Apologise or we'll cut your funding, US envoy tells UN

I SPY

This is the most ill informed thread I have ever seen. There are NO UN Troops. They are drawn from Paticipating nations like the USA.

Just how much control does the participating nations have over their troops I SPY?

The answer is none. The operate free and are under control of the UN.

I SPY

This is a completely stupid piece. When haven't the U.N. criticised the US and Israel, I do not understand why this is any different.

Stupid? So in short you're saying because the UN has criticised the US in the past it's OK just to throw out any nonsense at any time.

Why is it different? Because the UN on the one had is begging for US funding and at the same time the duplicitous fools are making idiotic statements how middle America are ignorant of the FACTS because of Fox and Rush Limbaugh.

Special note to "jimi"

Do you have some facts to back that up? I'm pretty sure the UN is not out sexually molesting children.

Are there enough facts posted yet? And honestly, you really need to catch up with the news you're sadly far behind the times.

I dont see it Full Throttle. Why did they not tear Annan apart for his Israel comments, This is mild in comparison
When a country agrees to provide troops to the UN they do so in agreement with the charters and mandates imposed by the UN. The host nation and the donating nation are responsible for what happens on the ground. They are supposed to bring these things to the attention of the UN.

Rush Limbaugh's hatespeech

I really wish you wouldn't say this. As a regular listener to the show I don't find what he says hateful.

That's beside the point anyway. I'm all for not just cutting the funding but to the elimination of the UN. They have proved to be ineffectual since their inception.

Interest perspective kevinb66 you also do not understand what the UN is. Firstly it is an American creation based on your founding fathers principles. Second it is not an independent governing body It is a forum. I could go on. I wish the US would pull out of the UN. There constant VETO's have been a pain in the arse.

I'm sorry, Kevin, I really am. I understand that you aren't hateful, but I would point out to you that there are people right here in this comment stream who are typical of the kind of "dittoheads" who take Limbaugh at his word when he talks about how "the left" feels, or how "liberals" hate America, or how "the Democrats" want the United States to lose the "war" on "terrorism," or any number of other hateful, bigoted, and narrowminded things he says. I assure you that I don't want to offend you, and I would never generalize my statements to "all Republicans" or "the right" or "conservatives."

I couldn't be more sincere when I say that I don't want to offend you, kevinb66. Indeed I have a great deal of respect for your ability to maintain an open mind. Although I must admit that I am rather baffled as to why you would want to subject yourself to the rantings of a person who fills three hours a day insulting and demeaning people like me, I accept it and don't have any desire to insult or offend you. How can I point out the hypocrisy and hatefulness of Limbaugh's rhetoric without doing so? I'd be happy to work with you to try to figure that out, but you have to understand that I am not simply making a knee-jerk reaction here. I am deeply offended myself by the bigotry that Limbaugh displays toward people who disagree with him, and the hatefulness with which he attacks the half of Americas to which I happen to belong.

Regarding the U.N., if we accept for the sake of argument that they are ineffectual, what would you propose as a replacement?

Actually I SPY you don't seem to understand what the UN is. When the UN General Assembly (a forum in which the majority are third world dictatorships) criticizes the US, Israel, the West, whatever, it is one thing.

This case is different. It is not the GA on some goofy Marxist non-binding vote, it is the UN Secretariat.

Historically those tax-dodging diplomats have had the nous not to anger their largest bankroller.

Who needs the US banks. OIL is 70 $ a barrel.. GO home Yankies... Blah blah...... you get the idea. The UN is comprised of many nations, the US is a major player in this forum to divert war.

Brad,

Regarding the U.N., if we accept for the sake of argument that they are ineffectual, what would you propose as a replacement?

I wouldn't propose anything to replace it. I'm not sure what good it has really done other than to give power to certain governments that shouldn't have such power.

With regard to Limbaugh, I can understand why it would offend because he is giving an unabashed conservative perspective. A great deal of what he says is meant to tweak the other side, though and that is perhaps where it comes off as hateful.

I wouldn't propose anything to replace it. I'm not sure what good it has really done other than to give power to certain governments that shouldn't have such power.

I understand. Without any body that would help to settle disputes between countries, though, how would such disputes be settled? Would we live in a world of constant war, reliant only on military power to regulate trade and protect the interests of American individuals and companies abroad?

