If he can do it, great, but I think the UN is fundamentally flawed in that, to put it simply, a lot of countries are assholes.

I am stunned at how corrupt and anti-American the Democrat machine has become over the past 30 years. The whole debacle that is the UN can be laid at their feet over the long term! No wonder Bolton was so feared by them, that they fought so hard to keep him out of that position. He's shining light into the dark corners they've been occupying unnoticed for years.

>>I am stunned at how corrupt and anti-American the Democrat machine has become over the past 30 years. The whole debacle that is the UN can be laid at their feet over the long term!

Yes, its because of the Dems! After all, they were in the whitehouse for EIGHT years in the past TWENTY FIVE.

It's all well and good to reform the ineffectual UN, but the question is into what. I have no faith in Bolton (a avowed neoconservative) or this administration in their desire and ability to turn the UN into something valuable.

What I know about neocon foreign policy is an prediliction towards unilateral activity and short term alliances of convenience. In that light, I can only imagine two possible fates they have in store for the UN. First, they might desire to merely cripple it more, until the institution is so discredited that it is broadly abandoned. Second, they might try to simple make the UN into the US' sock puppet i.e. our international rubber stamp.

In either case, the end result will be a diminished UN. Both courses end with a severe loss of credibility. Does anyone really believe that these guys have faith in the value of an active UN? It just doesn't fit into their philosophy.

If anyone doesn't buy my characterizations, let me know and I'll try to back them up with supporting evidence.

A great accomplishment by the UN, via thier Food and Agriculture Organisation which is supposed to be dedicated to 'helping to build a world without hunger', invites a the bastard known as Robert Mugabe (A man who I cannot think of a sufficient expletive to describe, who has CAUSED massive famine in the country he RAN INTO THE GROUND) to speak in Rome and calls Bush and Blair (leaders of countrise no one is DYING OF F'ING STARVATION IN) terroists and says of them:

"Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed [an] unholy alliance, form an alliance to attack an innocent country?"

Just so there is no confusion here, the BBC reports on Zimbabwe's torture training camps and says:

"President Robert Mugabe's government has set up secret camps across the country in which thousands of youths are taught how to torture and kill, the BBC has learned. .... Debbie said she was raped three times on the first night, but claimed that the abuse didn't stop then. She told the programme: "I was raped again at night and they said no-one can complain because its part of training." .... Food is often scarce. Youths are beaten until they succumb to orders. They are taught that their mission is to keep President Mugabe in power."

While this occurs, please keep in mind.

http://fdnf.typepad.com/live_from_the_fdnf/2005/10/spotlight_on_da_1.html

What the hell is happeneing in Darfur? It has been months, I had honestly forgetten all about that. (Callous but candid, like actually happened in Rwanda, I figgured if nothing had been done to stop the genocide by now the genocide would be over cuz THEY'D ALL BE DEAD ALLREADY)

Is it STILL going on? I haven't heard it mentioned in months.

Chances are you haven't heard about Kosovo in closer to 5 years, which after all this time (it is now a UN proctectorate) is moving not further from but CLOSER TO exploding in violence all over again. In all this time nothing has really been done except to 'sit on' the area to keep anyone from squirming too much, while the issues that caused the violence fester.

What the hell does the UN actually do? What the hell is the point of the UN? I don't think this organization could possibly have any LESS credibiltiy.

Better a sock puppet of the US, better a sock puppet of a neo-con ambassador, hell, better a sock puppet of the guy who walks his dog past my house every morning, then a sock-puppet of a cabal of crackpots and kleptocrats, abetting the atrocities of men like Mugabe.

You can tell by the typo's and atrocious grammar the UN is a subject I'm more then a little pissed about.

MJohnson, I can relate to your frustration. The word I would use to describe the UN is ineffectual. I would like to see this change, and I agree that reform is DEFINITELY necessary. Maybe even a whole new organization, although I don't know if there's anyone right now who could put one together (we don't have the international credibility at this time).

My concern is that I can imagine this getting worse under Bolton, not better. I really do hope he can help the UN get where it needs to be, I really do. But I just don't expect that from this gang. I don't see the necessary commitment to multilaterlism that you would expect from a group that wanted the UN to thrive. An organization such as the UN lives and dies on its credibility, and right now, I don't think we're in a position to improve that. If the UN is just the pawn of the US, what's the point? Is it going to be more able to get the rest of the world to intervene in Darfur? We might as well just act unilaterally, because no one will join us.

There should be an international organization right now that has the power and the credibility to deal with a variety of international issues. Things like terrorism, epidemiology, nuclear proliferation, international trade and global climate are topics that would be a natural fit for such an agency. I don't see the UN providing significant leadership in any of these areas.

Fella, we don't need one of your hated neocons to reduce the credibility of the UN. They're doing that all on their own and all we need is that it gets reported. When they have a supposed Commission on Human Rights and then they allow countries onto that commission that are human rights disasters, that removes credibility. When they allow those atrocious countries to HEAD the Commission on Human Rights, that removes credibility. When the UN flies it's flag next to that of terrorist organizations in Palestinian territories. THAT removes credibility. When they're shown to be highly corrupt in the OfF scandal. THAT removes credibility. When they argue for weeks and STILL can't come up with a definition of "terrorism", THAT removes credibility. When they overlook this generation's genocides....less credibility. Maybe they got away with their screwed up behaviors in the past because a lack of information about them, but they're doing it to themselves. They do it all on their own if the People pay attention.

There ARE credible groups at this time...like the Proliferation Security Initiative. Groups of DEMOCRATIC countries working together for a cause. Just no new groups that're looking to replace the bloated cow that redistributes the money and power of the United States.

"a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1837848,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1837848,00.html

"UN office doctored report on murder of Hariri

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday. "

It's really QUITE ridiculous, almost a parody of itself. The very spirit of the organization is sociopathic. Day by day it does 5 time more harm then it has ever done any good.

The best think John Bolton could do would be to firebomb the building. More power to him if he does.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1837848,00.html

Woops. Tripped over more.

"and to a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., known among other things for his ties to a figure designated by the U.N. itself as a financier of Al Qaeda (search)."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173039,00.html

Thanks ever so much for your enlightened attitude and penetrating analysis, Steve, you complete, total moron.

- George Bush’s August 1 recess appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the United Nations exemplifies his administration’s contempt for democratic form as well as world public opinion.

- John Bolton doesn’t believe that the US Constitution is right and has stated, “Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes."

- John Bolton is an abusive, bullying man who has seriously compromised our national security.

- John Bolton and his minions collaborated with Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby in the outing of Valerie Plame. He is a traitor and deserves to be executed. Hey, it's the law, you putz.

Enjoy him while you can, perhaps between watching NASCAR and cleaning your guns. NO WAY he makes it past January, 2007.

Why don't you complete the quote? Oh yeah, because it weakens your baseless claim that Bolton doesn't believe the Constitution is right. That's right, baseless claim and a typical selective quoting.

"Treaties are 'law' only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply 'political,' and not legally binding."

Use the noodle before flaming your anti-Republican ad hominems....or did they not complete the quote in the morning memo? If we go against the treaty of the NATO by not helping a member nation in need (not like we would, but "if"), what's the punishment again and where is the trial? Other than political persecution? A non-binding "resolution" in the UNGC? Lemme know when we've signed on to the ICC.