Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
There are more diplomatic ways of saying the same thing.
Dammmmn. That's poetry slam.
I adore that woman. Not apologetic for our positions.
Awesome to think our ambassador to the UN has the interests of the US first in mind. What a change from the Obama era.
Channeling America First!
Does she clank when she walks?Damn! A great start!
Wow! Taking names and holding other countries accountable for their actions. You know, it just might work...
We know the names of our opponents already, but Nikki wants them to remember the old saying, "Kicking ass and taking names".
John Berg comments: Awesome to think our ambassador to the UN has the interests of the US first in mind. What a change from the Obama era. Amen to that! Samantha Power? Yikes!
Big Mike, there is a time for pleasant diplomatic speech and there is a time for plain talk. This is the latter.
People were wondering how Trump was going to deal with the UN. Not a lot of doubt any more. Seriously, seriously love this woman.
Boy, he got her on board.
I am a retired US diplomat, and I will admit her statement could have been more tempered. On the other hand, a diplomat does what s/he is instructed to do, so we should presume she was speaking under instruction, both as to timing and content. Her message left absolutely no doubt as to her meaning. That is crucial to good diplomatic discourse. What a dramatic change from Samantha Power!
I feel better already.
And, what you'll find most interesting, is she says is too.She said and says.Is your mind blown?
Nikki Haley seems like a nice lady, and a real talent in the Republican ranks.But I have never understood why she was nominated for the UN Ambassadorship. As a Republican, I suppose that it is good enough for me, that a Republican president nominated her, so as to pad her resume for future higher office.But is that the only reason? Honestly, I have never read anyone making a serious case for her based on any foreign policy experience credentials.Andrew Young was the Carter Administration's first Ambassador to the UN. Surely the reason Andrew Young was nominated was the same as the reason why Nikki Haley was nominated. Young at least had been a congressman, with some tiny amount of dabbling in foreign policy questions.Donald McHenry followed Andrew Young for the last year of Carter. He had even less foreign policy experience, than Young.I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley.
Big Mike said "There are more diplomatic ways of saying the same thing", maybe, but "fuck you a new sheriff/treasurer is in town" is much more succinct!"F" is a retired "Diplomat", tempered statements "whatever you do, don't be confrontational with our enemies"!
I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley.You say that like it's a bad thing.........
@mockturtle, @MikeD, she has left herself a lot of room to get nicer and more accommodating, but not much room to crack the whip. I'm in the minority here, and perhaps the rest of you are right. Still, notice how "F" merely suggests that "her statement could have been more tempered," then proceeds to give her space to back down gracefully. That's the sort of thing I meant. You can make it clear that you mean business without making others look weak when they support you, or conversely make them look courageous when they oppose you.
+1 to Big Mike!
You can make it clear that you mean business Yes but the world has learned that the lion is toothless. It is better to remind them that the teeth have grown back by roaring rather than actually having to bite someone's head off........
God bless you Ms. Haley. Thank you for that.
Poor Chuck.Poor, poor Chuck.
"There are more diplomatic ways of saying the same thing"That's what the Brits said when Chairman Zero told them to reject Brexit or they could move to the back of the queue. Didn't even realize he had it backwards.
Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights. The man is careless, reckless and dangerous. He needs to be removed from office before it is too late. If there is no money or nookie in it for him, it is of no value to him. That is his crass view of the world in a nutshell. Look what he has just done with his blanket Muslim ban that is cruel, fear-driven and bigoted - essentially irrational. He will fail, and the country will suffer great harm with hideous policies like that. Show him the EXIT.
Trumpit: "Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights."LOL
Trumpit: " Look what he has just done with his blanket Muslim ban that is cruel, fear-driven and bigoted..."...and non-existent.LOL
"Look what he has just done with his blanket Muslim ban ..."What the hell are you talking about?
Trumpit: "...Trump will destroy the UN..."I had no idea things were going to be that damned excellent.
Muslims wearing blankets must be outraged.
