Indonesia.

And that was supposed to mean... Islamic democracies?
I know Iraqis don't typically regard themselves as Arabs, and the few Arabs I've known (early 70's Beruit) didn't regard Iraqis as Arabs - but many folks here in the States use "Arab" to mean "Islamic and near Arabia" (so Persian Gulf, too - but not Israel).
If you are looking for examples of Islamic democracies a bit closer than Indonesia, why not Turkey? The might not be Arabs, but they did used to oppress them :)
Or did you mean "Islamic democracy with oil"? Like maybe one of the ex-Soviet *-istans...?

Again, I only mentioned the polls because you sited them. I have a wealth of firsthand experience. In fact, this experience makes my opinion an expert opinion. Honestly, Kobuchi you are arguing with a person who has been there, and had tea with local Sheiks, Former/Current Iraqi Generals, doctors, small merchants and simple farmers. I personally don’t need the polls because I have had in depth discussions with Iraqis regarding our occupation.


I personally know the Iraqis are honestly skeptical that they will get to vote. Their skeptical not because of the US but because they lived under tyranny for so long. Once the actually get to vote in January the Iraqi perception of their world will change. At that point they will take full ownership of their country as citizens.

Kabuchi, I have two questions; one do you fundamentally believe in democracy and Two what will you say after the elections in January?

Then what is the point you are trying to make about our President. Clearly, his election was legitimate by your own admission.

Call me crazy but I think that looks like the South Pacific. Turkey is also an Islamic Democracy, however they are not Arabs.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...aps/id-map.gif

Bob I think you have Iraq and Iran confused. Iraqis are very very Arab. However, Iran's population is Persian (Indo-European) ;)

Right, I know about the Persians (Darius the Great, who lost to Alexander, right?). I also remember at least one student in Beruit referring to the people who lived in Iraq as "Iraqis and Arabs and Kurds" (we'd been takling about the nonsense borders left behind by the Brittish empire...)

Squirm.
Then you're better qualified than the guys in Langley, Virginia, better qualified than Powell or now Rice who did not have tea with Sheiks and simple peasants alike. They rely on surveys and second-hand intelligence, so they should heed your words and keep their mouths shut.

For you a hearty, Arab, upward jerk of the thumb, Lothar5150. Maybe a little twisting action too. ;)
It was to change when Saddam was taken out. It was to change when all the Ba'athists - right down to every Ba'athist state employed kindergarten teacher and army grunt - were kicked out on the streets. It was to change when people no longer feared Saddam might somehow come back out of hiding. It was to change once the "headquarters of resistance" (Fallujah) was turned into a smoldering ghost town. Tell me what happened to the resistance after each of those events.
Yes. However, I support a unified, secular Iraqi nation that does not call itself "Arab" for the same reason Canada does not call itself "English". For that reason I'm opposed to destabilisation operations in Sunni areas in preparation for elections. Also, I place higher value on the basic right to state sovereignty than democracy within the state, in accordance with the UN Charter. This is one reason I'm opposed to invasion under the banner of democracy.
If an Iraqi regime arises which is not both corrupt and absolutely dependent on the US for its survival, and may use Iraq's oil wealth as best profits the people of Iraq, then I'll say you've lost big time, Lothar5150. This would destroy your dollars faster than anyone can dump them. I think your government would rather slaughter millions than betray American interests so.

If something like the Saudis gain power in Iraq I'll say mission accomplished.

The Iraqis are very nationalistic so typically they are Iraqi first ethnic group second. As a rule the majority of Iraqis are ethically Arabs and all are culturally Arabs. Obviously minorities like Kurds, Assyrians and Jews are not ethnically Arab.

Yeah… Right

Where do you think they get their information, who produces ground truth? Think about it.

If you fundamentally believe in democracy then you have to support the push for Iraqi Democracy. It really doesn’t matter if you agreed with the war or thought that it violated the UN Charter. The fact is that we are here now and democracy is what is on the table.

So far as the issue of sovereignty. Of course you should take that position after all sovereignty is the divine right of one single individual by your system of government. However, in the United States we fundamentally believe that the sovereignty of a nation is derived from the will of the Majority and the consent of the minority. In other words the governed are the wellspring of sovereignty. Therefore, any government, which is not elected, is not sovereignty by our fundamental philosophy.

Just take a look at our countries respective military oaths. You swear alliance to a single person who by decree has the divine right to rule you. Take my oath to a defend a piece of paper by which my republic is formed. Note that I’m not even obligated to swear alliance to the United States as a Country or to the Presidential Office, Only to the Constitution. I think that this speaks volumes as to our fundamental view of the relationship of the government and the governed.

United States
I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the _______ of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Canada
I, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD (delete if declaration)


How so…I fail to see how Iraqis economic prosperity will lead to the downfall of America. I suppose like the Japanese and German economies lead us to economic ruin.

I know you have never been to Iraq, but let me inform you that they have more to offer economically than just oil. In fact, there economy has the potential to mirror my home state of California in its diversity.

No mission accomplished is when Iraqis have elected their own government written a constitution and take full responsibility for their own security.

Why the hell would you want the saudis to gain power in iraq? What have the saudis ever done besides sponsor terrorism and rule with an iron fist?

I can't imagine how someone who suposedly supports democracy would want one of the last surviving aboslute monarchies to gain power in a place that can potentially be the spark that spreads democracy throught the middle east.

Ahmed Chalabi? Remember how your government insisted you guys would be cheered as dear heroes, showered with rose blossoms in a great Liberation Day singalong? Where do they get their information is a good question. Alas, the highly credible protected sources your officials often referenced couldn't be revealed or Saddam would have their throats slit. Remember? I wonder what ever happened to those pre-war producers of ground truth.
So if I fundamentally believe in democracy then I have to support the push for democracy at Pro/Forums? First regime change by deadly force, then democracy or death to all who resist! No wait, you don't mean democratic process or democratic organisations and companies, you mean democratic election of representatives who dictate for a limited time. No wait, you mean just for states, not smaller entities or nebulous ones. I don't know, there's so much democracy to kill and die for... can't I just pick one city for this do or die operation? Can I pick my own?

Hey I know: you could force regime change among the United Nations through surgical strikes upon their headquarters - that world forum is bigger game than just a state isn't it? The UN's democratic structure needs an overhaul I say!
Nothing so quaint here. The Canadian idea of sovereignty is much like your own. We recognise popular sovereignty - that is we assume a government has popular support (including passive support, as where most citizens don't vote, etc.) and basically speaks for its people better than any other voice unless the people are throwing an enormous tantrum or filling up mass graves. The ceremony of election is welcome but not a condition of popular support and therefore sovereignty. We're easy to recognise de facto sovereignty over legal sovereignty also (e.g. Mainland China, whoever holds the sword and collects the garbage in Iraq, but don't get any ideas about the Northwest Passage).