A great deal of what he says is meant to tweak the other side, though...

OK, that's the understatement of the century. Let's say that you and I were to meet every morning for coffee, and every morning I was to punch you in the nose. When you get pissed and call me on it, I tell you that I was just "tweaking" you, or that you're just being overly sensitive, as my attacks are just "a joke." How would that work for you?

Of course, the analogy suffers a bit because Limbaugh actually punches all liberals in the nose every day, but you get the idea.

;-)

Brad Farris in 3.3
I'm sorry, Kevin, I really am. I understand that you aren't hateful

In your quest to be politically correct, I think you give kevinb66 too much credit.

If he thinks that Limbaugh is not hateful, and continues to listen to his show, that probably means he is in agreement with Limbaugh and his way of thinking, in other words, hateful. So, I would say, inspite of your impression of him as non-hateful, au contraire, kevinb66 is probably quite hateful, if he thinks Limbaugh is reasonable and not hateful. Truth is we won't really know over the Internet. It's easy to hide our real character online.

As far as I can tell, Limbaugh hates:
-gays
-lesbians
-black people
-Democrats
-liberals
-women
-immigrants
-drug users (never mind, he himself is one)
-hypocrites (ah, the irony)
- ...fill_in_the_blank_here....

Rhine, I definitely agree with you about Limbaugh. I can understand where one might lump kevinb66 in with him, and sometimes I've seen kevinb66 be a little bit harsh, but I think that is mostly because we aren't sitting together around a table. Without seeing his face and body language, I just really can't say for sure, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. He has shown me the same courtesy elsewhere. Believe me, there are people here about whom I have no such reservations, persons who consistently and repeatedly have shown themselves to be hateful, arrogant, and disrespectful to everybody who disagrees with them. I have tried giving them the benefit of the doubt, and they have proved themselves unworthy. kevinb66, I have to say, doesn't fall in to the same category, at least not where I'm concerned.

I'm not arguing with you as far as much of the hateful rhetoric found around here goes - not at all. I just find that, personally, I am able to give kevinb66 the benefit of the doubt.

Let's say that you and I were to meet every morning for coffee, and every morning I was to punch you in the nose. When you get pissed and call me on it, I tell you that I was just "tweaking" you, or that you're just being overly sensitive, as my attacks are just "a joke." How would that work for you?

This is almost like lunch to me everyday. I'm the lone conservative in my family and spar almost on a daily basis with my father and older brother. Perhaps I'm so used to having it given to me from the liberal side, and by my own family, that some of Rush's rhetoric doesn't phase me.

I just find that, personally, I am able to give kevinb66 the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. After several mishaps on Newsvine I've been trying to be more careful in the language that I use because so much of it is misunderstood when you can't hear the tone of voice or see someone's face.

Perhaps I'm so used to having it given to me from the liberal side, and by my own family, that some of Rush's rhetoric doesn't phase me.

;-)

Do your father and brother accuse you of hating America, or of supporting the killing of innocents, or of disrespecting the "troops" because you disagree with them?

Now that I think of it, would you accuse your father and brother of the same things that Limbaugh accuses them of everyday? I mean, I could get some quotes, but if I were in the room with someone who was saying that my mother supports "the terrorists" because she doesn't agree with the policies that brought us to war, I'd have to have a word with them.

I wish the US would pull out of the UN. There constant VETO's have been a pain in the arse.

Without the US as a member, even if the UN does manage to pass a resolution for action, who is going to follow through on it? France? Australia? Russia? Zimbabwe? Germany? China? Canada? All of them combined?

The UN would be completely pointless, even moreso than it is now. Which shows how little you know about it yourself. Such a standoffish attitude doesn't help matters any either.

With regard to Limbaugh, I can understand why it would offend because he is giving an unabashed conservative perspective. A great deal of what he says is meant to tweak the other side, though and that is perhaps where it comes off as hateful.

Something that bothers me about commentators like Limbaugh, or anyone whose goal seems to be to "tweak the other side" is that they are not doing anything for either side. It's like having a player on your team who does nothing but talks crap because he can't play that well. It's a lot easier to scream that the other team is a moron because they missed a goal than it is to actually score a goal yourself.

Sure they may be entertaining to spectators, but overall they do nothing. They are entertainers. Simple as that, and I find it mystifying that people turn to them for informed political commentary.