Daniel Moynihan during his years as envoy to the UN would regularly tell the members of that esteemed body to fuck off. It didn't cost him any votes when he later ran for the Senate. I think Haley is a student of history.......Samantha Powers always seems to be encountering these problems from hell. She is very genocide prone. Perhaps she'll have better luck in establishing world peace in her next job........The UN was established with such bright hopes. Eleanor Roosevelt in her visionary way was sure that this organization would be a huge step forward in resolving conflict issues. Visions and revisions.
Trumpit is very very very concerned about non-existent Trump policies and the impact of those make-believe policies on the worlds view of the US.In particular Trumpit is very concerned that the muslims in the middle east, when they are not busy stoning and mutilating women and throwing gays off of roofs or simply hanging them, might be insulted by Trumps policies.This is what is usually referred to as a moronic position.
Israeli settlements are basically a zoning issue. Palestinian militants who stab random civilians in the neck present another kind of issue. Random murders versus zoning infractions. Thank God we have these UN people to help us resolve this thorny ethical question and determine the guilty party.
William: "Daniel Moynihan during his years as envoy to the UN would regularly tell the members of that esteemed body to fuck off. It didn't cost him any votes when he later ran for the Senate."You can read all about it in "A Dangerous Place".Naturally, our "lifelong republican" Chuck is very "concerned" (but not in a troll sort of way, oh no, not that at all) that Nikki is not sufficiently versed in the "appropriate" world view of the rocket scientists and "best and the brightest" dickweeds at Foggy Bottom.Thanks Chuck!
Just what is the proper resume for wading into a pit full of vipers, Chuck?
Re Nikki Haley: You GO, girl!!(but that's not what the fucking feminazis had in mind, is it?)As for the emotionally incontinent Trumpit: "Look what he has just done with his blanket Muslim ban that is cruel, fear-driven and bigoted..."Except that a 1952 law passed by Democrats empowers him to do what he did.Except that he still allows Muslims into the US from countries where we have vetting programs. (granted, we had no such programs pre- 9/11)Trumpit, you need to go back to Vox, or Kos, or whatever quivering mass of enuretics you came from.
Jay Elink: "Trumpit, you need to go back to Vox, or Kos, or whatever quivering mass of enuretics you came from."Vox and Kos are idiot-villes, but it would not be at all fair to blame them for Trumpit.
I think what she's saying is "you can't live under our security umbrella, and then vote against out other allies". Obviously the recent anti-Israel resolution in the UNSC comes to mind, but I am sure there will be others, including against Iran and protecting Taiwan.
"our" not "out".
The lefties are suffering from whiplash as the US pivots to supporting its allies and US interests instead of supporting the enemies of the US.It has to be a difficult time for the left here in the US.
She's new at this but I think it makes her sound kind of silly and shows her inexperience. What happened to speak softly and carry a big stick? Now it's talk loud and wave a list. Doesn't have quite the same punch. We have no permanent friends or enemies, only interests (Kissinger). Sometimes we have to accept that because of its own domestic situation or because of the neighborhood it lives in a particular country can't always be too loud in voicing its support for us.
I hope she talks to John Bolton....a lot.
Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sightsYou say that like it is a bad thing.......
What happened to speak softly and carry a big stick?People no longer believe us
UN ambassador is a largely ceremonial post. Its most important value from a foreigners point of view is that the ambassador appear to carry sufficient weight in Washington. A "Lawrence of Arabia" sort that Washington views as a flunky is useless. Her deputy Michelle Sison is a very experienced career diplomat, ambassador thrice, but has no political weight, and no pull, being it seems sidelined by the Obama admin from Bush era important mideast postings like UAE and Lebanon to the Maldives! Also why she got the job - as Chuck said, grooming for higher office is very likely. The UN in NY is like foreign policy training wheels. Not useful training if you actually dont want higher office, but she is young and has already been a governor. She's a hot draft pick that needs seasoning.
She's a hot draft pick that needs seasoningYes, unlike the Democrats, we have a farm team.
I wonder if we will learn all about what occurred in those 33 secret meetings that Obama had with Iran as he was shipping over pallet after pallet of small denomination bills that are just perfect for funding terrorist ops against Israel.I must say the left does not seem very curious about this.
Sally327 seems to have missed the hundred or more times that Obama made aggressive statements and didn't back them up.
"Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights."No need to apologize. That's what I'm hoping for. No more pandering to homophobic, medieval, hanky-head dictatorships and goat-pilot mobocracies that treat women like human toilet seats. I'm deeply sorry, but not in the least surprised, that the Left feels so bad about that prospect.
So we're back to "If you're not with us, you're against us."
"Chuck said...I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley."How hard did you look? I found several with essentially no foreign policy experience in just a few minutes on Wikipedia.Some of our past ambassadors have a laundry list of ambassadorial appointments and state department positions. Several have no apparent foreign policy experience on their resume before the UN. For a few, it looks like the starting point of a distinguished diplomatic career -- they *left* the U.N. position to become ambassadors to individual countries.
Big improvement over Susan Rice and Samantha Power. UN Ambassador is a much easier job than governor.
Blogger Trumpit said...Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights.Name one thing the UN has accomplished in the last 50 years. It is pretty fucking worthless and only seems to waste lots of money and be a focal point for anti-Israel hatred.
A) How much experience do you need to take names?B) Her parents are immigrants. She has foreign relatives. You think she doesn't talk to any of them? I think she understands the world is not the US.C) Contrary to popular perceptions, the state of South Carolina has a good bit of foreign involement
"Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights"We can only hope.
Another great day in America!
So much for "You crossed our red line again. Have you no shame?"
SEE HOW YOU CAN MAINTAIN THE FITNESS OF THE MIND AND BODY
Good for Nikki Haley. Tell us more, we've got your back.
Could have been a little more nuanced and "diplomatic," but that's OK---nobody can come back later and say they didn't understand.Like a younger, female John Bolton, I thought. Or, to go back a generation, Pat Moynihan with the edges a bit rougher. Either way, I think we may have adults in charge again, after 8 years of kindergarten.
Sally327 seems to forget that we no longer have a big stick. Part of the plan seems to be to restore that. In the meantime, let them know what's coming...
We have like no had this weird relationship with the UN, Maybe because it was a good part our idea, Maybe because it has s headquartered here. Maybe because we came out of WWII so powerful. Countries around the world routinely vote against us and our interests, while taking our foreign aid, letting our troops protect them, etc. Much of the world owes us, one way or another, and we have been letting them kick sand in our faces, more or less, for better than 60 years now. We have to be some sort of one world leader, for some reason or another, sacrificing American interests time and time again for this progressive ideal. Amb. Rice and Powers seemed to constantly be happy that the US was essentially laying down on the floor there and letting every little tin pot dictator drive over us in their US or close allies designed vehicles. Which comes, I think from Pres. Obama's anti-imperialist/anti-colonial beliefs and philosophy. I really do think that he was trying to live up to his (putative) father's ideals, who seemed to think that we were the cause of much of the world's problems. Most of us though don't think of us as part of the problem, but, rather, a big part of the solution. We weren't ever really colonialists. Those were the Europeans, and even the Japanese. Somehow we are supposed to feel guilt about what these other countries did in the past. Doesn't work for most Trump voters. Rich white Crooked Hillary voters, yes. Most Trump voters, no. As others have said, it has been way too long since our govt truly put America first in the UN. Esp under Barack Hussein Obama II.
@Martin - Haley is nuanced and diplomatic, as compared to her boss, who seems to prefer starting negotiations by screaming, yelling, and insulting his opponents. Then showing his nice side later.
I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley.I have doubts that experience in the foreign policy field is what we want at this point. Diplomats tend to "go native" a lot and many of our ambassadors in the past seemed to worry about the UN more than the US. That has to stop. And, outside of Bolton, there aren't many diplomatic types that can effectively put the world on notice that we mean business....and the critics cannot complain about the racism of sexism of an Indian woman saying it.Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights. You seem to view the demise of a bloated, corrupt, useless organization as a bad thing. Look what he has just done with his blanket Muslim ban What "blanket Muslim ban" is there? I see a suspension of immigration from certain countries. Not one for all Muslims and the ban does not cover all Muslims. Stop lying.
