[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

That figure comes directly from Gallup... All I did was cut and paste there analysis. However, I can say that their analysis matches my expert opinion...

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No involuntary projections here. LOL, the letters I write weight between 500 and 2000 lbs.

All written from your conscious?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Boycotting is Illegal???

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The US Constitution is the finest constitution ever crafted. What would you amend??

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

In fact, it is the model for all modern constitution.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Sorry war for dollar hegemony is lunacy...
Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States.
...The dollar hegemony doesn’t stand to the realities of the oil trade. If we really wanted to get our hands on oil...

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Hell the Cub Scouts could take down Canada with a Hockey stick and a six-pack of Labatt Blue.

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