PDA

View Full Version : If there weren't enough reasons to vote McCain


augustashark
10-26-2008, 11:56 PM
Nice endorsement for O!:toofunny:

I bet he just loves their support.

I don't know about you but to me the UN is as useless as tits on a boar!

UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.

"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."

The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign -- although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban's priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.

"The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election," said Ban's chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. "The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose."

Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African."

One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. "We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn't vote," according to a U.N. official who attended. "So we convinced the American to vote for Obama."

"I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding," said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. "The majority of people here believe in multilateralism," he said. "The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations."

For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.

"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."

The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.

Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations' most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche -- an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation -- could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be "phenomenal."

Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.

"We don't have voting rights," said Yukio Takasu, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.

But, he added, "We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html

steelwall
10-27-2008, 12:08 AM
And the UN has how much relivancy?

Obama being endorsed by the likes of the countries mentioned in this article really makes me feel better about him as president.

I wonder who North Korea would like to see win??? hmmmmm

If Obama wins I'm sure he will sit down at the tables of our enemies and talk them out of hating us.......NO.... our enemies see him as a way to withdrawl troops froom their lands so they can regroup.....simple as that...

Speaking as a vet of Afgan I believe I'm in a better possition than Obama to know the mindset of our enemies.

Steel Duck
10-27-2008, 02:53 AM
And isolating, and ignoring our enemies has helped how exactly????

ohiosteelerfan20
10-27-2008, 03:58 AM
And isolating, and ignoring our enemies has helped how exactly????

:thumbsup: Well said Steel Duck. The " if you do something we dont like, we are going to pout and not talk to you policy" is so weak.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-27-2008, 06:53 AM
And isolating, and ignoring our enemies has helped how exactly????

I can tell you what happened after the Clinton Administration ignored our enemies.


....9-11.

As I have said before...Thinking that other countries have the United States best interest in mind...is as naive as thinking that Ford has Chevrolets best interest in mind.

There can be only one superpower and if given a choice...they would choice themselves to be it.

MACH1
10-27-2008, 11:19 AM
And isolating, and ignoring our enemies has helped how exactly????

And sitting drinking tea, eating crumpets has helped how. :hunch:

Leftoverhard
10-27-2008, 11:44 AM
And sitting drinking tea, eating crumpets has helped how. :hunch:

Why don't you ask Nixon and Reagan? It worked well for them. Very well.

The tea and crumpet analogy (I assume you mean to use the word Dipomacy), aside from being mildly offensive to the millions of Brits, Aussies and Americans who do this every day, is just plain wierd. So, sitting down having a beer? Is that better? Sitting down, drinking Ensure? What. :noidea:

MACH1
10-27-2008, 11:56 AM
Why don't you ask Nixon and Reagan? It worked well for them. Very well.

The tea and crumpet analogy (I assume you mean to use the word Dipomacy), aside from being mildly offensive to the millions of Brits, Aussies and Americans who do this every day, is just plain wierd. So, sitting down having a beer? Is that better? Sitting down, drinking Ensure? What. :noidea:

Is inviting them over to test him within the next six months better? Or sitting down with them on their terms with a glass of wine the way to go. Or better yet we should bend over and kiss their a$$ every time they want us to. Maybe he can take his good buddy ayers with him to teach him the ropes.

:doh: The french drink wine. Hope I didn't offend them too.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-27-2008, 12:05 PM
Why don't you ask Nixon and Reagan? It worked well for them. Very well.

The tea and crumpet analogy (I assume you mean to use the word Dipomacy), aside from being mildly offensive to the millions of Brits, Aussies and Americans who do this every day, is just plain wierd. So, sitting down having a beer? Is that better? Sitting down, drinking Ensure? What. :noidea:

Reagan?.....Others wanted to sit down with Reagan because he had no problem putting American interests ahead of the "global community"....and they knew that if they screwed with American lives...there would be hell to pay.

He didnt give them reason to believe in the "peace in our time" compromise.

Reagan is the worst possible example you could have given.

Godfather
10-27-2008, 12:48 PM
The lesson from Reagan is that you deal with the leader, not with the country. He maintained a hard line against the USSR until Gorby came in. Then he switched gears and pursued a policy of detente, thus allowing Gorbachev political cover against the hardliners. Daddy Bush came in and screwed the whole thing up...fortunately, Reagan bugged the Kremlin so we knew, and were able to tell Yeltsin, that the coup leaders would back down if challenged.

revefsreleets
10-27-2008, 01:46 PM
The UN is a fine organization...at distributing food.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-27-2008, 01:54 PM
The UN is a fine organization...at distributing food.

:chuckle:

augustashark
10-27-2008, 09:34 PM
The UN is a fine organization...at distributing food.

:rofl:

That was kinda my point, thanks.

SunshineMan21
10-29-2008, 03:03 AM
And sitting drinking tea, eating crumpets has helped how. :hunch:

You know, that sounds great as a sound bite, but the current neocon foreign policy has many historical precedents, and suffice to say there's a reason the rest of the world thinks George Bush is a moron: it doesn't work and the vast majority of people who study this area know it.

The United States focuses in combating terrorism has to be prevention, has to be cultural and societal in nature and has to transcend military/strategic levels. When we (as we often have under the Bush administration) ignore human rights and multilateralism in favor of questionable (at this point 'questionable' is being generous) decisions like the Iraq war, we lose international credibility and erode our soft power base. Alliances are a two-way street, and Bush seems not to understand diplomacy in the way virtually every president since Nixon has. The foreign policy consequences of this have been disasterous.

I applaud Bush for his work combating AIDS in Africa, but our international aid in recent years has gone more towards buying military equipment for a dictatorial Pakistani government than helping alleviate suffering that might have as a collateral objective improving our standing in the world.

The worrisome part about this is that McCain's foreign policy positions seem almost identical to Bush's, right down to his neoliberal promotion of free-market ideas.

There are a lot of appealing things about McCain in my opinion, but from a policy standpoint he has to distance himself from the obviously faild policies of Bush. Looking at McCain's record, he can do that to some extent on economic issues and on some social issues, but in my opinion from a foreign policy perspective it's tough to rationalize how John McCain is better for America.