The United Nations is an American invention, like the League of Nations before it, and a most excellent idea.But it is a political institution, in fact that is the basic idea, and you go in there and schmooze and twist arms as necessary to achieve what you want like you would in any other political body.The Democrats' besetting sin has been this attitude of "Oh! World government! I quite think I am gong to faint!" And Teddy Roosevelt, while he did indeed build and carry a big stick (Great White Fleet - uh; was that racist?), he also was the most belligerent talking president we have ever had. Talking softly just was not in Cousin Teddy's nature.
"Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights. "Trumpit, stop getting me all excited. When does the UN building become a condo project ?
Whoo.Boy!Anubody else get half a chubby from that? I like a woman who means business."Trump will destroy the UN ...."Hmmm. Not seein a downside.
clint said..."Chuck said...I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley."How hard did you look? I found several with essentially no foreign policy experience in just a few minutes on Wikipedia.Some of our past ambassadors have a laundry list of ambassadorial appointments and state department positions. Several have no apparent foreign policy experience on their resume before the UN. For a few, it looks like the starting point of a distinguished diplomatic career -- they *left* the U.N. position to become ambassadors to individual countries. Name one. I searched, and could not find a single UN Ambassador with less foreign policy experience. Here's the list that you referenced, on Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations
There were two significant design flaws of the UN:First, having the totalitarian USSR on the Security Council, with veto power. Yes, we all know the context of the post-WW2 world, but it was still a flaw, perhaps mitigated over time since the Soviets bit the dust. Second, giving voting rights to all these un-Democratic regimes. Who the fuck cares what Yemen thinks about anything? There should have been a higher standard of admission -i.e., democracies only. As for Nikki Haley? She's great, we love her, we need many more women like her.
Experience matters because...?Bueller?Bueller?What point is made in mentioning experience? Did some of the failures have great experience? Why were they failures, then?Necessary? Sufficient? Or just plain bull shit?
Haley had no experience at being a governor when she was elected to that office in South Carolina. She ended up being a very effective governor, (or as effective as you can be with out dysfunctional but powerful legislature.)
Several comments re "Speaking softly..."Speaking is by definition soft.There is no way that Amb Haley will be able to Carry the Big Stick.Carrying the Big Stick is Gen Mattis' job.Anyone here (or anywhere) believe that the General is not up to the task?
"Chuck said... "clint said... "Chuck said... I can't find anybody who has held the UN ambassadorship with less experience, than Nikki Haley." How hard did you look? I found several with essentially no foreign policy experience in just a few minutes on Wikipedia."Name one. I searched, and could not find a single UN Ambassador with less foreign policy experience."George H.W. Bush. Bill Richardson. Henry Cabot Lodge. John Danforth. All with essentially no formal foreign policy experience. And I certainly didn't read every bio, so there are probably more examples.Let's start with Bush... he went on to be a foreign policy star. But when he was appointed Ambassador to the U.N., he'd been a naval pilot, gotten an economics degree, started an oil company, been county chairman of the GOP, elected to Congress twice, and lost a senate race.How would you compare that to Nikki Haley's background?
Well bush St was a twice elected congressman, moynihan was a domestic policy advisor, young was a civil rights activist, stevenson the gov of Illinois,
I don't think the UN should be destroyed. But perhaps we could lobby to move the General Assembly from New York City to a locale more in keeping with the character of its membership. Say, for example, Cuba. Or Zimbabwe.
Drago said...Jay Elink: "Trumpit, you need to go back to Vox, or Kos, or whatever quivering mass of enuretics you came from."Vox and Kos are idiot-villes, but it would not be at all fair to blame them for Trumpit.1/27/17, 11:27 PMBe fair to poor Trumpit. He was paid, after all:"But you know the pity is that when I'm paid, I always follow my job through. You know that.""NO! ANGEL EYES!!!"Pity that his mental gun is unloaded, and anyway has a barrel that points back towards himself. Well, #pitynotpity I guess.
Blogger Scott said...I don't think the UN should be destroyed. But perhaps we could lobby to move the General Assembly from New York City to a locale more in keeping with the character of its membership. Say, for example, Cuba. Or Zimbabwe.1/28/17, 9:13 AMWe really need the real estate back. President Trump understands this very well. Guantanamo is free, they could meet there, and we'll keep the prisoners in the basement. GTMO has a basement, right?
