|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: US threatens UN again.... |
 |
|
The US once again threatens UN after Malloch Brown criticises how the US has treated and reacted to the UN in recent years....
US demands Annan repudiate UN aide's criticisms
| Quote: |
The United States demanded on Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan repudiate his deputy after the No. 2 U.N. official accused Washington of failing to stand up for the United Nations against domestic critics.
An angry U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, while not demanding the resignation of U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, said he told Annan the remarks were the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official he had seen in decades.
"Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations," Bolton told reporters. "My hope is he looks at the potential adverse effects that these intemperate remarks would have on the organization and repudiate it."
Bolton accused Malloch Brown of employing "a condescending, patronizing tone about the American people." |
Oh, no, can't criticize the hyper-power, don't undermine the paranoid world mind police...
.....gee-wizz, no condecension allowed....hey wait a minute.....lol 
Good for Kofi for not bowing to the pressure:
| Quote: |
| "The secretary-general stands by the statements made by his deputy. So there is no question of any action to be taken against the deputy secretary-general," he said. |
From the NY Times:
| Quote: |
"The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable," said the deputy, Mark Malloch Brown. "You will lose the U.N. one way or another."
In a highly unusual instance of a United Nations official singling out an individual country for criticism, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington's tolerance of what he called "too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping."
"Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," he said. |
As a final note, why is it Ok for the US government to criticise and undermine the power of the UN, but not vise-versa???
..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I tell you what throw all the thugs off the UN human rights commision and then the UN will get some credibilty .
By the way how did the US threaten the UN? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bignate: if you are looking to get a better handle on U.S.-UN relations, and what Washington's issues are, why don't you start by making a good-faith effort to investigate Washington's point of view and then tell us what you find -- without either endorsing or attacking said views?
Then you could raise issues and ask questions from a much more powerful position.
Can you do that?
Otherwise, you're just peddling more anti-U.S. and very partisan propaganda, and most of us have already heard all that there is to hear on this score... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Bignate: if you are looking to get a better handle on U.S.-UN relations, and what Washington's issues are, why don't you start by making a good-faith effort to investigate Washington's point of view and then tell us what you find -- without either endorsing or attacking said views?
Then you could raise issues and ask questions from a much more powerful position.
Can you do that?
Otherwise, you're just peddling more anti-U.S. and very partisan propaganda, and most of us have already heard all that there is to hear on this score... |
Couldn't agree more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| US threatens UN again.... |
thats a bit like one of us arguing with our sock puppet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sick and Bolton is as "inflammatory" and ill informed as he is "stupid". Five Eagles , please stick to the bible, it more than enough, compensates and provides you with sanctity and comic relief.....
Sick --- The U.S. position from day one is NOT DIALOGUE but monlogue......my way because it is my money.
I believe a lot of this can be attributed to the gradual American leaning towards a bureaucratic, economic, financial management type of government rather than a political , adaptable, accomodating form of governance...
Politicians especially in the United States are numerticians, money/number movers............this is their role and why at the end of the day, pressure is on the U.N. -- because it pressures the bottom line (to be kind, to do the right thing...). It is not about inefficiency which can be rectified through diplomacy but about exerting pressure for $$$ ends.
Sick that a nation founded on values, does its politics with only one value in mind......
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Bignate: if you are looking to get a better handle on U.S.-UN relations, and what Washington's issues are, why don't you start by making a good-faith effort to investigate Washington's point of view and then tell us what you find -- without either endorsing or attacking said views? |
The thing is, Washington makes no good faith effort to examine what the UN needs or what the UN point of view is.....they are the major contributor to the UN and yet they still undermine it whenever they can...or whenever they need.
Washington's point of view is that if the UN serves US interests, then they will defend the need for the UN tooth and nail, but when the UN leadership, or the UN member nations try to initiate action that is against its interests, regardless of what is better for international stability and peace....that is a fact.
Washington's stance is that if the UN members support actions against US interests regardless if they are moral or if they are right, the US will use its lofty position to pressure, either through the threat of or, reneging on monetary promises through their international ties to prevent anything passing that will hinder their goals...
