[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No legal abyss. It's pretty simple true sovereignty is comes from the people.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No matter how you may view your selves you are still subjects, not citizens and it is clear by your oath.

I think the California law actually says you can't ride your horse into the tavern.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The UN Charter needs some amending. 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Do you honestly think that totalitarian governments like North Korea have there peoples interest 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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I think you should look at the real economic numbers.

I thought currency exchange rates were real numbers. What do I know - I'm just watching the dollar sink... er, descend purposefully.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Afghanistan Republic

In a natty hat too. Looking good.