"Sorry to be so bleak, but Trump will destroy the UN like most everything else in his sights." Mo bleak is my motto.Anyway, pleased to see Haley is no mealy-mouthed purveyor of mush. Shows she has her eye on the prize already. Waiting for action though. If you speak loudly, better bring a bigger stick.It always struck me as very strange that liberals, when we still had real liberals, were so enamored with an institution that on the key issues gave veto power to Russia and China.
The UN is powerless to do the things it was formed to do. And if it had enough power to actually do them, it would be dangerous.
"Awesome to think our ambassador to the UN has the interests of the US first in mind. What a change from the Obama era." The UN is not a venue for the US or any other country to advance its interests. The UN was formed after the catastrophe of WWII so the member nations could work together on mutual interests in order to minimize and, if possible, prevent war between nations from breaking out. (Obviously, it has failed in this goal on the regional level, but no world war has occurred during the life of the UN. Present events suggest this will change sooner than we would like.)
WWII was no catastrophe. The good guys won.Now, had the Leftist Collectivists of any stripe -- communist or fascist -- won, that would have been catastrophic.We can see catastrophe in the aforementioned Zimbabwe or maybe Venezuela, Syria, Lybia. Or the former Soviet Union...
"Countries around the world routinely vote against us and our interests, while taking our foreign aid, letting our troops protect them, etc."Our troops are not stationed in countries around the world so we are prepared to protect them; our troops are station countries around the world so we are prepared at any time to assert our dominance if the need arises.Put another way, our military "protection" of other countries is the kind of protection the Mafia provides (without it being requested) for unceasing forced paid tributes.
"WWII was no catastrophe."Mmmm. Tens of millions dead, much of Europe utterly devastated, and it was "no catastrophe," he says.What a maroon.
Sometimes clear talk is necessary.When we want to be, Americans can be very good at clear talk.About 10 years ago, I would argue with Brits in their forums. Learned a lot. They're still pissed about arriving late in WWI and WWII, amongst other things.But the highest praise was, "You argue like an American."
Robert Cook:The enemy gets a vote. Your proposed government by angels is short one ingredient: angels.
"Our troops are not stationed in countries around the world so we are prepared to protect them; our troops are station countries around the world so we are prepared at any time to assert our dominance if the need arises."LOL ROTFLMAOOh, you were serious!?!?Yeah, we're really lording it over those Poles with our Brigade Minus of troops. Or in South Korea, where we have like what, 1/20 of the strength of the ROK military? We're there as a tripwire - as a tangible symbol of our commitment. I like nostalgia as much as anyone, but this bilge is pathetic.
I'm am American. Some times you just gotta 'splain things in small words and easy-to-understand terms.
Put another way, our military "protection" of other countries is the kind of protection the Mafia provides (without it being requested) for unceasing forced paid tributes.More utter bullshit from Comrade Cookie. You have ignored the fact that not only do we not economically exploit or extort the wealth of those nations we protect, we usually don't even get very much cooperation from them politically. Our protection not only benefits them by preserving their existence, it also allows them to neglect their self-defense and spend that money on their social welfare system instead.
"But the highest praise was, 'You argue like an American.'"What did they mean by that statement?
That's Europe. That's what they do. That's why done of our ancestors chose to leave.
The UN is not a venue for the US or any other country to advance its interests.Then please explain the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Obama had the least experience as president, Chuck.The American people didn't care.
The UN is a 20th century construct for a 20th century problem.Time to reform/fundamentally transform or die.
"More utter bullshit from Comrade Cookie. You have ignored the fact that not only do we not economically exploit or extort the wealth of those nations we protect, we usually don't even get very much cooperation from them politically." Ah, but we get what we want and need by having our bases in their lands. This gives the US military a global reach that no other nation has. This is for our purposes, not for them."Our protection not only benefits them by preserving their existence, it also allows them to neglect their self-defense and spend that money on their social welfare system instead."Really? How has our presence in other lands preserved their existence? As for "neglecting" their self-defense, would that we would similarly "neglect" our war machine in favor of the welfare of our people. After all, there hasn't been a single war we've involved ourselves in post-WWII that was necessary for our self-defense. That's either decades of money wasted, or...decades of money spent to to further our domination of the world.
