[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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 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!

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

In other words, US forces will stop fighting in Iraq when there's nobody left to fight. Like that's going to happen.

***

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

Originally Posted by superart

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...[/b]

"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.