We're very reluctant to deny sovereignty, especially in the absence of a good alternative, because this puts us a position we can't do anything constructive from (who do you talk to?). Denial of sovereignty I see as a prelude to war, a legal and ethical clearing for intervention or annexation. What other uses can it serve?

To me your definition of sovereignty seems crafted so that your government may operate freely in a legal abyss.

Anyway, we're bound by treaty to recognise and uphold sovereignty in accordance with the principles of the United Nations (Charter article 2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members"). We don't break treaties or bend them.

Your country too is a signatory to the same.
And here I thought the mysteries of civilisations revealed by choice of bayonet.

Well maybe one still can judge a Mountie's rank by the growth of his moustache. Or nowadays, the prominence of his turban. How's that for monkeywrenching my concession?
Innocent question, deep problem.

Because oil is the dominant commodity traded worldwide, and because your US dollar is the international currency used in oil trade, your country just keeps printing dollars (debt) which everyone needs to buy their oil with. America prints dollars at whim (fiat); the rest of the world trades you (and each other) those slips of paper for real value. That's brought about a complex in global finances called dollar hegemony: we even horde these dollars (your debt) as reserves to look tough on the banking scene. The world effectively subsidises the American economy. Neat, eh? You guys are now heavily in debt, and the rest of us must accept this debt because there's no alternative. I think it's about $20,000 for every American man, woman, and child currently.

Enter the euro. The EU buys more oil than the US. This makes it attractive to oil exporters. It also is more stable, wielding something like a basket of currencies. This makes it attractive to all as a reserve currency. Sinking feeling? The euro gains against the dollar.

Enter Saddam Hussein. He declares the US dollar "enemy currency" and converts the Oil-for-Food fund into Euros, making an enormous profit instantly as euro builds against the dollar. He decrees that henceforth Iraq's oil must be bought with euros not US dollars.This means oil importers must exchange some of their dollar currency reserves to euro if they want Iraqi oil. It actually looks like a pretty good deal all around. Saddam thinks he has nothing to lose.The dollar slides.

Enter the US Marines, straight to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. They liberate it, and Freedom is installed: henceforth, Iraq's oil must be bought with US dollars not euros. Regime changed; mission accomplished. OPEC countries take note.

So the war is about oil, as much as it is about your monstrous debt and the shiny new alternative, euro (mark the countries most opposed to the war, something click?). It's basically about protecting American interests, the main interest being the embarrassing necessity of sustaining debt. Of course a justification for war so crassly vicious would not go over well with the American public, or any public, and it isn't very stirring anyway. But your leaders are willing to kill and destroy for this, because for them the health of the economy matters more than the lives or livelihood of foreigners. It's certainly more important than cheap oil for American consumers at the pump (Cheney: "What's so bad about high oil prices?"), and it's more important than another country's economic interests of course.

Now the fact is Iraq will do right by its citizens to denominate their fantastic oil wealth (production and reserves) in euros. That was true before regime change, it's truer today, and more yet after elections because your dollar's falling steadily against the euro despite this crucial save from a full tilt run. Now if a country like Iraq repeated that sudden switch, in today's climate, all hell would break loose. You know about the Vietnam domino theory. That, but through the markets of the world, fast as they can carry it. Zip.

It's in my interests nobody make any sudden moves, by the way. I don't want a global depression. Your fellow Americans will help to wind the dollar down nice and slow. You can put on a brave face and call it charity.
I'll bet twelve years of sanctions did teach them diversity, yeah. And all power to them now. Except one caveat Iraq's return to normalcy will be good for everyone.
In other words, US forces will stop fighting in Iraq when there's nobody left to fight. Like that's going to happen.

***
"Mission accomplished" was tongue in cheek. Anyway the Saudis are the lynchpin of the petrodollar system; they effectively set OPEC policy. They hold OPEC to US currency in exchange for US security guarantees against external and internal threats to their hated throne. The US has supplied them with a fully equipped air force, SWAT teams, satellite imagery and other intel, and of course Bush Senior's "line in the sand" to defend the Saudis though his own CIA had no reason to believe Saddam wanted more than annexation of Kuwait. They're America's ally, though neither party likes to admit it. The arrangement is mutually beneficial.

I'm with you superart. I can't imagine how someone who supposedly supports democracy would want anything like the corrupt Saudis pulling the strings.

How is Chalabi relevant to where we are now? My point is that ground truth is derived by US forces on the ground. I was one of the guys on the ground. So yes, my opinion is as expert as anyone in the administration. By the way, I was greeted with waves and smiles.

No, you don’t have to support it at Pro/Forums, but this is where the thread got started. Sarcasm translates poorly in to the written word. It requires a certain measure of body language. Further, it's really not a rebuttal.

Here is my position. I am a member of Amnesty International, but I am a realist and I realize that a letter writing campaign to a tyrant is a complete waist of time. Do you honestly think that dictators care about letters? If the guy was not elected and took over by force do you honestly think he has a real conscious you can appeal too.

See here is the problem. You have a hammer and you think every problem is a nail. This is where you can affect peaceful reform. The UN and Democratic institutions are open to letter writing and speeches...there is a conscious you can appeal ...You need to understand which is the right tool for the right job.

No legal abyss. It's pretty simple true sovereignty is comes from the people. No matter how you may view your selves you are still subjects, not citizens and it is clear by your oath.

The UN Charter needs some amending. In fact, this is being looked at right now. The fact is that when the UN was formed we had to fully recognize non-democratic nations, because the only 10 democratic nations existed. 121 Democratic nations now exist. I personally believe in the principals of the UN but I have real issue with non-democratic nations having equal voice with democratic nations. Do you honestly think that totalitarian governments like North Korea have there peoples interest in mind?



I'm not too concerned with the grooming habits of your Mounties.


As much as you might like to see us go down economically, I think you should look at the real economic numbers. Our current debt is 64% of GDP. Now being an economic conservative, I believe that we should get that down to about 20-30% and all held by citizens or US companies. Now actual economic growth is 2.5% per year completely consistent with the last 50 years. While or total debt is only about 10% higher than the past 50 years. So where is this going? The trade deficit is our biggest problem right now. We import far too much from other counties and export too little. However, the slipping dollar is a way to correct the trade imbalance. The cheaper our goods are to foreign countries particularly Canada and EU the more the will be exported. Further, the percentage of Debt to GDP will go down in this process.