I just said thank you, Cookie.
Robert Cook: "...our purposes..."Odd use of the word our. I always assumed yours and mine were at cross-purposes because you want me to accept slavery and you want to be my master. Odd.
"'The UN is not a venue for the US or any other country to advance its interests.'"Then please explain the five permanent members of the Security Council."Hey, there's the overt mission of the UN and then there's the covert reality. Part of that covert reality is that the US always and only acts in its own interests, and any statements or actions that say or seem otherwise are subterfuge.
...as opposed to all those other countries that are selfless, like the Soviet Union used to be.Type the words you know you want, Robert Cook.
I've thought the UN should be moved to Israel or Ethiopia for a long time now.
"Odd use of the word our. I always assumed yours and mine were at cross-purposes because you want me to accept slavery and you want to be my master. Odd."Yes, odd, that you have spun out this slave/master fantasy from whole-cloth. And odd that you don't appear to know that when I say "our" purposes, I don't mean your or my or any American citizen's purpose, but the geopolitical purposes of the American Empire.
And the other countries don't?Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.Or are they voting against their own self-interest?From my POV, however, it seems the US voted against its own self-interest a lot.
We aren't an empire.Bill Whittle of PJ Media had a great video as to why.
Nikki Haley has experience dealing with the Germans, French, Japanese, Koreans, Canadians, and other foreigners who own and run major manufacturing facilities in South Carolina. In addition, her family is Bengally Sikh with connections in India. She may even be bi-lingual. That sounds like a little experience to me.
"...as opposed to all those other countries that are selfless, like the Soviet Union used to be."No country is selfless. That you seem to think I suggest that in anything I say does not reflect well on you. That you (and many others) seem to think the US is the exception to the rule of history and of human nature, and assert that we act selflessly and only virtuously in the world, also does not reflect well on you or those others who maintain this fiction. As a citizen of this nation, the most powerful nation in the world, my concerns are with our global behavior.
So Cookie thinks an unstable world is better?We have 4 choices for the big stick.US - which we know you despise.ChiComs IslamOr armed camps.Would you care to enlighten us as to why each of the other 3 are preferable?
Part of that covert reality is that the US always and only acts in its own interestsThat's its jobBy the way, name those enlightened nations that don't "always and only act in their own interest". Why does the US have the added burden of behaving differently?
@mockturtle,The U.N. has the power to do what it was formed to do, but that power is called the United States of America. It is not "a machine that will go of itself."
That you (and many others) seem to think the US is the exception to the rule of historyWe are. We're the only nation in history that insists on rewarding its defeated enemies instead of punishing them.and of human nature, and assert that we act selflessly and only virtuously in the world,We do act selflessly on many occasions, and certainly more so than anyone else. We do not act only virtuously, but we are certainly more virtuous than pretty much everyone else.
We certainly donate more than the world.
Ahh, in Cookie's world it's all or nothing.Perfectability of man and the USA.
Geez, I feel like I'm back in HS Philosophy class, can one be a true altruist?
We're hardly keeping the world stable. In fact, we actively work to destabilize parts of the world where we seek out own objectives. Look at the Middle East for example, and our metastasizing war of terror. Our destruction of Iraq was a major destabilizing action that has led to terrible and ongoing repercussions.
There's no such thing as "perfectability." There is such a thing as seeking cooperation for mutual benefit and observance of the law. We dismsiss (while giving lip-service to) such behavior as "naive," because it doesn't get us what we want.
And it is that perfectable Soviet-Man that leads him, inexorably, kicking and screaming, to the position of master with me as slave. He cannot see what he espouses for what it really is. He claims students of history who watched every attempt to impose his order on people (and always end with mass graves) are the crazy ones.But what he wants demands either angels or masters and slaves. Robert Cook envisions himself as either an angel or a master. And me as a slave either way.Robert Cook is evil.