Now, with some of the most disheartening issues in world peace and stability facing us, the US being involved in two of the major theatres..the US basically feels the need for the UN and the monetary and personel commitments are not necessary, 'cause hey....now "We do what we want, no matter what the world thinks...." But it won't last... disenfranchisement of world peoples will not last... A "Reddening" Central and South America, and emerging China, a militarising Japan, a focused Russia, an exploding India, three billion new capitalists in Asia, a Middle East and Northern Africa that continues to radicalize despite US intentions.....I guess it doesn't really matter...
The return to the old alliance system, without a world governing body is pretty much inevitable..
| Quote: |
| Otherwise, you're just peddling more anti-U.S. and very partisan propaganda, and most of us have already heard all that there is to hear on this score... |
So, what are you pandering???? I have been around sometime too Gopher, and at one time I actually believed the US was trying to bring stability and peace.....I have heard it as well....
I believe that at this time, the US government, because of the position that it maintains, is doing more harm than good to the UN...we are losing it, and for those who wish it to fail, this is a great time, even in the midst of reform.....
Have a nice day.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Criticism? Criticism?
Isn't there a war against that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:57 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Criticism? Bitter criticism? Sarcasm? Cynicism? AntiAmericanism? The fallacy of U.S.-centrism?
Too much for your to grasp or acknowledge, Wangja?
How about the difference between contructive criticism and just plain overblown, unreasonable criticism?
Do you make any distinctions?
Because I am aware of no war against criticism as much as an easy-to-understand reaction against people blowing their points out of proportion and showing that they have little, if any restraint, in their rhetoric...
| Bignate wrote: |
| ...the paranoid world mind police... |
Indeed.
Try making a point without alienting the people you hope to persuade.
Perhaps many at the UN might want to consider such a tactic as well. |
"And with that, m'lud, the case for the defence rests" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very good, Wangja.
Thus the impasse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Criticism? Bitter criticism? Sarcasm? Cynicism? AntiAmericanism? The fallacy of U.S.-centrism?
Too much for your to grasp or acknowledge, Wangja?
How about the difference between constructive criticism and just plain overblown, unreasonable criticism?
Do you make any distinctions between emotionally-driven diatribes and well-reasoned suggestions and criticisms?
Because I am aware of no war against criticism as much as an easy-to-understand reaction against people blowing their points out of proportion and showing that they have little, if any restraint, in their rhetoric...
|
Did you say rhetoric???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way how did the US threaten the UN? |
Apologise or we'll cut your funding, US envoy tells UN
| Quote: |
| AMERICA�S bitter dispute with the United Nations escalated last night when John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, threatened to withhold funding to the organisation unless it apologised for the remarks of a senior British official. |
Looks like someone is about to pick up their ball and go home....Hmmmmmph...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Bignate wrote: |
| Did you say rhetoric???? |
Yes.
What I did not reference was just how far off base you were in your other diatribe -- how your U.S.-centrism had caused you to fail to give any attn to China's position and actions on the Security Council, or how your disposition to see only fault in the U.S. caused you to fail to recognize
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=58625 |
If you want to start a post about China UN relations....have at it, I will probably agree with you, I think China, and Russia are stumbling blocks to internationalism and multilateralism as well....but neither of them is using the UN while engaged in two international wars....
My comments reflect the reluctance of the US to "be the man" like they said they would, like Bush said he would, like they always say they will.
In the context of this issue, the way the US treats the UN, China, Russia, etc are irrelevant.. because it is a UN-US issue, thus far...
| Quote: |
what the U.S. has actually done, or at least tried to do in good faith, in the Sudan.
And BigVerne pointed out rather nicely that you totally failed to account for or even acknowledge local conditions and actors as well. |
That is the other thread...but, I acknowledge the fact that the Iraqis, stated they wanted no US intervention along with the UN, and a majority of world opininon....what happened???
Now we see the African Union, the UN, the Rebel forces wishing US and UN participation.....with the Sudanese government saying no...but no action for years and years and years....governmental suppression of a minority group, rape, forced eviction from lands, focused extermination, etc.....but where is the US now....still fighting for their own goals outside of international mandate ...I pull no punches, I see it as unltimate hypocracy....just keep using that label anti-American...and all the harpies will flock...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