This goes for left wingers of the same persuasion.

I have tried listening to talk radio a few times. A cesspit.

evano in 3.14

That's the crucial difference - you think Limbaugh is an entertainer, others don't, especially the ones that listen to him on a regular basis.

With regards to the label, I have a question for you. Let's say I listen to Saddam Hussein and I do not think what he says is hateful or mean. I think what he says and his opinions are reasonable.

What would you think of me?

hexodus in 3.15

Excellent analogy.

In sports, they call it "trash talking" and like you said, mostly done by the not-so-great players.

Your point about people turning to them for informed political commentary is exactly what I have in mind in my reply to evano above.

Do your father and brother accuse you of hating America

No. If anything they call me an apologist for the U.S.

or of supporting the killing of innocents

This they do because I support both the action in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Now that I think of it, would you accuse your father and brother of the same things that Limbaugh accuses them of everyday? I mean, I could get some quotes, but if I were in the room with someone who was saying that my mother supports "the terrorists" because she doesn't agree with the policies that brought us to war, I'd have to have a word with them.

We argue mostly about taxes, regulations, and social policies. I can't talk them about the war because they are part of the "Bush lied people died" crowd. They just won't listen to anything.

Bolton is obviously misinformed, but it sounds like he got his talking points directly from the White House. "Be sure to mention Middle America!" This is just another attempt to boost sagging poll numbers before the election by playing on "Middle America's" dislike, or hate, of the UN. They're so transparent, I can't believe anyone actually buys any of this crap...

I don't want to continue to hijack this post with talk of Rush. So let me just put this to rest, if it's possible.

Rush is an entertainer. He does radio extremely well. He's not a politician and would never be able to run for office. He presents news that you won't find in other places so easily that is counter to most of the main stream media reports. He's partisan yes but so what?

Contrary to what most people think Rush listeners do not agree with everything he says. Dittos mean that you enjoy the show, not that you agree with every word he utters.

So I listen, big deal.

evano in 3.20

Arabic happens to be one of the 7 languages I can speak.

Your teacher analogy is bad.
When they are in school, they are forced to listen to whatever you spout. So, it does say much if they retain it or not. Whereas, people that actively tune in and listen to Limbaugh - they don't do it because they are forced to. They do it because they like it, they identify with him in one or more ways, and they agree with him in one or more ways (no need to pick on semantics on this one, I didn't say "everything" or "all ways".).

As to waiting for actions to happen, it might be too late. There isn't much distance between listening to cr$% and refraining from acting in such a manner to actually acting in that manner. Years of listening to such hatespeak slowly changes your own mentality. Though you might not go out and actively perpetrate hateful activities, all it requires is one little change, one little event for you to snap. And then, all that hate you have subscribed to by listening to stuff over the years will rear its head. So, I think you are being a bit naive if you think that it's okay to listen to hatespeak as long as you don't act in a hateful manner.

In the interests of furthering their frontiers of knowledge, would you be amenable to sending your kids to some of the fundamentalist Islamic madrassas? I promise I can teach them not to act on it. At least, for now.

This is almost like lunch to me everyday. I'm the lone conservative in my family and spar almost on a daily basis with my father and older brother. Perhaps I'm so used to having it given to me from the liberal side, and by my own family, that some of Rush's rhetoric doesn't phase me.

Well if it makes you feel any better one of my friends used to be a speech writer for Pat Buchanan. I used to always get the very conservative angle till he moved to Colorado.

Rhine CyrusBrad writes

As far as I can tell, Limbaugh hates:
-gays
-lesbians
-black people
-Democrats
-liberals
-women
-immigrants
-drug users (never mind, he himself is one)
-hypocrites (ah, the irony)
- ...fill_in_the_blank_here....

I want links and quotes or take it back.

You, sir, have never listened to Limbaugh's whole show.

You can say politically that he holds view that are pro-capitalism, pro-business, anti-handout, anti-Senate, anti-big government, anti-UN, anti-main-stream-press, anti-illegal-alien, anti-NOW, anti-Jessie-Jackson, anti-screwing-over-the-little-guy, but you obviously have not listened to him.

His audience is factors larger than any other radio personalities. He would be chased off of the radio if his words were hate speech. The fact is that his words may be frightening to some, but never hateful.