Robert Cook is evil.No Comrade Cookie is banal. The men who came up with the ideology he is obsessed with were misguided. The people who use that ideology in the pursuit of power are evil.
"What is good for the United States in the long run" provides a guideline, which is safer than "altruism." Robert Cook's comment above about the Middle East instability illustrates this. I believe Obama caused this thinking it would be good for the world if not for the United States, but that is not how it has worked out, is it?
So Cook claims we "force paid tribute" for our protection. When called on it, we find that all this really means is that we get bases on their soil... without which it'd be pretty hard to defend them. So, Cook is asserting that the proof of our evil motives in protecting them is... the bare minimum concessions necessary for us to be able to protect them.Nice logic, that. Wonder what medal the Soviet propagandist who wrote that crap that eventually gave Cook his talking points earned.
There are still many, like Cookie, who believe that world peace is possible, that mankind is basically good and that all cultures are equal. This kind of naivete is usually outgrown in adulthood.
I stand quite firmly by my assessment that Robert Cook and all his fellow travelers are evil. They intend to rule me. I resist.
Birkel is a very brave person: He resists an evil created in his own mind and he advocates for the many evils perpetrated by his own nation.
I will begin to care about evil people like Robert Cook when they have a chance of their hopes-for dominion. Until then, I will remind them of their inherent evil with no hopes for their introspection.Evil rarely acknowledges itself.
World peace is possible - provided the United States and China agrees that excessive violence among the small fry is undesirable.
Sorry; not being a native English speaker, I tend to add the s when an action is ongoing.
LolololOne note wonder Cookie.
Make our enemies look courageous?Like France?Or Britain?Don't get me wrong Britain gets a bigger pass, but still.
Whose law, Cookie?
I know the answet, Seeing Red. Robert Cook thinks there is 'international law' that will be enforced.Robert Cook is also against wars.Robert Cook is a dreamer who dreams of the Will to Power. He is a deluded, evil fool.
Seeing Red asks sarcastically: Make our enemies look courageous?Like France?Or Britain?LOL! Good one!
You just have to understand one thing about Comrade Cookie in order to grok him......He feels exactly the same about the end of the Cold War as the Democrats feel about the 2016 presidential election.........
South Korea would still exist without the American military presence there, Cookie? That's laughable.
Here ya go, young'uns.Look at the Korean Peninsula at night.Which side is progressive and which side is capitalistic?
"Look at the Korean Peninsula at night."I get that North Korea is communist, and I know how it got that way. What really puzzles me, considering the Chinese modernization, is how North Korea managed to remain so stupidly communist.Clearly the example Cuba chose to follow.
Bob said [twice]: North Korea managed to remain so stupidly communist.Clearly the example Cuba chose to follow.My theory is that the leadership is firmly entrenched in both cases. Cuba will gradually peel away their 'pure' communist system now that Fidel is gone but N. Korea is ruled by a dynastic stronghold reminiscent of the Chinese empires. Conversely, China's political power, while still 'communist', is more dispersed and flexible.
I love her accent. With her forward looking head forward glare, when she says "I've got the Bridge," she's got the Bridge. It's the Southern Dialect. What horror she strikes into the hearts of the European Left, one can only imagine.
how North Korea managed to remain so stupidly communist.The North Koreans managed to accomplish the Leftist dream...they have completely cut their people off from any source of knowledge beyond the state, and have not only kept them ignorant but have brainwashed them into the state cult, in this case a cult based on a bastardized version of communism and worship for the ruling family.
The evidence, Gahrie, is that the brainwashing you allege is much less effective than your comment might suggest. Rather, people just give up fighting. But once the system begins to fall, everybody reveals the ineffectiveness.
