Ah, the US at it's ambassadorial best

[caffeine]

from am article on Brown's speech at the UN: [Malloch Brown is the deputy secretary-general]

Of course, Malloch Brown was not so crass as to name Bolton. The clever thing to do would have been to ignore the speech, but since Bolton has all the diplomatic skills of a bull elephant in heat, he rose to the bait...


from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/iwilliams

Comments

Wow. Which one represented the U.S. again? Awww... fuck.

[mle292.livejournal.com]

I read the speeches and it's like a brief course on public speaking.

1. He politely and eloquently criticizes while offering concrete and symbolic examples of why it's important to take a different course of action than the current one. He offers suggestions and ideas to improve the situation. Wow. Almost poetic.

2. A whiny, foot stomping tantrum summed up best as "Take it back, you meaniepants!"

I read it too

[krisyk.livejournal.com]

I think your political leanings are blinding you a bit in this. You have such a dis-taste for one political group you are allowing the red in your eyes to repeat statements like the "bull elephant". I didn't feel the response was childish only to the point. The fact is we do live in a country with free speech if middle america wants to say the UN is full of shit guess what it is our right. The UN is a huge waste of space and money and everyone within that system knows it. Once upon a time it had a place but now it is used to hustle small countries and allow members and their families to funnel money away from the people who need it into their fat pockets. The Un needs a bull elephant to say the emperor is NUDE and IMPOTENT. When the revolution comes I hope Kofi and the rest of his "I steal money and make myself seen like I care" croonies will be the first up against the wall

Re: I read it too

[vanaabegra.livejournal.com]

You are right about changes needed at the UN, there is no doubt about that. The "Food for Oil" fiasco was bad. People got weathly by circumventing and manipulating policy, but I think that happens pretty much everywhere. Not that I am defending it.

However, I think that if the US really wanted to affect change within the UN, we would send someone with tact who could actually make positive changes. I think the UN has a role to fill, and I would like to see the US take an active role in reshaping the UN.

Places such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council need work, but the UN cannot just be a body that rubber stamps US actions; our government is not always correct, and could use an international sounding board.

I don't have time right now for anything more cohesive than that.

I will sum up by saying I think the UN needs some re-org, but I don't think it should be disbanded, and I think there are better ways to handle it.