The best thing I've read in some time...

But he's not pleasant! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McG

How can we persuade more people to read this article? I post this about the author which may give it more credence:

Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.

* * *

0 Replies

I read it. It's well written. But I confess I'm skeptical. How likely is it that everyone was manipulating the UN, except us? How convenient to link all of our difficulties with terrorism on our old familiar foe, communism.

Not that I'm completely dismissing it, but I remain a skeptic.

0 Replies

Freeduck

So you think all the stuff on the commies is just a Hollywood myth?

0 Replies

McG

You've had 50 hits on your thread but no substantive comments from the left........I'm puzzled.......could it be that the author shoots their ill informed notions full of holes?

0 Replies

It's intriguing to hear from someone who spent much of their life working for and benefiting from totalitarianism. It's good to see that he finally woke up to the benefits of liberal democracy and is obviously now a firm supporter of all its tenets, in particular, freedom of expression. I, for one, am heartened.

Having said that the piece is just a bit too sucky but that's to be expected I suppose as he is writing for a particular audience.

Now that the Soviet bloc is gone I would think that it's influence has also gone. Perhaps that's why the UN is in such a shambles. Incompetence and corruption, not communism, are the problem with the UN.

Having said that it would be good if people stopped living in the past and realised that "communism" isn't the threat, the threat is totalitarianism. That big red dragon is waiting patiently in the wings watching the world's only superpower and waiting, waiting. One day the UN may indeed be redundant and not because of anything expressed in this thread.

0 Replies

I am completely at a loss to understand why anyone -- including a former communist spy chief -- thinks that Bolton would be able to do anything to reform or rehabilitate the UN. As ambassador, Bolton would be merely one of over 100 ambassadors representing UN member states. To be sure, he would be representing the most powerful and influential of those states, but his would still be one voice among many. Furthermore, the ambassador doesn't set US policy toward the UN: that's the White House's job. Bolton, in other words, would be little more than a glorified mouthpiece for the administration -- not that there's any dishonor in that: every ambassador's job is to be little more than a glorified mouthpiece for the administration. The only difference between Bolton and, say, the American ambassador to Kenya is that Bolton would rank rather higher on the bureaucratic totem poll, he won't have to leave the US or learn a foreign language, and he doesn't have to worry about fixing visas or getting unruly American tourists out of jail.

As UN ambassador, Bolton will be able to use his somewhat-bully pulpit to level dire-yet-empty imprecations against the UN just as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick did before him. That might get him a political job or (more likely) a cushy sinecure in a conservative groupthink tank after 2009, but he will no doubt leave the UN in pretty much the same condition that he found it. I'm sure he'll find that it's easier to abuse subordinates than it will be to reform an institution over which he has little influence in a job that has even less authority.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I am completely at a loss to understand why anyone -- including a former communist spy chief -- thinks that Bolton would be able to do anything to reform or rehabilitate the UN.

The answer to your question is within the article above. Here is the beginning of the answer:

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination." That resolution was the Soviet bloc's first major "victory" at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy "Council of the Elders of Zion" (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

The second reason I wanted more participants to read the article is to draw attention to some facts about the UN as exposed by the author. Thanks for reading the article and commenting on it Joe. Furthermore Joe, I'm certain you would agree that "timing" is everything. The "TIME" is right to push for "MEANINGFUL" reform of the UN........Not the meaningLESS reform being touted by the corrupt Annan.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

The answer to your question is within the article above. Here is the beginning of the answer:

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination." That resolution was the Soviet bloc's first major "victory" at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy "Council of the Elders of Zion" (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

I don't know if Bolton was single-handedly responsible for the repeal of UN Resolution 3379 (variously referred to by conservative bloggers as the "infamous," "odious," or "abominable" Resolution 3379 -- check out this Google search and see for yourself how unimaginative they are in their use of adjectives). Furthermore, I'm not sure why I should take the word of a former communist spy chief for the truth in this matter (it seems that the reliability of former communist spy chiefs is directly proportional to the extent to which they agree with one's opinion).