Always remember (and never forget): In every day, in every way, blame America first.

MSG thus spake:

Always remember (and never forget): In every day, in every way, blame America first.

Where does America come into the picture when we are talking about Rush? Just another jingoistic burst?? Next, you'll be telling me that I am unpatriotic and so on and on... Sorry, son, I have no time for that nonsensical digression into the pits of meaningless diatribe. As to figuring out where Limbo has talked hateful stuff, just do a simple websearch. I'll even give you a link to get you started: www.google.com

You have nothing, only hot air, show me sources or take it back.

Rush has nothing hateful, put up or shut up!

By the way, the following is my standard tag line, it seems fitting at all times

Always remember (and never forget): In every day, in every way, blame America first.

Put up.

Picking three random topics that site covers, I see only stories about Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Fox being bad. I think I wouldn't consider them reliable, their purpose seems to be to attack conservative news and opinion personalities.

Thank you Aine He is a nut job :)

The only think in the link that could be offensive was the quote from the 1970's. It does not qualify for hate speech. Is that the best you could do? The rest of the details are accurate and funny.

The National Association of Gals are feminazis
"What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party" is true

I think it might mean that you have no sense of humor. I am not impressed. I stand by my original statement, you haven't listened to his show, you don't know what you are talking about, and he has not spewed any hate speech.

Take it back,

KyleN - 3.28

Aha, the "attack the messenger when you don't like the message" strategy?

It doesn't matter what the purpose of that site is, what they showcase is the despicable things that Limbaugh has said. Do tell me that you agree with each and everything on there that Limbaugh has said, so I and the rest of us can see where you stand.

MSG - 3.30

If you really think that none of that, except for the solitary one you mention, is offensive, I can only say this:

You seem to be so totally brainwashed by Limbaugh that you don't see the offensiveness and the vitriol that drip from his statements. I ask you to ask yourself - Are you man enough, do you have the guts to go up to a black American and tell him to "take that bone out of your nose"? After all, why should you be afraid? Like you yourself said, it is not offensive, right?

So, for a change, stop blowing hot air and show us your true character.

Same goes for KyleN - does he have the guts to ask a simple unoffensive question or is he just a coward?

Rhine, them is fighting words. I listened to Rush a couple of times and found him direct, but not offensive (although easy to twist into offensive when such is desirable). But I'll give you the benefit of doubt - could you please elaborate on the "take that bone out of your nose" quote? What's the context? Why was it offensive? etc. etc. You know, just so that I could see some reason to get behind you on the anti-Rush bandwagon.

nikitab - 3.32

Spasiba, tavarish.

I see evano has beat me to it by giving you the information. So, now what do you think about Limbaugh? Still think he is not offensive?

I see he does not discriminate between different life forms, he appears to hate everything. this one cracked me up

"If the owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it"

Surly he must be a comedian. Only the feeble minded could swallow this trite.

To your point about him being a comedian based on one comment, don't forget even criminals can make jokes. That doesn't mean they are not criminals. Similarly, a hateful guy is capable of making jokes. That doesn't detract from his hatred.

Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few of them feeble-minded out there. And as you might know:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities -- Voltaire

Limbaugh, his hateful comments, his followers, and his apologists have been getting a free pass in the society for far too long. I fear this will come back to bite society on a much larger scale one day.

Looked at snopes, not convinced. He's offensive, but I don't yet see hateful. Perhaps the "bone-nose" quote is just a bad example - I see it as offensive as the Chris Rock show, which I don't like, but that wouldn't make me go on a hate-Chris-cause-he-hates-me spree.

Can you give some quote that is actually bad and is not the stuff of legends? Something that we can discuss that would have me say in the end "You know, you are right. This is unacceptable."

nikitab in 3.37

By labeling it "just a bad example" you're choosing to give him yet another free pass.

Let me guess - you haven't been in this country too long, have you? And you don't really have any black friends, do you? You don't really seem to know much about the white-black racial tensions in this country.

Here's something you can do to further your knowledge, which you seemingly want to. If you have a black friend that you can talk to, ask him about that "bone in the nose" comment. Ask him this:
- does he think it's only offensive and not hateful/racist?

I am not trying to convince you to say in the end: "You know, you are right. This is unacceptable." It is your prerogative to decide what to do with the information you have been given, the information that you can glean, methods of verifying it's offensiveness/hatefulness. You seem to be inclined on not believing his hatefulness and want other people to provide you with "convincing" stuff to make you believe otherwise.

