[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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. .

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

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

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

Only If non-democratic nations are excluded as voting members

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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 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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

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