As far as oil, prices are concerned. We hold the trump card. It is called the Strategic Oil Reserve. 30 years of oil in storage. Don’t think for a minute that we cant control the price of oil if we want too.

Nevertheless, thanks for the lecture on Macro-Economics :rolleyes: ...see the eyes that is sarcasm

When Iraq has an elected government. People will feel that they have a real stake in there government, there fore they will take full ownership of their security and US Forces will be replacing with Iraqi Forces. Is that so difficult to understand. :rolleyes: ...see the eyes again.

Afghanistan Republic :D

You originally claimed something like just 13% of Iraqis presently want US forces out of their country. Are you now saying the poll you mis-quoted (actual figure is 58% "leave immediately") is wrong? Sure I won't contest the smiles and waves greeting you, since you say so. If both are true I can only assume Marines have lost hearts and minds in the meantime, somehow. Share your expert opinion.
Huh? AI and moral appeal to despots is your problem. I don't "honestly think" any of those things. I do honestly think this must be your own thing bugging you and now you're projecting it onto me so you can finally win your inner debate about it. Now think honestly: why don't you just quit the letter writing?

You, on the other hand, have a real "conscious" I can appeal to, even if your last sentence was another involuntary projection.

***

Alternatives to Amnesty International? Boycotting is illegal in your country, but you can still write letters that are purposeful. I don't try to justify my position to a party. I just figure out the most harm I can do them conveniently and without risk to myself, then tell them what I'm doing and what they have to do to change it.

I don't believe government officials (including leaders) are much moved by appeals to conscience, and that's universally true: it hasn't moved North Korea's Kim Jong Il, it didn't move South Africa's de Klerk, and the UK's Tony Blair didn't bat an eye when over a million demonstrators gushed through London. What were they going to do? Give him pause?

I think the only forces politicians of any kind can't shirk are threats to their position or personal finances. Position can be threatened by elections or tomahawk missiles. Where the official relies on support from financial elites, then economic "argument" works. Most governments also operate within legal constraints, internal and external, so reminders of their legal obligations work too.
I don't see how the UN or democratic institutions should be susceptible to flakey letter writing campaigns. They aren't structured to take input in that way. Democracy is fundamentally bureaucratic.
You won't recognise de facto sovereignty, nor legal sovereignty, only sovereignty popping out of the ballot-box. This dilated (and illegal) criteria of sovereignty creates an interesting landscape of non-sovereign zones. But you say that's no legal abyss - so I wonder how your country's laws engage these negated countries.

I think your concept of sovereignty undeveloped and, well, utterly useless. You must float ballot boxes off shore to maintain territorial waters. Many countries don't legally exist. I ask again: what useful purpose does this serve? That's not a rhetorical question.
I think the California law actually says you can't ride your horse into the tavern.
The US Constitution needs amending. The fact is, when that parchment was inked in the 1700's America was both isolated and exceptional. Globalisation and the vertical proliferation of democracy prompts a fundamental rewriting, to recognise the now well-established Higher Laws and Principles, and clearly affirm international law as the Supreme Law of the land.

***

You say "we" "had to" recognise non-democratic countries. But the UN isn't about you, or democratic countries. It's a democratic congress of nations, not a congress of democratic nations.

I am open to revising the UN. You say that's prompted by the fact that now democratic governments constitute a majority of the General Assembly. Are you thinking the GA should have more power? Binding resolutions for example? Or maybe your eye for democracy reviews the dictatorial oligarchy of the Security Council? Perhaps the SC dignitaries could have ceremonial function only, and refrain from pronouncements, like Canada's Queen. We could tour them about in a motorcade. Of course SC states would participate fully in the GA and enjoy great respect therein. What do you have in mind?
No government is perfect, some offer little more than anarchy, others are cruel. Ultimately though they do represent their people better than any other. If there's a nuclear exchange on the Korean Peninsula ,you can guess Pyongyang didn't bomb Pyongyang, and trident subs didn't vapourise their naval base plus Chinhae, let alone Chicago, Illinois.
I thought currency exchange rates were real numbers. What do I know - I'm just watching the dollar sink... er, descend purposefully.
In a natty hat too. :D Looking good.

That figure comes directly from Gallup. Get an account and check it for yourself. All I did was cut and paste there analysis. However, I can say that their analysis matches my expert opinion of things on the ground in Iraq and those of my friend who went back for second tours. Further, the figures match Ghazi Al-Yawar statements last night on Charlie Rose. If you missed the interview I recommend you try and watch it when it re-airs.

No involuntary projections here. LOL, the letters I write weight between 500 and 2000 lbs. My point was that you need to have the right strategy for the right set of circumstances. In Iraq the only way you were to bring about any positive change was through force.

Boycotting is Illegal??? I give to Amnesty because there fundamental beliefs match mine; however, they piss into the wind a lot. I actually sprung guys form Iraqi Jails that were prisons of conscious. That required a gun, not a letter. Further, the average Iraqi is safe to be critical of the government now. Which is more that letter writing can do…see my point.

Leaders in a democracy are held accountable by their constituents. You can be cynical about the process all you want but look what happened to the Former Governor of California. Further, the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage movements both appealed to conscious. Gandhi appealed to conscious but that only works in a democracy.


The US recognizes the de-facto sovereignty of lots of non-democratic nations. However, if you look at the fundamental philosophy of our republic, you will find that the basis for sovereignty is derived from the governed.

Obviously for practical reasons you must recognize the leader of a nation state which is non-democratic. However, I think that status should be something other than sovereignty. Sovereignty should only be granted to states that derive their power through the ballot box. Further, I think they should hold provisional status in the UN until such time that they become a democratic state.

Yep and you can only bet your wife once a week unless she says it is ok.

The US Constitution is the finest constitution ever crafted. In fact, it is the model for all modern constitution. Further, it is a living document, which means it has and continues to evolve. What would you amend??

International law will have a place but it is a long way away from protecting the rights individuals. Perhaps when the world is fully democratic we can have international laws as Supreme Law. However, the lager the scope the more nonspecific laws become and I think we are 100 years or so away from democratic world.

We democratic nations, 10 total at the time of ratification. The UN will lack real authority until it is a democratic congress of democratic nations.


Only If non-democratic nations are excluded as voting members

I find it amazing that you would just accept the status que when it comes to non-democratic governments. I suppose as long as you have your freedom you’ll accept the subjugation of others.

In the 21st Century, I honestly do not know if you could morally justify vaporizing Pyongyang. If we knew there were no other attacks coming, I think we would go the conventional route. Nukes are primitive, clumsy weapons and we have surgeons now.

