Khalizad to replace Bolton

[Saddle Bronc 124]

BBC

Bush to name Khalilzad for UN job

President George W Bush is to nominate current US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad as the next US envoy to the UN, the White House has confirmed.

The announcement is expected on Monday. Mr Khalilzad will succeed John Bolton, who stepped down last year after the Democrats refused to back him.

The White House also said Mr Bush would unveil his new approach for Iraq on Wednesday (0200 GMT on Thursday).

Reports suggest he will commit to sending in thousands more soldiers.

Mr Khalilzad, 55, has worked under two previous Republican presidents - George Bush Snr and Ronald Reagan.

If his nomination is confirmed by senators, Mr Khalilzad will become the first Muslim to become US envoy to the UN.

The Afghan-born diplomat took over his Iraq role in mid-2005 after spending 18 months as ambassador to Afghanistan.

His expected appointment at the UN comes as President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq.

White House officials confirmed the president would be addressing the nation on Wednesday on plans for "a way forward in Iraq and the global war on terror".

Mr Bush is expected to make a number of key changes in the US military leadership as part of his fresh strategy.

There will be a new head of US Central Command and a new ground commander in Iraq, officials have said.

Note: Bush isn't going about this one the right way; he should have withdrawn US from UN, and expelled that useless org from US shores.

[almaty 19]

BBC

Bush to name Khalilzad for UN job

President George W Bush is to nominate current US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad as the next US envoy to the UN, the White House has confirmed.

The announcement is expected on Monday. Mr Khalilzad will succeed John Bolton, who stepped down last year after the Democrats refused to back him.

The White House also said Mr Bush would unveil his new approach for Iraq on Wednesday (0200 GMT on Thursday).

Reports suggest he will commit to sending in thousands more soldiers.

Mr Khalilzad, 55, has worked under two previous Republican presidents - George Bush Snr and Ronald Reagan.

If his nomination is confirmed by senators, Mr Khalilzad will become the first Muslim to become US envoy to the UN.

The Afghan-born diplomat took over his Iraq role in mid-2005 after spending 18 months as ambassador to Afghanistan.

His expected appointment at the UN comes as President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq.

White House officials confirmed the president would be addressing the nation on Wednesday on plans for "a way forward in Iraq and the global war on terror".

Mr Bush is expected to make a number of key changes in the US military leadership as part of his fresh strategy.

There will be a new head of US Central Command and a new ground commander in Iraq, officials have said.

Note: Bush isn't going about this one the right way; he should have withdrawn US from UN, and expelled that useless org from US shores.

man brother sriniv, that is harsh

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nice ...Bush replaces one crony for another one.

Khalizad is a schmuck who the Iraqi's wanted him out of their country.

[Ban Hammer 14,418]

Nice ...Bush replaces one crony for another one.

Khalizad is a schmuck who the Iraqi's wanted him out of their country.

you have something against muslims in the un?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Note: Bush isn't going about this one the right way; he should have withdrawn US from UN, and expelled that useless org from US shores.

man brother sriniv, that is harsh

But you really can't say my description of UN is inaccurate, Dean.

And if they need someplace to waste taxpayers' money, pols haven't needed an external org's help at anytime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Note: Bush isn't going about this one the right way; he should have withdrawn US from UN, and expelled that useless org from US shores.

man brother sriniv, that is harsh

But you really can't say my description of UN is inaccurate, Dean.

And if they need someplace to waste taxpayers' money, pols haven't needed an external org's help at anytime.

I think the suggestion that organisation is without value is perhaps a little unfair. Is there corruption? Sure. Is there Self-serving? Absolutely. Please point out to me how that differs from the folks running this country.

I did a tour of the UN building just before Xmas. It was quite interesting that a lot of what they do involves (for instance) ensuring the availability of potable water supplies in the developing world. The organization extends a little beyond the Security Council and the General Assembly, those two bodies which receive the bulk of press attention.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I think the suggestion that organisation is without value is perhaps a little unfair. Is there corruption? Sure. Is there Self-serving? Absolutely. Please point out to me how that differs from the folks running this country.

Admittedly, doesn't, but there is a reason for my comment

I did a tour of the UN building just before Xmas. It was quite interesting that a lot of what they do involves (for instance) ensuring the availability of potable water supplies in the developing world. The organization extends a little beyond the Security Council and the General Assembly, those two bodies which receive the bulk of press attention.

Why I consider the UN as useless:

• It was founded on the wreckage of the LN (league of nations) after WW2--the LN had failed its stated mission of preventing that conflict
  
• The errors made by the LN the first time through were repeated (and continue to be)
  

How about we use a construction analogy here?

A 15-floor building collapsed due to an earthquake. Would it be correct to salvage the rubble from it and construct another building from that rubble in the exact same spot? My question would obviously offend anyone who has worked in construction or architecture!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the suggestion that organisation is without value is perhaps a little unfair. Is there corruption? Sure. Is there Self-serving? Absolutely. Please point out to me how that differs from the folks running this country.

Admittedly, doesn't, but there is a reason for my comment

I did a tour of the UN building just before Xmas. It was quite interesting that a lot of what they do involves (for instance) ensuring the availability of potable water supplies in the developing world. The organization extends a little beyond the Security Council and the General Assembly, those two bodies which receive the bulk of press attention.

Why I consider the UN as useless:

• It was founded on the wreckage of the LN (league of nations) after WW2--the LN had failed its stated mission of preventing that conflict
  
• The errors made by the LN the first time through were repeated (and continue to be)
  

How about we use a construction analogy here?

A 15-floor building collapsed due to an earthquake. Would it be correct to salvage the rubble from it and construct another building from that rubble in the exact same spot? My question would obviously offend anyone who has worked in construction or architecture!

From a philosophical point of view - you are quite correct in that participating in, and therefore perpetuating a broken system doesn't change the fact that the system is broken.

That was the reason for my comment - very many people participate in national elections but are either indifferent to the candidates or they vote for the "lesser of two evils" and make do with mediocrity.

Is the UN any more or less broken than national politics?

A international body, such as the UN is essential unless we want a return to isolationism. We have several thousand years worth of history to look at to see why that doesn't work