember the damn organisation before the UN (volkenbond in het ndl) they sucked big time and a lot of that was because the two super powers didn't join in

Originally posted by Fire
True Fishy, but tons of ppl in the world still consider them to be the only superpower, and well the UN wouldn't be very representative without it.

Remember the damn organisation before the UN (volkenbond in het ndl) they sucked big time and a lot of that was because the two super powers didn't join in

Yeah the league of nations sucked but it was not just the fact of the superpowers it was also their refusal to do anything against Germany... The US alone refused to do anything as well. The world has changed however we have greater mobility now. More power to nations.

Without the US the UN would weaken yes I agree, China would rise faster and all that crap but thats going to happen anyway, why not speed it up? Because at least then we will stop playing these games and just do what we want to do. If the US hates the UN that much if it really does think its that worthless they have no reason to keep on joining. Why would they care if it fell.

This guy is obviously not doing what the US wants, its just using hard words that it should not use and is damaging the UN and the US as result.

The guy might hate the UN but sending him isn't a message that the US wants the UN removed or they don;t want it. The message is- our representative is going to damn well make our wishes clear. The US doesn't want to pussyfoot around any more.

In as much as that is the job of a representative to the UN, then he is absolutely adequate to that task. In as much as this mood is the one the administration holds, he is the perfect choice.

He's not going to just insult it. He'll do his job- he's a professional and not incapable politician. But he is a symptom of a shift in attitude.

True, damn bush

I like the guy already! 👆

Not afraid to give out his own opinion and express himself without worries of what others might say later. More power to him.

The only thing is he is not supposed to express HIS opinions, he is supposed to express the opinions of the citizens of his country. If your government and citizens wished to be represented in that manner than that's fine, but it's not up to him to decide how he should represent your interests best based on his own opinion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The guy might hate the UN but sending him isn't a message that the US wants the UN removed or they don;t want it. The message is- our representative is going to damn well make our wishes clear. The US doesn't want to pussyfoot around any more.

In as much as that is the job of a representative to the UN, then he is absolutely adequate to that task. In as much as this mood is the one the administration holds, he is the perfect choice.

He's not going to just insult it. He'll do his job- he's a professional and not incapable politician. But he is a symptom of a shift in attitude.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He is rather plain speaking for a diplomat, always has been.

Saying that Bolton is 'plain-speaking' is crap-speak for holding nothing but self-interest. He has no interest in the UN, unless it is centred towards doing something for the US. One of the most important roles of the UN is the humanitarian aid it provides. His views are the antithesis of humanitarianism. His role as the US ambassador to the UN yet again shows the disgusting arrogance and self-interest of the current US government.

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Saying that Bolton is 'plain-speaking' is crap-speak for holding nothing but self-interest. He has no interest in the UN, unless it is centred towards doing something for the US. One of the most important roles of the UN is the humanitarian aid it provides. His views are the antithesis of humanitarianism. His role as the US ambassador to the UN yet again shows the disgusting arrogance and self-interest of the current US government.

Not wanting to burst your bubble or anything, but that's how half the powerful countries in the world (Russia, US, China and so on) regard the UN, he's just saying what tons of the others are thinking.

You refer to Russia which is a borderline dictatorship and China which is communist, so your examples don't do anything to cast the US in a positive light. Also, both of your examples are countries with who the US has a somewhat strained relationship with. It makes a great case for the contradictory nature of current US policy, when you consider this with the fact that the US shares parallels with countries that contain the largest terrorist cells: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea et al have all been condemed for their human-rights abuses...Much like...you guessed it...The US.

So, to break it down...

1) The US shares a disdain for the UN with despotic nations like Russia and China.

2) The US shares a disdain for human-rights with nations like North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.

Good way to make your point.