A week dollar is good for a trade deficit. Which is what we suffer from right now. In fact, right now a lot of Euros are being pumped into the economy via real estate. LOL….we took many Japanese Yen like this…LOL

AFAICT this is a response to Kobuchi's
Yes? If so, you haven't answered his point of the US invasion being a response to this "dollar hegemony" being threatened. (apologies if I'm mis-construing this comment as a reply to that).
Back when the US was ramping up to invasion, when there were street protests before the war, this seemed like the most likely reason for this rush to war, not the series of lame reasons that we got, one after another, until it was finally "support our troops". When we get to "dollar hegemony, it's economics, of course - where there are several conflicting answers for every question :)

BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative, too. How exactly is the current administration being fiscally conservative? Or do you figure the point of deflating the dollar to be an attempt to reverse the current balance of trade? Didn't we once have a balanced budget? Where'd that go?

Sorry war for dollar hegemony is lunacy. There is a left or a right wing conspiracy theory for why the sun comes up every morning. Wars cost billions and there are no guarantees…as a pure accounting exercise you will loose every time.
Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States…let me say that again Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States. Now all together, Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States.

The top five largest importers of oil to the US account for 71% of all oil imported and only one is in Southwest Asia (Middle East for old school). Two are just South of the United States one is obviously just North. The fifth country is in Sub-Saharan Africa. The dollar hegemony doesn’t stand to the realities of the oil trade. If we really wanted to get our hands on oil, we could just take down Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Hell the Cub Scouts could take down Canada with a Hockey stick and a six-pack of Labatt Blue.


Despite the present shrinking dollar, our economy is still the most productive in the world. Moreover, will continue to be so in the next century. Look by, 2020 30% of China's population will be over 60 and a third of young males will have not possibility of reproduction due to the imbalance of men to women. 60 is well past productive years for a 2nd world country and I’d say it is likely that a third of the male population will move out of China. Japan and France will have an even larger percentage over 60 the rest of Europe looks much like France. Africa...is largely dying of HIV and I don't say that to be glib, it is a real tragedy. Futility rates in Latin America are below replacement levels and the Middle East has the lowest reproduction rates on the planet. What does this mean? Most of the worlds populations will not have an opportunity to gain wealth before the become old. While most other nations are currently, at there respective economic peeks and can expect to loose productivity over the next 50 years. On the other hand, America has a well educated largely stable population our mean age will max out at 39. This means our economy will remain strong and highly productive compared with all other nations.

I think that the present administration is relying too heavily on economic growth to bring down the deficit. The shrinking dollar is reversing the trade deficit, how much will be the question. Right now, the French are screaming bloody murder because they are being killed on exports to the US. In the mean time, many EU investors are buying up property in NYC. As I said in the previous post, we played this same game with Japan. Everyone said the Japanese were going to own America….

You are correct we did have a balanced budget at one time and I would like to see us go back to a balanced budget. However, the present deficit is largely due to tax cuts. I think it is good logic to assume tax cuts stimulate growth but I think you have to cut programs with taxes. The military budget is very streamlined even for a war (just a percent over the Clinton Budget), what do you cut fellow fiscal conservative.

Yes, of course invading a country to protect dollar hegemony is lunacy. The whole rush to war was lunacy. The stated reasons did not add up and the necessity was not there. So why did they (really "we", but I tried hard to not do it) invade? War on terror? Nah - no connection to alquaida. WMDs? Nah - we didn't let the UN inspector scenario play out. Desire to free Iraqi people from tin-pot despot? Nah - the US has a history of not deposing despots.
So that leaves a rush to war to make sure we're having victory celebrations in time for the Nov presidential elections (possible - seems to have worked in spite of the slow going there). Or possibly some other reason. Protect dollar hegemony? Protect Israel? Shore up relations with Saud family? Special vendetta against Hussein because of an attempt on GWH Bush's life? Something else?

If I was going to spend this kind of money and blood to rescue a people, I'd be in Colombia. They want democracy, and are standing up to terrorism in a way that totally shames this country (we get one major terrorist act and end up with the patriot act - they're under much worse assault and are still trying to maintain citizen rights).

We've already tried to invade and annex Canada. You know the story, including ol' Benedict not getting the recognition he thought he deserved... As far as Canada now not being able to defend against a hockey stick, well, first, that was totally uncalled for, and second, do you really want to start an asymmetrical war with a country you share a three thousand mile border with? Think they'd stay home or would a sizable minority bring the war to us? It'd be just like Nazi Germany, trying to sort out infiltrators. ("Your papers please...")
All that said, if Quebec separates, the Indian nations to the north will try to separate from them, and given the recent history of the Mohawks, this will be armed. We could easily be drawn into that one (and it would be in our national interest to see it settled). If that scenario plays out, it's quite possible that the maritimes might eventually become part of the US.

Finally, what would I cut? Well, there's a war that we rushed into. Because of the rush, we're getting essentially no financial backing from the rest of the world - and they'd be idiots to give us money after we rushed right past the consensus process as it would just encourage us to do it again.
We probably disagree on the value of consensus. I would guess that, as a Marine, you get very little exposure to it. I live in a consensus based community. My experience with is is that, although it can be slow and unwieldy at times, it does a really good job of keeping you from doing something stupid - or at least knowing that it's stupid before you do it
On a more macro level, trying to become "world policeman" on our own is a very bad sign. Seems to me Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" was on that "Marine University" list. Care to poke some holes in his observations/theories?

How about over 10 years of constant violations of a cease-fire. How about not allowing unimpeded inspections of facilities to UN inspectors. How about the fact that he had and used WMD in the past and the reasonable assumption is that he will use them if he has them. I know you guys think that we in the military and intelligence services are infaluable but maybe the Intel was bad. Protect Israel; give me a break…from whom. Shore up relations with Saudi Royal Family…what by creating a Democratic Republic next door…Yeh that helps their hold on power. Special vendetta against Hussein because of an attempt on GWH Bush's life, Why not, he was our President but doubtful.

It seems to me that Latin America has made great strides toward democracy through gental persuasion. The right tool for the right job.

We were only after a small part of Canada the area around the Great Lakes and that was during the War of 1812 not the revolution. We burned the Canadian Parliament but it was more a raid than a campaign for occupation, mostly militia. Besides I was making a point not advocating a policy, come on Bob :dome:

Therefore, you advocate pulling out of Iraq now regardless of the long-term consequences of that action, based on economic grounds.

