If Bolton is confirmed as next US ambassador to the UN

[raccoon]

could this, in a way, be a GOOD thing?

If he gets in there and shows his dark side, might this convince some Americans (and it'll definitely convince a lot of foreigners--not that many of them need convincing) of what a gang of thuggees we've got running the show here in the US?

[lala_rawraw]

1. No, you assume the dark side will be reported on n/t

[Bridget Burke]

2. NO!

Sounds like the "It's got to get worse before it gets better" thinking the Naderoids used in 2000.

We need Democrats (& a few Republicans) to stand up against this evil fool. Too bad other creeps couldn't have been blocked, but I'll take what I can get.

Failures in the UN can lead to people dying & stuff.

[AValdoux]

3. The world's reaction...

will probably be to just leave us out on every decision. I think our power in the UN is overstated. His proponents claim he will be able to clean house and finally represent US interest aggressively. I think just the opposite will happen. We will be the sulking bully in the corner who can't figure out why no one likes him. It will be just another way the world is leaving us behind. Our world superiority is just an election tool and is delusional.


AValdoux

[American in Asia]

4. No...

Too much potential damage...it's not just the foreign representatives he'll piss off, but all we need are some classic meltdown scenes or quotes being broadcast overseas to convince even more non-Americans that we're all obnoxious and arrogant lunatics.

I don't trust him with intelligence information - in ANY capacity. Nope - I'm hoping he not only doesn't get THIS job, but that he loses his current one. (yeah, I know, fat chance, but still...)

As for the American audience, the obnoxious ones on the right will just gloat and cheer that they have a tough guy over there cracking the whip on those useless UN bureaucrats, and they'll love every minute of it. And, the relatively passive electorate - well, I seriously doubt they'd be paying attention unless the damage was so great that it somehow penetrated, but even what he would have to do to accomplish that gives me the shivers.

Totally depressing.....

[Gyre]

5. The UN should've moved to Europe

a LONG TIME AGO. They're now being held-hostage by the US cause they don't want to move and WE know it. Cowards.

Gyre

[moindependent]

7. Why hold them hostage?

Without the US, the UN is impotent anyway. Let them go to Europe and hate us all they want. It's just another corrupt government, as all governments are, except that this one has lots of money and relatively few fixed assets. Eliminate our money from their budget, and a UN scandal becomes a tempest in a teapot.

[KansDem]

10. "Eliminate our money from their budget..."

Uh, I don't think the UN has our money:

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; there are no current plans to pay these amounts.

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations

[rumpel]

11. The US still owes the UN money. The UN is also by far not as corrupt as

the current US administration. And don't understimate the power of a gloabl coalition against the US, when the US economy and government depend on loans from other countries including China.

[Ganja Ninja]

6. I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.

He is about the most ill suited person you could put in the job. He will only alienate everyone around him and embarrass the country. But then again it is the Bush government and the less cooperation from other countries the better until Bush is gone

[MissMarple]

8. If he is as good as Rice was in Russia, we may never get out of this mess.

We are tipping into chaos, can complexity be far behind? :-)

[bunkerbuster1]

9. No. The RWers are great at managing American xenophobia

Let's face it, they can whip up the public's fear o' furriners a lot better than we can whip up righteous indignation over Bolton's boorishness.

Most Americans don't have a passport, never travel to other countries, and have really weird ideas about how the rest of the world operates. Until more people get out and about, the xenophobe card is one the other guys can play.

So keeping Bolton the hell out of this position can only help us.