John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells Time magazine that his biggest surprise about the job is that New Yorkers come up to him and say things like “Give ‘em hell,” that Eastern Europe is due a U.N. secretary-general, and that he’ll never run for office (whew). Asked about the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear crisis, which goes to the U.N. Security Council next month, Bolton also sounded more optimistic than most: “I never would have guessed that Libya was prepared to make the calculation that they were safer giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons than continuing to go after them, and yet they did. . . . And that led to substantial progress in the relationship between Libya and the United States. If Libya can do it, Iran can do it, too. That’s why I say the decision ultimately is largely in their hands.” Bolton’s handling of the matter will be crucial, too.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
26 Comments
Iran must be nukeless.
The entire MidEast needs to go nukeless.
We need a strong diplomat in the UN, John Bolton just doesn’t fit the bill.
Oh, yeah, Libya is a bastion for peace and freedom. Col Quadaffi has held five Bulgarian nurses captive for seven years for $100 million ransom as a way to blackmail the U.S., EU and Bulgaria into letting Libya recoup the…$100 million it paid out for the Lockerbie and German disco bombings. But the U.S. has always rewarded tyrants anyway (the Saudi “royals,” the Shah of Iran, various South American dictators, the Peoples Republic of China,…the list is too long. Oh, George W Bush.) But, to the point, Iran isn’t in the control of one man and his two playboy sons as is Libya.
“Iran must be nuke-less.” Or what, Joe, we nuke them?
We don’t have an army left to invade it . . .
Libya was not cowed by a strong diplomat. The air raid under Reagan, and the invasion of Afghanistan “persuaded” Libya that it was in their interest not to make themselves a high profile target.
And to think I actually thought you may have learned something when you did a search on the numbers in our armed forces…
Isn’t it funny how the right-wing has this long list of “public enemies number one” to scare people into voting for them and to frighten constituents into pouring more and more money into the black hole that is military spending.
What’s really bizarre is a lot of these “tyrants that pose an imminent threat” were former US allies:
The Ayatollah Khomeni, Iran
Daniel Ortega, Sandinistas, Nicaragua
Manuel “Scarface” Noriega, Panama
Moammar Khadafi, Libya
Saddam Hussein, Iraq
Osama bin “Been Forgotten” Laden, Arabia
Saddam Hussein, Iraq (again)
Hugo Chavez, Venezula
So which is it:
Do we have enemies or don’t we?
It would appear that this selling of 6 US port’s operations is pretty scarry to the Democrats now.
PL,
You forgot that “dangerous” marxist negro Bishop, in Grenada! rotflmosrfao
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
The entire world oughtta go nukeless.
We have enemies, Nathan.
But we don’t need to outspend our nearest rival 10 to one to “protect” ourselves from them.
We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.
Noriega isn’t that tough. Neither is Khaddafy.
CrusX wrote–
“The entire world oughtta go nukeless.”
Especially when your president is brainless.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Wars between nations will never end unless people stop seeing themselves as different from one another.
Which is it Proudlib?
According to the democrats and your fearless leader John Kerry we did not have enough man power in the military and he planned on increasing it.
You complain about the innocent men and women killed by our bombs, yet it is the fancy laser guided precision bombs and fancy million dollar jets which allow us to deliver more bombs with less casualties to civilians.
You love to attack this administration for lack of funding to protect our troops with body armor and armor on our troop transports.
And now you complain that we outspend everyone by 10 to 1?
Which is it Proudlib? Do you want precision weapons that save inncent lives and protect our troops or don’t you?
Those bombers and jet fighters cost money.
Those super carriers which allow us to project our power cost money.
So you tell me where do you want us to cut the budget?
What do you think we need to get rid of?
Were you not complaining about how our reserves are stretched more and that we could not fight another war if we needed to?
Yet now you complain about the military budget?
Which is it Proudlib?
Seems like the typical liberal to me… support the troops and funding the miltary when it suits your political agenda then complain about it when it doesn’t.
Nathan–
Take a pill. You’re coming unhinged.
How about we don’t fight the war to begin with?
How about that?
No answer then Proudlib?
When you are faced with your two-faced self you have no comment?
Obviously, we need a military. Obviously, we wouldn’t need such a big military if we “didn’t go all around the world in nation building exercises,” as George W. Bush said in his first debate with Al Gore.
We should save money and lives by not rushing into war.
There’s nothing two-faced about that . . .
So what do we cut Proudlib?
Our military is what allows us to project our influence and power to help others or ourselves around the world.
If we did not have the military we do then we would not have been able to do anything like we did in Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Al’Qaeda.
If we did not have the military we have now we would not have been able to help the victims of the Tsunami.
If we did not have the military we have now we would not have been able to help people the way we did after Katrina.
Please tell me what it is we should be cutting?
Nathan – how about our invasion/occupation of Iraq?
It is neither an “occupation” nor “invasion”.
What did you want to know about it?
It’s not an occupation? Then what IS it? And it wasn’t an invasion? Then what WAS it?
I think it was an “invasion” in the technical sense that we went there to oust Saddam.
Now it is more of a police state to ensure stability during the transition of the government untill they can provide their own.
The way you call it an “occupation” I disagree with.
Nathan – a foreign army controlling a country – CLASSIC occupation. “Police State” is the term used when a totalitarian government is operating within its own country. In fact, Saddam’s regime could be classified as Police State.
Semantics aside, what did you want to know?
I agree with Dr. Huie; until the zionists give up their WMDs there will be no incentive for the Arabs/Persians to play nice.
Viva la Raza Blanco!!