No disagreement on the value of consensus I believe in democracy enough to die for the idea. Again a misconception of US Military Culture. You have no idea how democratic the planning process is inside the Marine Corps. We practice bottom up planning, top down review. Rational debate occurs at every level, But when the man in charge makes a final decision everyone support that decision as if it were their own. As professionals we all understand that there usually several logical courses of action, and someone has to make the final call. Further, there are times when I don’t expect to be questioned, for instance if we were under fire, I make the call no debate. I contrast that with my experience working with the British. Who have almost pure top down planning, top down review. Almost no debate at any level occurs during the planning process and that is how they ended up with catastrophes like Gallipoli.

I personally think that our status forces us to be the world police in some cases. Look at Kosovo, if we did not commit to intervention no one was going to intervene. I haven’t read Kennedy’s book yet but I am intimate with the subject. I think that it is difficult to compare America with previous great powers because our very nature is different. We never seek to hold foreign territory. In countries like Germany and Japan, our troops haven’t remained as occupiers. We are there literally as guest of the host nation. There are no issues of extra territoriality with regard to our citizens or troops. Further, once we have defeated a country it is turned into an autonomous democracy with strong economy. Normally, we continue to have great symbiotic political, military and trade relationships with these counties. Contrast that with the nature of the Colonel European Powers.

I think that every one should be very happy that the country that is now the world power is dedicated to the democratization of the world vice the subjugation of the world.

Freudian slip? or typo?

;)

the Spanish white blood ? - ohhh, too hot for me (and I have a Latina wife !)
'bout the only good part in the last 10 pages

LOL...what a great typo

From the poll you refer to:
------------------------------
Question G8: "Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?"

Baghdad
Immediately 75%
Stay longer 21%

Shi’ite areas
Immediately 61%
Stay longer 30%

Sunni areas
Immediately 65%
Stay longer 27%

Kurdish areas
Immediately 3%
Stay longer 96%

Total
Immediately 57%
Stay longer 36%
--------------------------------

That 13% is the portion of Iraqis who, when prompted to volunteer random hopes about their futures, said they want US/UK forces to leave the country.

That's three times now. Lothar5150, your credibility.

All written from your conscious?
Office of Antiboycott Compliance
Though individuals aren't free to boycott by their own conscience and discretion, government enforced boycott (sanction) is legal. The antiboycott laws are very broad. A Home Depot storeclerk in Mexico for example is covered by the US antiboycott laws when a customer asks where a certain product comes from. The clerk is required to try and identify the individual and submit a report of the incident. Violators can be fined, imprisoned, or put on the "denied persons list" which is essentially a blacklist, a sort of boycott in itself. The foreign storeclerk could be fired and blacklisted for neglecting the antiboycott procedures.

The antiboycott laws were originally meant to... er, protect freedom... of Israeli business during the Arab embargo.

The US Presbyterian Church so far has skirted antiboycott laws by terming its ethical selection "disinvesting". They make clear this is not boycott. ;) "Disinvesting" of terrorism and crimes against humanity in Israel/Palestine. B'nai B'rith regards that the church policy also excludes business with the IDF a "hostile and aggressive" action, and I must say the Presbyterian Church really is flouting the letter and spirit of the law. What they should do is lobby for government sanctions, so their own boycott becomes law.
That's great Iraqis can snigger at Allawi when he "addresses the people of Iraq" speaking english, and when they're forbidden from public demonstrations, a raft of newspapers raided or shut down, journalists shot, and there are Allawi-issued scripts newspapers must include in their text when touching on certain issues (this by written order), but the average Iraqi is safe to be critical.

But I get your point: it's more than letter writing can do. The options are: a flakey written appeal to conscience, or charging in with an automatic rifle. This or that. I'll better you: it's more than doodling can do. Or flossing regularly. Way more. You'd have made a stronger point saying we can floss all we like but it won't change the world like opening up with an automatic rifle.

"Prisons of conscious" ?! I'm no spelling nazi, but come on, this is creepy.
Conscious
Conscience
Why not simply call those sovereigns de facto sovereigns then if you can't acknowledge the tacit consent of those governed by a system you dislike? It just seems like an exercise in ranking and consolidation to me. Some states are more equal?

You refuse to explain what useful purpose it serves. I suppose your goal is to mark the evil ones for pariah status. Let's see where that leads: single out some countries, drive them into corners, strike the rogues, enable new governments indebted to your own, then they get a voice among the United Nations.

It won't fly. We made Iraq a pariah state and now most of us realise that was wrong. Better go the South Africa route. Look: that brutal tyrrany was a nuclear power and had a stranglehold on precious resources, yet we moved it allright and not by letter-writing nor military threat. We didn't have to destroy the country to save it. If we'd backed South Africa into a corner by the antidiplomacy you advocate (denial of equal UN membership, etc.) for undemocratic states, we would have failed. Failed because we would have made the situation worse, ultimately violent, extremely violent. No more pariah states, thanks.

Well I don't think anyone has the right to tamper with a foreign constitution. But one thing of concern to me is that treaties made with foreign powers are supposed by your Constitution to be "the Supreme Law of the land" and yet your country openly flouts treaties, even those that by unanimity among states we call International Laws. If I may make a request, it is this idea that your treaties with foreign powers are Supreme Law either be upheld, or stricken from the Constitution as quaint and outdated.

What does "in fact" mean here? It's so hollow in meaning it reduces to intent, a thing of pure will. Think about it. Remember Cheney's assertion, "...we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Same thing.

Some constitutions are modeled after the US Constitution, not all. I challenge you to show how Canada's constitutional documents are modeled after the (older) American. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) is largely snippets from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It totally does protect us all. No muzzle flashes so maybe you just don't see that in action. International law is when two or more countries agree to something, put it in writing. International law is vast and working constantly to protect you and enable your prosperity. You can't even fathom.
You're on a different track, and I'll have to blame the mainstream anti-war movement for that. Their consumer assumption was that the Bush administration wanted to secure Middle Eastern oil for cheaper import to the US. "No blood for oil" they chanted. It was true the Bush administration wanted to secure Iraq's oil, plainly. But not for US import.

Dollar hegemony isn't about US import of oil. It's about US currency used externally to the US. The dominant commodity, oil, is normally bought and sold in US dollars. Your country has agreements with some OPEC countries to keep oil transactions in dollars. When oil flows from Kuwait to Japan, for example, the Japanese pay US dollars because that's what the Emir demands in exchange. So the Japanese must hold US dollars (AKA petrodollars) in reserve, and they must keep sucking up US dollars somehow - the obvious way being to manufacture stuff Americans will buy. For its part, the US can simply print more and more money, which is debt but sustainable so long as the system of dollar hegemony holds. All you have to do is maintain the dollar pricing convention over foreign oil resources, and you effectively own all the oil in the ground everywhere. So imagine the consequences if Kuwait decides to sell oil in euros. How much oil Americans import from Kuwait doesn't matter in this context, you see.