clint said......George H.W. Bush. Bill Richardson. Henry Cabot Lodge. John Danforth. All with essentially no formal foreign policy experience. And I certainly didn't read every bio, so there are probably more examples.This might be fun!Let's start with Bush... he went on to be a foreign policy star. But when he was appointed Ambassador to the U.N., he'd been a naval pilot, gotten an economics degree, started an oil company, been county chairman of the GOP, elected to Congress twice, and lost a senate race.How would you compare that to Nikki Haley's background?Nikki Haley: Exotica International ("upscale clothing"; but it's international!)executive, South Carolina state representative, South Carolina governor.George H.W. Bush: As you say; although we think of him in the light of all of his subsequent foreign policy involvement (CIA Director, Envoy to China) he was a two-term Congressman and oil industry executive when he became UN Ambassador for Nixon, under pretty much the same terms as Nikki Haley. Republicans saw a talent and didn't want it to go to waste. I call it a tie. Good call on your part!Bill Richardson: The classic Democrat sinecure. But he was in the House for 14 years, rose to leadership, and was a major player in the passage of NAFTA. He had major international interests while in the House; I may never know what Richardson had on Bill Cinton (besides being asked to give Monica Lewinski a make-work job, which he agreed to do), but Clinton sent him on a bunch of foreign relations errands. Richardson experience beats Haley experience.Henry Cabot Lodge: A remarkable story, really. One of the few sitting U.S. Senators (R-MA) ever to serve in active military duty, including combat. Served in Africa early in WWII, later served as a special military liaison with the French Army (he was fluent in French) to help negotiate German surrender in Austria. Croix de Guerre and Legion d'Honneur recipient. Returned to the Senate, and was instrumental in drafting Ike to run for president and was his campaign manager. Notably, Lodge was an ideological "internationalist" in distinction to Bob Taft's "isolationist" wing of the Republicans. Lodge experience beats Haley experience.John Danforth: Missouri Attorney General, three-term U.S. Senator, served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than ten years, sponsored or co-sponsored more than 100 senate bills on international affairs and national security including sponsorship of major bills on Bosnian war crimes and Taiwan defense and security. Danforth experience beats Haley experience.I think you made a good try, clint. And again, I have nothing against Nikki Haley and I hope she's in the Senate someday.
Also, Chuck, you must admit she didn't get it for being a Trump sycophant/early adopter.
First, Chuck admits nothing.Second, I ask again why foreign policy experience matters. Give reasons. Be specific.
Bad Lieutenant said...Also, Chuck, you must admit she didn't get it for being a Trump sycophant/early adopter.True! Add to that list, Betsy DeVos (Education). She supported Bush, then Rubio, then Cruz, then nobody.I am not complaining about parties' elevating people for internal party reasons. In the case of Betsy DeVos, I think it has a lot to do with deep ideology and competence. Republicans would get tons of money from the DeVos and Prince families with or without a cabinet nomination. In the case of Nikki Haley, I have to think that it was party elders insisting on it. As with Elaine Chao.I'm just not so sure that this position was necessary in the case of Nikki Haley; although I think she was term-limited out in 2018, and Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott are not going anywhere.
Birkel said...First, Chuck admits nothing.Second, I ask again why foreign policy experience matters. Give reasons. Be specific.I dunno. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. If I were president, I think that John Bolton would have been my pick. He's got experience.But no matter what, this isn't a case of Donald Trump masterfully installing a uniquely Trump-minded expert to instill a particular vision, with some particular skill. She's just there, because she's a good, nice, attractive (in the general political sense) position-holder, who was very firmly suggested to Trump by somebody in the Party, and Trump accepted that strong suggestion.I'm not judging the nomination, as good or bad. I am judging it, as a matter of fact, as a representation of Party politics.Trump always wants to sell these cabinet nominations as something like a group of A-list stars and special experts in their respective fields. You could say that about some (DeVos, Sessions, Pompeo, Mattis, Kelly, Pruitt). Others are head-scratchers (Carson, Flynn, ), and others are vintage, traditional standard politics (Chao -- also competent, and especially Haley).
So the whole point of mentioning experience, by you, was to throw some shit against the wall and hope it stuck without anybody noticing?Chuck: "I have never read anyone making a serious case for her based on any foreign policy experience credentials."I noticed.
Chuck, I've never read anyone making a serious case for your knowing what you are talking about.
Unfair, mockturtle. Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump, totally knew what he was talking about when he assured fellow Democrats the cheating in Detroit could not be overcome by actual voters in Michigan.Amirite?
Post a Comment