Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
...show me how I am wrong on the issue at hand.
Please summarize what people object to? I am either obtuse or the reasons given have been vague.
Did you read about Saturday's UN veto by Bolton?
The US was the only nation with the courage to veto the resolution. Why? Or, do you thing the veto was wrong?
|
IMO, you were wrong in suggesting that "others simply give exhagerated general statements.....".
As many of those here that you describe as "naive" have said repeatedly, our diplomats should be tough. honest and aggressive....just not ARROGANT and OFFENSIVE to the point of being conter-productive.
For further examples of "what people object to", I refer you again to the letter from the 64 former US diplomats. You dont have to agree with it, as you obviously dont ...but they were explitict in expressing their concerns, with examples of how Bolton's style and actions have hurt US interests on several issues.
And the US veto of an anti-Israel resolution is nothing new and has nothing to do with Bolton. The US has vetoed nearly every anti-Israel resolution since Truman was president. In fact, I think you are showing your own naivete if you think this demostrates Bolton's effectiveness.
I think we all agree that the UN is not helpful when it comes to Isreal-Palestinian issues. For the last 40 years, the US has worked on Mid East peace through direct diplomacy, not through the UN. Jimmy Carter, who you mock, personally negotiated the Camp David Accord that established peace between Israel and Egypt and recognized palestian rights. Reagan had his own Mid East envoy, to work outside of the UN (gasp...its was Rumsfeld) and Dennis Ross, who as Bush Sr.'s and Clinton's Mid East envoy, was the one who brokered the deal that lead to Israel closing settlements in the occupied territory. It was unfortunate that the Palestians but so much faith in a crooked terrorist like Arafat or the Clinton/Dennis Ross efforts would have brought the region much closer to peace.