I also noticed you used the word "bandwagon". That tells me that you are only looking at this as a bandwagon type issue. I am not trying to get you to jump on any bandwagon because I am not on one. I think for my own and I can see his comments for what they are. But, if you are going to be looking at this as a bandwagon type issue, it's going to be hard for anyone, even yourself, to convince yourself.

Rhine, you've just crossed the line. Actually, ******* (count the stars), I live in NYC and I've been in the US since 91. Moreover, I have friends from pretty much all races (including blacks) so next time you want to label me anything with a condescending tip of your hat, take that hat and [censored]. (Damn, why am I not black? That would put my righteous indignation in a whole new light.)

Now pretending that you didn't actually just really offend me:

I am not giving anybody a free pass. You included. If what you say is true, every comedian who has ever made a crude/inappropriate joke (that would be just about all of them) should be labeled a "hater".

Using something from a person's early career where the context nor the time of occurence is known (Snopes) is not productive. You should be far more critical of Senator Byrd given Byrds involvement with the KKK. Are you? Or is Byrd a democrat and so is given a free pass?

Give me substance if you want my attention. Don't patronize me.

nikitab wrote in 3.39

Rhine, you've just crossed the line. Actually, ******* (count the stars), I live in NYC and I've been in the US since 91. Moreover, I have friends from pretty much all races (including blacks) so next time you want to label me anything with a condescending tip of your hat, take that hat and [censored]. (Damn, why am I not black? That would put my righteous indignation in a whole new light.)

1. Ok, so you have lived in the US for 15 years. Still doesn't make you an authority. I've been here since 1929.

2. Good that you have black friends. So, are you going to ask them that question?

3. When/where did I label you anything?

4. You are the one who felt the need to label me a******. (Filled in the a for you. Ding, ding.)

5. Why the need to tell us that you are not black?

6. If you were black, you probably wouldn't be arguing for Limbaugh so passionately.

Now pretending that you didn't actually just really offend me:

I am not giving anybody a free pass. You included. If what you say is true, every comedian who has ever made a crude/inappropriate joke (that would be just about all of them) should be labeled a "hater".

Very nice way of twisting things around. No one ever said that. Go read up on Limbaugh instead of asking to be spoon-fed and then make your own judgement.

Using something from a person's early career where the context nor the time of occurence is known (Snopes) is not productive. You should be far more critical of Senator Byrd given Byrds involvement with the KKK. Are you? Or is Byrd a democrat and so is given a free pass?

I guess I was right in my suspicion that you are probably a conservative. Why else would you want to bring Byrd and the democrats into the picture? We were simply arguing about Limbaugh and his hateful comments. I never said anything about his political partisanship. So, why do you feel the need to bring in partisanship? Don't you think it not very productive?

Give me substance if you want my attention. Don't patronize me.

I never said I wanted your attention. You were the one who jumped into the conversation I was enjoying with KyleN and MSG (who I note still haven't responded) asking me for my attention. As for substance, a lot of it has already been provided for you and you have the choice to go do more research on your own before you come around labeling people a****** and dragging in politics to muddy the waters of the debate.

Good show of indignation.

Wow. I gave you an opportunity to show me why I might be wrong in not thinking that Rush = hatespeech. You instead chose to belittle me and, when I notified you of being offended, instead of apologizing you proceeded to make absolutely rhetorical statements/questions which I am not even going to dignify with a response.

Again, the point here is:

1. I gave you an opportunity to prove to me (and other people on NV) why Rush = hatespeech.

2. You have failed to do that so far instead referencing my ignorence and telling me that you don't want to tell me you don't want my attention anyway.

Either show me why I am wrong (which is the purpose of this comment thread - to show people like me that we are wrong and Rush is bad), admit that you are acting more out of political bias, or just have a nice day.

Wow, people went and did you research for you, yet to refuse to go do some on your own. I even suggested ways to figure out that what you think is inoffensive might actually be offensive/hateful/racist. Do you have the guts to ask that question to a black?

Nope, instead you choose a path of indignation, call me an a******, berate me for not wanting your attention, and ask me to admit political bias when I was not the one to bring in politics into the picture.

