Posted on 09/19/2017 12:38:39 PM PDT by EliRoom8
Only video
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
Here is a bit of the quotes and analysis on what Bolton has said.
“John Bolton says Trump’s UN speech was OUTSTANDING and explains why…”
http://therightscoop.com/john-bolton-says-trumps-un-speech-was-outstanding-and-explains-why/
Agreed it was a fantastic speech. Although the one he made in Poland was great too.
more..
http://theweek.com/speedreads/725516/john-bolton-declares-trumps-un-debut-best-speech-ever
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/bolton-trumps-u-n-speech-the-best-of-his-presidency/
Yes. It is sad to huntsman as an ambassador but bolton is not serving in some capacity.
It was a spectacular speech. Every word weighed a ton.
It was direct, succinct and coherent. Which means it was the polar opposite of anything that ever came out of “O’” mouth in 8 years.
Naw, he’s more powerful outside the White House, like so many others.
>>Naw, he’s more powerful outside the White House, like so many others.<<
You may have a point (see Bannon and Gorka).
Among other things, it was a direct rebuke to globalism, not just socialism. I hope he means it.
He criticizes Iran and Obama as well to those who think Obama walks on water.
Btw, it’s great watching Melania next to him.
I’m paraphrasing slightly, but the most important and likely longest-resonating part of the speech was “if the righteous many do not confront the evil few, then evil triumphs.”
However, the devil is in the details. As with terrorism, it’s fine to say that the righteous many will confront the evil few, but perhaps the evil few plan to die in their evil act and so how can we confront them? (it’s a rhetorical question, I understand some of the potential answers).
Or with North Korea, if we confront and ultimately succeed, at what cost? Can we prevent the predictable massive artillery assault on South Korea?
The globalist position on these matters has been a combination of wishful thinking (all religions are equal, we can live with North Korea) and foolish inaction (since any response may precipitate violence, it’s best to do nothing — the French approach to Hitler with its spectacular failed conclusion).
What Trump has signalled is the need to return to the mind-set of the victorious Allies when the U.N. was founded. The absurd notion that all nations are equal (they are not) has led to a bizarre counter-productive U.N. in modern times, designed to perpetuate socialist fantasies. Sometimes it just seemed irrelevant but at the same time it is dangerous since it occupies the space that needs to be occupied by the sober-minded rational representatives of powerful nations. Getting the combined opinion of 150 failed basket case states with average personal incomes of fifty eight bucks is not sensible and cannot lead to anything useful.
he globalist position on these matters has been a combination of wishful thinking (all religions are equal, we can live with North Korea) and foolish inaction (since any response may precipitate violence, it’s best to do nothing — the French approach to Hitler with its spectacular failed conclusion).
______________________________________________________
The Globalist position is never to “do nothing”. Their position has always been to support coups, set up puppet-governments, or outright invade. That policy has been going on since WWII with little interruption. Why do you think US forces and US agents are all over the globe?
he globalist position on these matters has been a combination of wishful thinking (all religions are equal, we can live with North Korea) and foolish inaction (since any response may precipitate violence, it’s best to do nothing — the French approach to Hitler with its spectacular failed conclusion).
______________________________________________________
The Globalist position is never to “do nothing”. Their position has always been to support coups, set up puppet-governments, or outright invade. That policy has been going on since WWII with little interruption. Why do you think US forces and US agents are all over the globe?
In that venue, you can be sure he means every word of it. I bet there were more than a few wet seats in the assembly when he was done.
“The absurd notion that all nations are equal (they are not)”
That’s racist.
Hell no. Bolton is neocon. Trump campaigned against Bolton’s policies. If Trump goes neocon, he is done for.
We’re seeing neocons and globalists on the right trying to pose as being something else. Neocons like Bolton are trying to reinvent themselves as phony “nationalists.” They are trying to ape libertarian and nationalist sounding language to push the same old policies.
People who don’t want war with NK are not globalists. Globalists are for confrontation with NK, although they vary in how hard they push it. The anti-globalist position on NK is to withdraw US troops. No one in the globalist establishment is talking about that.
Trump has brought together the anti-globalist right, which was in the wilderness for years, with mindless neocon influenced robots who will vote for any candidate with an R after their name. Those people are picking up language from the now trendy anti-globalization right and using it without understanding it. So we are seeing a lot of confusion.
Two things, globalist position to do nothing is applicable to North Korea and any other far-left nations causing trouble or radical Islamist states causing trouble (they couldn’t apply that to post 9-11 Afghanistan but otherwise have done so).
As for my view about nations not being equal being racist, I assume that was a joke comment but if not, what I mean there has nothing to do with race, the notion that nations are equal (one country, one vote in UNGA) is absurd if one starts from the principle that all humans are equal under the law. Obviously they are not equal in attributes, but under the law, in theory, equal ... but therefore if one nation has 300 million people and another has 300,000 then these nations should not be considered equal on any basis, one has 1,000 times as many equal human residents as the other. Although matters of national sovereignty blur the comparison slightly, the larger country is fairly close to being 1,000 times more significant than the smaller country. Where this rule begins to get asymptotic is towards the upper end, the U.S.A. is basically the equal of China and is not twice as significant as Russia with half the population.
A compromise applied to the U.N. should be something like this — ten votes in the UNGA for the larger nations, and a sliding scale for those with populations below 60 million, which would be flattering for France, Germany and the U.K.
The idea that Antigua and Barbuda is the equal of China or that Swaziland is equal to the United States is just plain ridiculous. And having a voting system in the world’s only international body with legislative power (albeit small relative to national sovereignty) is not just ridiculous, it is dangerous.
The Soviet Union insisted that each of its states have a vote in the General Assembly. Maybe we need 50 General Assembly votes, one for each state. Each state would have a UN seat.
Also if monetary support were prorated by population, China and India would provide the major funding for the UN, not the US.
Actually I would love the establishment of a new United Nations, whose membership is made up of nations with that guarantee their populations freedom. No nations with dictatorships allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.