[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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 recognize 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

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

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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 ...see the eyes that is sarcasm

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

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. ...see the eyes again.