Be that as it may, even if Bolton was indeed the sole mastermind behind the repeal of the infamous/odious/abominable resolution, I am forced to ask: "so what?" Bolton is being touted as a guy who can "reform" the UN. Getting a resolution repealed, however, is a far cry from a thorough restructuring or reformation of an enormous international organization. The UN general assembly passes resolutions all the time -- that's simple. Reforming ossified bureaucracies is another matter entirely, and so I am still left wondering why anyone thinks that Bolton can do it by himself (frankly, his proven track record in bullying and punishing subordinates is probably a better indication of his ability to make people do what he wants than any history of resolution-passing).

rayban1 wrote:

The second reason I wanted more participants to read the article is to draw attention to some facts about the UN as exposed by the author. Thanks for reading the article and commenting on it Joe. Furthermore Joe, I'm certain you would agree that "timing" is everything. The "TIME" is right to push for "MEANINGFUL" reform of the UN........Not the meaningLESS reform being touted by the corrupt Annan.

I offer no opinion on the timing of reform for the UN. I remain, however, unconvinced that John Bolton can do anything meaningful, by himself, to effectuate that reform.

0 Replies

Do you think he should be given the chance?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Do you think he should be given the chance?

Given the information that we currently possess, I don't think Bolton should be confirmed. But then I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other.

0 Replies

It's that bushy, white mustache.

0 Replies

Re: The best thing I've read in some time...
Ion Mihai Pacepa always writes excellent reports:

Quote:

source: Washington Times

0 Replies

Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.
The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming. I am sure that Bolton would look quite good on National TV giving a speech to the UN in which he made the House threat crystal clear.

I think that JoeFromChicago forgets that we are not just one of many countries. We have a vote on the Security Council.

That is an important advantage.

0 Replies

Oh - the Washington Times - good link Walter, thank you.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.

You are obviously not really up to date with your informations:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/un-us-05.gif

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large05.gif

0 Replies

US Debt to the UN:
Monthly Totals

Sums in $US, rounded to the nearest million
Totals include debt for International Tribunals and Capital Master Plan (new for 2003)
Percentages show US proportion of debt to the total UN debt in each category

31 March 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (50%)
Peacekeeping: $743 million (54%)
Total: $1,512 million (51%)

28 February 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (45%)
Peacekeeping: $743 million (33%)
Total: $1,512 million (38%)

31 January 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (38%)
Peacekeeping: $728 million (31%)
Total: $1,497 million (34%)

31 December 2004
Regular Budget: $241 million (68%)
Peacekeeping: $722 million (28%)
Total: $975 million (33%)

30 November 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (76%)
Peacekeeping: $626 million (26%)
Total: $1,168 million (37%)

31 October 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (75%)
Peacekeeping: $552 million (23%)
Total: $1,109 million (35%)

30 September 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (73%)
Peacekeeping: $880 million (33%)
Total: $1,459 million (42%)

31 August 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (58%)
Peacekeeping: $864 million (37%)
Total: $1,470 million (43%)

31 July 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (57%)
Peacekeeping: $837 million (34%)
Total: $1,443 million (40%)

30 June 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (53%)
Peacekeeping: $486 million (41%)
Total: $1,092 million (46%)

31 May 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (49%)
Peacekeeping: $482 million (41%)
Total: $1,088 million (44%)

30 April 2004
Regular Budget: $614 million (49%)
Peacekeeping: $480 million (38%)
Total: $1,143 million (42%)

31 March 2004
Regular Budget: $614 million (46%)
Peacekeeping: $480 million (39%)
Total: $1,143 million (42%)

29 February 2004
Regular Budget: $631 million (43%)
Peacekeeping: $828 million (41%)
Total: $1,543 million (41%)

31 January 2004
Regular Budget: $631 million (38%)
Peacekeeping: $811 million (37%)
Total: $1,526 million (37%)

etc etc etc

Source for above

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.

As Walter points out, the US owes the UN money.

chiczaira wrote:

The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming.

We should all be so lucky as debtors to impose onerous conditions on our creditors as a preliminary to paying our debts.

chiczaira wrote:

I am sure that Bolton would look quite good on National TV giving a speech to the UN in which he made the House threat crystal clear.

If reform of the UN is so important, then why hasn't the Bush administration pushed this issue before? Why is it necessary to get Bolton in there -- rather than somebody else -- to lobby for reform?

chiczaira wrote:

I think that JoeFromChicago forgets that we are not just one of many countries. We have a vote on the Security Council.

That is an important advantage.

Yes, I know that.

And, btw, give my regards to Italgato when you get a chance.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

chiczaira wrote:
Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.

As Walter points out, the US owes the UN money.

chiczaira wrote:
The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming.

We should all be so lucky as debtors to impose onerous conditions on our creditors as a preliminary to paying our debts.

Maybe the UN will kick us out?

0 Replies

The best thing I've read in some time...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know