We'd pull the plug. But let's be friends. Have some more beef product.

Naw man, our snipers would be picking the Cub Scouts off from kilometers away.

Once they convert the range into football fields, though, they'll just strike from greater distance. The Americans always win these fights through superior cowardice of attack. Better wage war with our tireless reserves of unconventional cowardice.

What does the question ask “Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?” Is it immediately or the next few months. In the actual Gallup analysis vice the USA Today analysis, decided that this was a bad question. Look at the wording, the first half to the sentence is not clear. The term immediately clearly means now. The term ‘next few months’ means in three or more months in the future. At the very best, you can assume that the Iraqis would like US troops to leave in three months or more.

Further when asked about their greatest fears for Iraq only 26% stated that their biggest fear was continued occupation by the United States. The remaining 74% were largely concerned with security, terrorism, and civil war etc…all stability concerned. Therefore, I suppose my credibility is bad if you focus on a poorly written question whose data is inconsistent with the data set.


Kobuchi it is to prevent our international corporations from being strong-armed into contracts with foreign corporations or governments that support that foreign country’s boycott. If you as an individual or company decide you don’t want to buy French goods you are entitled to do just that. What you may not do is enter into an agreement/contract not to do business with a certain country.

Two words Afghanistan Republic

Sounds good to me


Well I think that France is a fine example of a county who the United States Liberated and now feels completely indebted to the United States and often uses its security counsel vote to stand lock step with the US.

South Africa was still a relatively open society with a well-educated population and it was a democracy to the same extent the United States was a democracy in 1860. In the case of South Africa you could use economic a political pressure to bring about change. Further, they had a lot of internal pressure as well as a fundamental respect for the rule of law. You can compare a South Africa with a Ba’athist Iraq. Again, you still don’t understand the idea of using the right tool for the right job.

Please give me an example of a treaty we have broken.


LOL your kidding right…Eleanor Roosevelt was the chief architect of that document. Wow, it is astonishingly close to the close the United States Bill of Rights. So you see your source document was inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Oh and we have only had one United States Constitution. Please advise me as to what older version you are referring.

I said the rights of individuals not trade agreements. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did do jack shit for the 400,000 Iraqis we found in mass graves. How was international law protecting their rights?

Well first off, even if the Emir decided to take Euros instead of US Dollars it would not collapse our economy. We would simply start shrinking our money supply. We adjust the number of dollars in circulation regularly. Secondly, we found hundreds of millions of US dollars in Iraq. Obviously, the Euro was not the smugglers preferred currency.

Here is the deal the US economy is strong because we are the most productive economy on the planet and we have an abundance of diverse natural recourses. It is pretty much that simple.

I am not sure I get the joke.

So what do you consider brave Kobuchi.

Hand to hand combat with swords and clubs.

Thats how real men fight, dontchaknow?

OK, enough said.
Not just corporate "persons":
Office of Antiboycott Compliance - Who Is Covered by the Laws?
-------------------
all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates.
...
Generally, the TRA applies to all U.S. taxpayers (and their related companies).
-----------------
Not just agreements/contracts:
Office of Antiboycott Compliance - What's Prohibited?


Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
-------------------
And again a "person" here includes a company or corporation.

I think we'll agree the spirit of the laws is pro-Israel. The letter of the laws though is broadly anti-boycott.

You cannot boycott "French" companies. You can't even identify a company as being "French". Nor "Canadian" for that matter. Moreover:

---------------------
The EAR requires U.S. persons to report quarterly requests they have received to take certain actions to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.
----------------------
You're a "US person" right, Lothar5150? Heh. Want some paperwork?

I guess you'll tell me the laws are poorly written and I'm just not interpreting them properly.
One word Vietnam? Oh, the two word rule: Saudi Arabia?

Anyway Afghanistan was totally ruined by proxy war, and now you tell me it was war that improved it?! Let's just say Afghanistan is where it is today because of war.
I'll admit a selfish interest in this issue. You see, I can vote. But my son (underage) and wife (non-citizen) cannot. My vote carries their tacit approval, and they're governed. I also help represent all those qualified voters who don't bother to cast a ballot - they leave the decisions to me, and they're governed.

Now, you're saying that only those most pure ballots should count. Those supposed to represent non-voting individuals shouldn't be counted. How does that work? I represent people, perhaps contrary to their real political wishes, but this is wrong because I shouldn't be allowed to presume or impose? But if my wife acquires citizenship, my son reaches voting age, and I drive my neighbour to the polling station, then my ballot is acceptable because it is truely self-interested without representing anyone else?

Then we have the various organs of the UN, pretending at democratic process when, as you point out, they're tainted by the nonelected: the WHO is riddled with agents from undemocratic countries, as is Interpol, the Economic Commission for Africa, the International Seabed Authority, and so on. And all these representatives who pretend to speak for those who didn't elect them, should be silenced?

Democratic representation or no representation at all?

What about the unelected Security Council? Bar those from the General Assembly?

Even your National Endowment for Democracy ought to have its funding suspended by your argument - those self-appointed hypocrites conduct their internal operations without a glimmer of democratic process. They've had the same "president" since 1984!

Hmm. Time to reform NATO? Only generals fairly and transparently elected by their troops may speak? Why not?

OK. Now for the last time I ask what useful purpose it would serve to isolate countries within the United Nations.
?!
I believe she was the most visible champion yes, especially in your country of course, but not an architect by any means. John Peters Humphrey (longtime director of UN Human Rights Division) is credited as the principal drafter and organiser.
Check the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute's web site, and read between the lines:
"Unlike most other members of the Commission, Mrs. Roosevelt was neither a scholar nor an expert on international law. Her enthusiasm ..."
"Although she often joked that she was out of place among so many academics and jurists..."
"With characteristic modesty, Eleanor Roosevelt considered her position on the Commission to be one of ambassador..."
To make a long story short, the delegates decided Roosevelt best suited to the task of chairperson. You must know what that means.
These documents appear, to me, surprisingly far removed considering they should cover the same matters.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
US Bill of Rights
I hadn't read this Bill of Rights before. It's not really a Bill of Rights is it? It's your constitutional amendments, most of them directed at police, specifically limiting police powers.
I was just confirming we're talking about Canadian constitutional documents newer than the US Constitution, because our laws grew from British laws.
You exhumed the remains of 400,000 people? And these were not military and civilian victims of Iraq's three recent overt wars, two earlier rebellions, disease or starvation? So what happened? Did certain Iraqi's tell you go there and dig a hole yankie, Saddam did it.

