Bolton followed by Wolfowitz...

[Somme]

...sounds like a declaration of war," the French commentator Nicole Bacharan told Reuters, "and if not that, a declaration of contempt."

nowt new, eh?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031805B.shtml

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The nomination of Bolton as UN ambassador is an obvious and intentional insult to the UN, an announcement that they can all pretty much go fuck themselves as far as the USA is concerned.

This Wolfowitz thing is interesting though. I wasn't aware that he was an economist or especially interested in economic policy. Is Wolfy being kicked upstairs to get him out of the administration? After all, Iraq and aggressive democratization of the middle east are Wolfowitz's policies. Is there a change in the air? Is Condi staking out her own territory?

--Zoot

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't think so Doc. If you imagine Wolfshitz in a position to "aide" countries that support us and "punish" those who don't, I think you will see he's the right man for the job, as far as the administration is concerned. He isn't going to let things like international condemnation or pressure soften his stances. He's an agressive adherent of the neocon philosophy and if he continues to press that philosphy, he has been moved to a position where he can influence things on a world scale, rather than just agitating internally for those policies.

In my opinion, it's a signal that the administration is confident enough in it's power at home now to start exporting it's strongest adherents to positions where they can exert influence on a grander scale.

 

[Liar]

Let me just get it straight: I'm not all that well informed here. I see two different things in the news, Wolfie being nominated for the position by the White House and Wolfie being de facto the next big kahuna of the World Bank. Which is it?

Or is the politic situation perhaps such that when it comes down to it, the US candidate will win no matter what?

#L

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Let me just get it straight: I'm not all that well informed here. I see two different things in the news, Wolfie being nominated for the position by the White House and Wolfie being de facto the next big kahuna of the World Bank. Which is it?

Or is the politic situation perhaps such that when it comes down to it, the US candidate will win no matter what?

#L

The U.S. & Europe have a sort of gentleman's agreement. The U.S. nominee to the head of the world bank is always approved and the European nominee to the head of the IMF is always approved.

 

[rgraham666]

The U.S. & Europe have a sort of gentleman's agreement. The U.S. nominee to the head of the world bank is always approved and the European nominee to the head of the IMF is always approved.

The problem with that is the Shrub administration has very few gentlemen in it.

And they have a very poor record of keeping agreements not to their liking.

 

[Liar]

The U.S. & Europe have a sort of gentleman's agreement. The U.S. nominee to the head of the world bank is always approved and the European nominee to the head of the IMF is always approved.

Ah. Diplomatic, I assume. Not very sensible tho imo. Exactly how much can a head of those organisations impose theirt personal ieological agenda on things anyway?

This is worrisome. Not so much the nomination as the fact that I am starting to get interrested, and with an exam coming up, I don't have the fucking time. I hate it when the meta surroundings are inteferring with my microcosm like that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ah. Diplomatic, I assume. Not very sensible tho imo. Exactly how much can a head of those organisations impose theirt personal ieological agenda on things anyway?

This is worrisome. Not so much the nomination as the fact that I am starting to get interrested, and with an exam coming up, I don't have the fucking time. I hate it when the meta surroundings are inteferring with my microcosm like that.

It's my understanding that it's an agreement that keeps the peace. The US has a biger stake in the world bank. the Europeans in the IMF. The agreement seems to be the best way to avoid a turf war.

I don't know that the degree to which the head of one or the other can influence policy has ever been tested. I do know if Wolfshitz is appointed, we will find out.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's my understanding that it's an agreement that keeps the peace. The US has a biger stake in the world bank. the Europeans in the IMF. The agreement seems to be the best way to avoid a turf war.

I don't know that the degree to which the head of one or the other can influence policy has ever been tested. I do know if Wolfshitz is appointed, we will find out.

Actually, Europe has more members than the US in the boards of either of the institutions, so they can veto this nomination, if they want, but yeah, I think the idea of the agreement is to keep peace.

Still it will be interesting to see how Europe will react to this nomination.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, Europe has more members than the US in the boards of either of the institutions, so they can veto this nomination, if they want, but yeah, I think the idea of the agreement is to keep peace.

Still it will be interesting to see how Europe will react to this nomination.

Europe has more board members, but the U.S. has more stock in the Bank. That's my understanding at least. The gentleman's agreement simply prevents a lot of fighting and wrangling and of course, with GWB, it would also prevent him from picking up his toys and going home.

Europeans may debate and express disapproval, but I think they will let it go. Unless napolean IV decide to take a hand.

 

[Somme]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031805C.shtml

 

[Somme]

Didn't last long.

Now who's the next?