Hmm... very lame attempt to evade all the valid questions that might have given me (and other people on NV) a glimpse into your character.

I always have nice days, you don't need to tell me that. In fact, here I am, with a bottle of 80 proof Stolichnaya Russian vodka and a Danielle Steele book in my hands, while Notorious Big plays softly in the background. Days could not be much nicer than these. Spasiba.

Hey, just for the record, as one of the "other people on NV," I get Rhine's point completely. He has provided you with plenty of information, and you have responded by going around in circles and asking for more and more detailed refutations. You may feel that you are somehow rhetorically leading Rhine around by the nose, but from the sidelines it doesn't appear that way, at least not to me.

I started out agreeing with Rhine on this one, but your nitpicking certainly hasn't caused me to question my beliefs. Indeed, it has reinforced my beliefs about Limbaugh and others.

Right. I'll let future readers judge whether I had a reason to be offended and whether I tried, but failed, to get an answer from Rhine as to why Rush = hatespeech.

Have a good day.

Hello Brad Farris,

Thanks for the comment. (Never thought I'd get that from someone who once called me a dick.) And thanks for seeing through his merry-go-round tactics. Little does he know that I have done enough figure-skating in my life that it's not going to make me dizzy.

nikitab,

This probably will sound patronizing but you shouldn't let him get to you at all, it was simple obvious trolling to provoke exactly the reaction you gave him. Unfortunately it'll not be the last time you see that here or any other public message board most especially when the conversation turns to political commentators.

You had some points, but save it for a time and place when those you are talking to really want to debate or listen, this wasn't one of them.

(Never thought I'd get that from someone who once called me a dick.)

Maybe it's late, but let me apologize. As I recall, I didn't agree with something that had happened, but I shouldn't have said anything like that.

There's certainly no question in this case. Saying that Limbaugh is a hateful commentator is not the slightest bit controversial in most circles, and you clearly have the facts on your side. I think it's a little uncalled for to generalize Limbaugh's speech to conservatives in general, as I have done from time to time (and as you didn't do here), and I think it's fair for a conservative to call me out on that. And of course, people see things differently. Viewed from some perspectives, Limbaugh's hatred probably seems tame. It's hard to imagine, but clearly there are people to whom such rhetoric must seem reasonable.

KyleN in 3.46

Glad to see you are back. For a while there, I was afraid that you had actually summoned up the guts to go up to a black man and ask him to "take that bone out of his nose". Looks like you didn't and you have survived. Congratulations.

As for defending nikitab, I'm sure he is a big boy and can do it for himself. How about defending yourself for a change and tell us what you really think or answer any of the questions directed at you?

Brad Farris in 3.47.

It's alright. I don't bear grudges. I just have a pachydermic memory, but no time in the world to bear grudges. Gets in the way of life.

However, this thread has been a good learning experience. A few things I learned or got reinforced:
1- Limbaugh has said some pretty nasty offensive/hateful things. However, quite a few folks around here do not see that even when offered links and articles and opportunities to go educate themselves.
2- When confronted by facts and hard questions, some people like to completely disappear (a la MSG), or dismiss it as a troll (a la KyleN), or adopt merry-go-round tactics (a la nikitab).
3- None of the three protagonists seem to think that it is offensive/hateful to go tell a black man to "take that bone out of his nose" and indeed seem to think it's acceptable, yet not a single one has had the guts to go up to a black man and say that to his face.
4- People are quick to drag in politics into a otherwise non-political discussion and then accuse the other party of being partisan.
5- None of the three protagonists are probably black. I'll guess all are white. Probably in their 20's-40's.
6- Some of us like to see Limbaugh as merely entertaining yet fail to grasp the long term repercussions of the hate that he spews and how it affects the minds of those that listen to him and think he's reasonable or acceptable.
7- Racism still exists - it doesn't always show up explicitly.
8- Racists are usually cowards. They feel a bit more brave when they are part of a group - the mob mentality.
9- We as a society are a long way away from obliterating racism and hatred from this planet.

...and further, to the original point of the article, the same people who fail to take Limbaugh's rhetoric for what it is are quick to deny that the United Nations has any benefit for the U.S. This, of course, is exactly what Mark Malloch Brown spoke about in his comments, in which he claimed that John Bolton, who has always had an anti-UN bias, does nothing to educate Americans as to the good works and benefits that the UN provides, which, in his position as the primary advocate of the United Nations in the U.S., is one of his duties.