Anyway, how was international law protecting their rights? Well, no law has the magical power to enforce itself. I could say the US Constitution does jack shit to protect your rights, since in reality it's the concrete acts of lawful minded citizens who protect them. A police officer could indicate his gun to you and say the Bill of Rights does jack shit but that gun does protect your rights. That's your argument. Why? What are you trying to say?

The debt clock just struck $25,646.84 ...per US citizen, all ages. That's not money you can "simply" adjust at will. It's out of your hands. You don't think a run on the dollar possible?
Sure, that's right.
Sure, and less productive economies are weak because they are weak economies.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly America enjoys great natural wealth of resources too. This is why Canada should apply tariffs to many of your exports, just as the US illegally penalises Canada's "unfair" production of softwood lumber. I bring this up because you asked for an example of broken treaty, NAFTA in this case.
Supposing bravery the obverse of cowardice? Another debate.
The suffragette Alice Miller, in Why We Don't Want Men to Vote(1915):
-----------------
Why We Don't Want Men to Vote
- Because man's place is in the army.
- Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
- Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no longer look up to them.
- Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
- Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government.
----------------

Yes you are misinterpreting both the spirit and letter of the law. I recommend that you at least take a few law courses be for you comment on US Law. Again this is all about participation in a forign countres boycott.

Perhaps you should make a complaint about Bill O’Reilly call for a Boycott of France. Please advise us as to the outcome.

[quote=Kobuchi] One word Vietnam? Oh, the two word rule: Saudi Arabia? [quote=Kobuchi]
Only those completely ignorant of history would make a comparison with the present conflict and Vietnam. The only comparison is in the type of warfare.

What is it America’s fault that the Soviets Invaded Afghanistan? Lets see hear. The Soviet invade and ruin the county they pull out and anarchy in sues. American forces invade and help establish a democracy for the first time in Afghanistan’s history….yep we are bad people…to the bone evil.


Your wife is Japanese, yes? Then she may vote in her own land thanks to the United States of America. Citizenship and minimum voting age are part of any democracy therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand. Bureaucratic organizations tasked by democratic organizations are normal. ALL of our democracies have them and again this is not relevant.


Its is being looked at right now. What is your point?

Irrelevant, they don’t govern an any capacity

You’re kidding right? NATO has civilian leadership and a parliment. Please let me know which NATO country is not a democracy. Again, military organizations are bureaucratic arms of the democratic state not a governing body.

It sends a clear message that tin pot dictators do not have the same authority as those leaders who represent the collective will and consent of their people. Further, they don’t get a equal voice because they don’t represent their people.


You ignore the obvious.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually from the United States Declaration of independence. They just replace pursuit of happiness with security of person.

Article 4 is the 13 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 5 is the 8 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 6 is the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 7 is the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 9 is part of the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 10 is part of the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

Articles 18 and 19 are part of the 1 Amendment to the US Constitution

Now I can cut you a break on the article three because you may not be familiar with the declaration of independence and the 13th Amendment is part of the original Bill of Rights but he rest is obvious. I could continue to compare but I think it would belabor the point.


No, I did not personally exhume anyone but I did see the graves they are all over southern Iraq. The graves are from Saddam ordering entire villages exterminated. How do we know? I witness accounts from other villages and the physical evidence. The sear number of children found in the graves suggest it was completely indiscriminate...not collateral damage. Saddam's track records in these matters are obvious. This will all come out in his trial.

Your right there is no magic however, the US Constitution is enforceable. There is no international body for enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an individual. The only counties which truly honor that document are though who have element written into their own constitution or where the inspiration for the elements.


Canada’s debt is 77% of GDP if you really worry about public debt, I would worry about your own house. Our debt may be a larger number but it is only 62.4% of GDP in fact Canadian debt per person is only about $3,000 less and your average income is about $10,000 lower.

Some numbers for perspective
National Debts by GDP

UK 51%
United States 62.4%
Germany 64.2%
Austria 67.6%
France 68.8%
Canada 77%
Japan 154.6%

As you can see we all, live in glass houses. The joke is that it is all fiat, just paper Kobuchi, just paper. You should have learned that in economics 101A. We base the value of that paper on the GDP and how many pieces of paper in circulation. If you reduce the number of pieces of paper in circulation then the value of exchange for each piece of paper becomes higher when compared with other pieces of paper. The United States GDP is 11 Trillion the world economy 51 trillion. Since the US is, a 1/5 of the words GDP that alone ensures the US Dollars place in trade not oil.

Try again the agreement regarding softwoods ended March 31, 2001.


Honestly, only a woman would post that.

Are you talking to me, or my pastes from the government site?

The spirit of the law, I said, is pro-Israel.

--------------
Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today.

Boycott Alert
U.S. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of Israel.
--------------

Browse the site, you'll find many protective references to Israel, and none to any other boycott target. That's fine by me, just let's be honest where the pointy end of these laws falls on the political compass.

----------------
Antiboycott Laws:
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).
-------------------

What are they ashamed of? Just say Arab embargo. Say Israel. Otherwise, without spelling it out, the letter of the law must be all-inclusive, like so:

-------------------
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
-------------------

The object is to stop people from saying "Israeli business" but, to appear unbiased, the law blankets all and renders normal and harmless discrimination illegal. Just read that last paste again. Such sweeping grandeur is too broad even for a human rights charter. You can't deny "Israeli" cheeses nor "French" cheeses, though you may reject "Golan goat" or "Bree" as you please. That's the law.

The accepted practice though is governed not so much by these laws as it is by a system of winks and nods. So we all understand boycotting French companies naughty but patriotic, while boycotting Israeli ones a deal with Osama. That extrajudicial system's fine by me if it works for you - it's your nation.

Now, back to where we started. The antiboycott laws plainly state boycotting (not state sanctions) is illegal. Just the name antiboycott gives that away, don't you think? Who is covered by the laws? "US taxpayers", the law says. "US persons", it says. So how am I misinterpreting the letter of the law?
I'm a foreign national, for one thing, and that mechanism is for American use. For another, it would be naive of me to think Bill O’Reilly or off-record officials can't supersede your written laws.
Afghanistan was ruined by proxy warfare. Man, your own country built the Taliban, puffed bin Laden up, taught psycho little war orphans to chant, "Death to the secularists! Jihad! Jihad!" in the madrassas and then taught them explosives in "freedom fighter" camps. Who says so? The CIA says so. If you don't think that's bad go talk to the 9/11 families. OK then help Afghanistan with another twist by declaring war on your own thoroughly odious jihadists once they've lost all credibility and usefulness, install a new regime. So when's the next War on Afghanistan? When Karzai declares indefinite martial law, or later, when he's assassinated? It should ideally be after Americans forget how he got to power. Then you can point to that tottering Islamic Republic and say how awful we need to go in and fix the poor country.