Right, right, right, and right.

From the article:

Mr Annan, under fire from Republicans, began a UN reform drive and sought advice from his American friends, predominantly Democrats. After a secret meeting at the home of the Clinton Administration's UN Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, Mr Annan named Mr Malloch Brown as his chief of staff in January last year.

The appointment raised eyebrows when it was reported that Mr Malloch Brown was renting a house on George Soros's estate for $2,500 a month less than the previous occupant. Even before Mr Bolton was named US Ambassador, he seemed destined to clash with Mr Malloch Brown. Mr Soros, Mr Malloch Brown's landlord and old friend, helped to fund the Stop Bolton campaign, aimed at stopping him from getting the post.

Sounds like more corruption and sweetheart deals between anti-American moonbats and condescending UN diplomats.

It never ends.
The French are the worst when it comes to these Extra-Diplomatic Treatiess.

Am I the only one who didn't read Mr. Brown's statement as critical of Middle America? In context, he was being critical of the U.S. government not publicizing the U.N.'s role to the American people.

"In the speech, Malloch Brown said the United States relies on the United Nations as a diplomatic tool but doesn't defend it against criticism at home. That policy of "stealth diplomacy" is unsustainable, he said.

While praising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessors, Malloch Brown lamented that the good works of the U.N. are ignored. "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."

"The U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world," Malloch Brown said."

stevetherobot No it was wider than that, He was criticising the US voter who elected Bush. The lack of participation in US democracy by its people as well.

I was going to say that whomever voted for Bush was obviously lacking in the intelligence department.

But it occurred to me that, for some, crime does pay: Maybe most (OK, 51%) of the U.S. of America really thinks they can have the cake and eat it too. Even if it means a war on an adjective and invading other countries.

So, the name-calling might be a little premature.

KyleN

If he complained to anybody about the speech it should have been directly to the offender in a constructive manner if that failed then complain to Brown's boss(es).

That was done, and Kofi also got an earful. As is his norm Kofi refused to disavow the statements.

Fair comment, I apologise and will delete

or rather you get to? I am new here. I contacted the admins with a request for same.

@Evano
I missed the whole exchange so I don't know if I also missed being offended.

I know we are often on differing sides of many arguments so I am especially grateful for your consideration.

Nothing to say here, just a public compliment on your succinct use of irony.

Inefficiencies would multiply exponentially and the world would suffer for it.

There are a few examples of services the UN provides that contribute to global stability and wellbeing, but the UN is not by any means a world government. Global commerce, financial markets, the Internet, aviation and shipping would be just fine without the UN, as it plays very little practical role in coordinating those things. As great an institution as the UN is, let's not overstate its impact and influence.

I don't feel it was overstated in any way. The world would suffer for it. You stated as much yourself? So I'm not sure what your point was/is?

Without the UN, the USA and others would be stumbling over each other.

This assertion is quite far-fetched, considering the UN's relatively small role within the entirety of international relations, finance and commerce.

He's an absolute embarrassment is what he is. Bolton may well fit in well with the Neo Con's views on dealing with things, but he is in no way shape or form fit to be considered a diplomat.

His sole reason for being there is to find an excuse to pull out of the UN.

@Quiet European

Do not confuse the British Government for the British People. New Labour have been poison to this country in every way conceivable, they got back in (again) for the same reason the Republicans got back in - the alternatives were even worse! Do not lump all brits in with these twots.

A comment like that is just asking to get flamed. The U.S. is way to proud to let you get away with thinking you have the right to punish it. And bluntly, you have no power to punish the U.S. that wouldn't punish yourself.

@Micrastur: the Might makes Right argument, right?

The world already voted in 2004.

With what tangible result?

The usual result - nothing.

Those whiny socialists are old, impotent, and irrelevant.

Lacking a sense of humor? Ahh, why does that not surprise me. Funny that the thousands that voted there wouldn't have voted for the current regime, though. Maybe they know something that many Americans are just now beginning to suspect... with the exception of about 30% of the 50% who actually voted, that is.

Full Throttle

And your solution? Maybe the issuance of voter registration cards to the worlds population so they can elect the US government?
Would that satisfy you?