Not "bad", not "evil" - not future friendly either. And that Americans suffered blowback doesn't vindicate US policy for making Afghanistan a hornet's nest for the Soviets. Peace and stability, in my opinion, would have been better for Afghanistan and all concerned than this 30 years of US sponsored proxy warfare and regime change. Not evil; shortsighted, again and again.

Let us see if your present denial of history to prove a moment isn't yet another twist in it.

***

It took some goading but I extracted the useful purpose:
Tin pot dictators know well enough their authority is tenuous. That's why they resign their countries to the verge of anarchy, and rely on soldiers to enforce the few laws. Of course they'd love to wield the same powers enjoyed by election, if they can set that up.

The other stripe of dictator is the popular strongman, unelected yes but enjoying real support, for a while.

Both types face militant opposition, as a rule, at home or threatened by other regimes, the US or Russia or Rwanda for example, depending on the foreign interests. They'll always get the "message", from one party or another, that people don't support the regime. Arming militant opposition groups sends a clear message. Often the message has teeth enough to thoroughly destabilise the country and keep it under martial law, anarchy, or civil war. This is the effect of intensifying the message.

So your suggestion is not helpful. But how does it look on paper?

Charter Article 1 (Purposes):
1.1 security of states
1.2 peace
1.3 cooperation between countries, and lastly
1.4 "To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."

Charter Article 2 (Principles)
2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

You're proposing the most fundamental Principles of the UN be changed to suit you. It can't be done! The United Nations is the forum of all nations, period. You're proposing, essentially, the United Nations be destroyed and a different organization take its place, one that suits you more perfectly.

Go start your own exclusive club for democratic states then.

***

You've taken time rummaging through the US Constitution and Universal Declaration for matches. So I'll follow up in like spirit:

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually from the United States Declaration of independence. They just replace pursuit of happiness with security of person.

3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
---
US Declaration:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's a near match, and plainly following yours. Funny how that last Right changes over time. It was "life, liberty, and estate" originally. So you may boast the US Declaration of Independence was copied from the Brits. But if a modern charter of rights uses "Life, Liberty, and Toys", does it copy John Locke, the UDHR, or something in between?


Article 4 is the 13 Amendment to the US Constitution

4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
---
13th: Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.

There. Both human rights documents address slavery. Well, of course they do.


Article 5 is the 8 Amendment to the US Constitution

5th: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
---
8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Both human rights documents address prisoner abuse. As they should.


Article 6 is the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The UDHR affirms the undeniability of the Person. The US 5th Amendment uses the word "person" not just once, but twice, as though to hammer home this key point.


Article 7 is the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Discrimination? No match here.


Article 9 is part of the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Some overlap there.


Article 10 is part of the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You found a pretty good overlap. Of course all human rights documents must address trial, but nice work in spotting how both UDHR Article 10 and US Amendment 6 affirm similar trial rights in their respective paragraphs.


Articles 18 and 19 are part of the 1 Amendment to the US Constitution

18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
---
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here we see both human rights charters address freedom of belief and expression. I wonder what inspires people to dream up these things?

Well, back to your original statement: that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was "inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights". I've shown your evidence, and I suggest you compare again. Unless the fact that both US law and the UDHR both address issues like property, language, etc. constitutes direct inspiration in your mind, you have no argument left. And if you do want to try that road, I promise to show how your own Bill of Rights in most particulars traces from prior works, usually foreign.

IMO the UDHR was about as fresh a document as was possible at the time.
Interesting. So did you see any graves from the Iran/Iraq war, the Inter-Kurdish (proxy) wars, Kurdish rebellions, Desert Storm, Shi'ite uprising, Desert Fox, US Invasion, or the million kids dead of malnutrition and foul water during sanctions? There must be many. I understand that Saddam had his defeated troops of Desert Storm/Desert Sabre simply plowed under while machine-gunning them to make double sure. A guy who could plan that obviously places little real value on the lives of Iraqis.
Agreed. It doesn't dictate anything, as a national constitution does. Not unless *ahem* that constitution regards it as the Supreme Law of the Land. But you and I and Bill O’Reilly know not all laws are to be taken seriously.

I think the UDHR potent though, if we can say Chairman Mao's Little Red Book or the Bible or Koran are.
I was talking about economic trends, not snapshots. Since you mention Canada, I'm glad to say we've been running surpluses and paying down the debt for seven consecutive years now, and we're still enjoying government service levels way above most industrialised countries.
[quote=Lothar5150]
Some numbers for perspective
National Debts by GDP

UK 51%
United States 62.4%
Germany 64.2%
Austria 67.6%
France 68.8%
Canada 77%
Japan 154.6%

As you can see we all, live in glass houses. The joke is that it is all fiat, just paper Kobuchi, just paper. You should have learned that in economics 101A. We base the value of that paper on the GDP and how many pieces of paper in circulation. If you reduce the number of pieces of paper in circulation then the value of exchange for each piece of paper becomes higher when compared with other pieces of paper. The United States GDP is 11 Trillion the world economy 51 trillion. Since the US is, a 1/5 of the words GDP that alone ensures the US Dollars place in trade not oil.[/QUOTE
Aha but the joke's on you: it's worth nothing in particular, just paper, Lothar5150, just paper. You should have learned that in kindergarten.

Again, you're pretending the picture isn't moving. What's this got to do with currency speculation? And no, speculation doesn't "base" the value of a currency on your almanac formula. The dollar is going down and is expected to eventually bottom at about 30 - 40% pre-euro value.

Since the Eurozone is 1/5 of the world's GDP and expanding geographically those alone ensure the euro's place in trade not oil. Yet the EU already imports more oil than the US, so a shift from petrodollar to euro seems inevitable.
That's right and your government balks at any agreement for free trade in lumber, in particular. Both the WTO and NAFTA panels have ruled US tariffs illegal, and will soon declare your government turning that money to subsidise US forestry illegal too, so now the issue is larger than a stalled softwood agreement. The issue is America's keeping with the NAFTA agreement. Why would anyone sign into NAFTA knowing the other party will only form agreements in transactions where it has advantage? Why should Canada keep its end of the bargain by upholding free trade in Florida oranges? How is this different?