US voters are completely at liberty to elect who they please - but the rest of us judge you by the administration you choose. If you act in an unilateral, unco-operative and uncivilised way, the rest of the world will treat you accordingly.

Many people would simply be satisfied if the US didn't kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians - "collateral damage" - in the course of what many perceive to be an inappropriate and disproportionate response to the events of 9/11.

Aine, Josef, how do you propose to solve this problem. And could you please suggest a "civilized way" of how Iraq could have been made to demonstrate transparency after resolution 1441, not to mention getting Iran to stop trampling human rights abuses? What I find uncivilized is that people demonize the Bush administration, which is actually trying to deal with centralized governments, while seeming to be completely unaware of third world rights abuses that this same "regime" is trying to stop (regardless of the underlying reasons being moral or economic).

The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors using cherry-picked intelligence and in some cases forged documents as justification for invasion and attack. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence and diplomacy that generally characterized American foreign policy up until this administration came to power. Terrorism was not unknown to the U.S. government and previous administrations prior to 9-11. It's existed quite a long time.

The 2002 Bush Doctrine can be summarized in ten points :

1. Unilateralism can replace multilateralism, when preventive war is required to protect American interests and those of allies;
2. The role of the United Nations is de facto considerably reduced;
3. International conflicts can be resolved through the use of military force, when diplomacy fails;
4. The result would be the advent of a 'Pax Americana';
5. End of the policy of nuclear mutual deterrence;
6. Initiation of a worldwide crusade for liberty and democracy;
7. Pursuit of a policy of American military supremacy;
8. Introduction of the ideology of moral absolutism in American interventions abroad;
9. Nations are to be ranked according to American standards;
10. Active promotion of American economic interests around the world.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in the entire world that also finds it reprehensible that the U.S. is quick to point to other countries' human rights abuses while ignoring it's own and refusing to subject itself to the same "report card system" it issues annually via it's own State Dept. for other nations. If we, as a nation, expect others to conform to our Westernized "ideals" of freedom and democracy don't you think we should be the model example, or are we just so arrogant (see above list) that we think we can impose our ideals on other nations whose cultures and traditions are nothing like ours and of which we have no understanding? Is it any wonder other nations don't have respect for the U.S. when our so-called "freedom and democracy" consist of pre-emptive attack, secret rendition, indefinite detentions, torture, our response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. etc.?

We divided not only our own nation but also our former allies and potential allies with "you're either with us or against us"... we treat the UN like it's inconsequential rather than coming to the table in good faith, and we show other nations a complete lack of respect when it comes to concern for the environment, trade, treaties and agreements, and pretty much every other interaction we have with them. Is that how a good neighbor, serious about getting along in the world acts?

As far as "fixing things" goes, that "will be up to a future president to decide"... if this president were serious about correcting the mistakes that have been made, he sure hasn't shown it in the people he's chosen to fill various appointments and cabinet positions. His staff hasn't shown it in any of the post-war planning, though perhaps chaos and civil war was actually the objective and not just the unintended consequence, since I find it difficult to believe that sectarian violence never occurred to anyone in this administration (even though Bush Sr. was well aware that's what would happen if he drove the Iraqis all the way back to Baghdad).

Aine, nice and fiery. Aside from the fact that I find the doctrine of containment immoral in many respects, your response doesn't answer the questions I posed. Also, to pick at your text at random (there is too much), what human rights abuses does US engage in that compare to those that were and are being exercised in totalitarian governments?

I have some minor quibbles about your characterization of Mr. Limbaugh's blather

OK, fine. Substitute "defend Limbaugh's hatred and bigotry" with "defend Limbaugh's bombastry" in the second paragraph.

;-)

Thank you Brad. Ever since Regan the US Right has attempted to portray the UN as some kind of Quasi governing body, I think the old joke about having alphabetical seating at the UN sums it up. "You would have Iran, Iraq, Israel and Jordan all sitting on the same pew". "We would be in Danger of starting WW3".

A very interesting piece Full Throttle, If you wish to turn this into WW3 than I agree with you. However the opposite of this storey is also true. I am in favour of these types of declarations from GOP media. At least we can see who they think are there enemies. For countries who are against US imperialist striving this makes www issues a clear small target. A very divisive idea I think this helps to prove that the GW junta is really an enemy of the state. I think we should save this for another Post.