[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

What does the question ask “Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?” Is it immediately or the next few months. In the actual Gallup analysis vice the USA Today analysis, decided that this was a bad question. Look at the wording, the first half to the sentence is not clear. The term immediately clearly means now. The term ‘next few months’ means in three or more months in the future. At the very best, you can assume that the Iraqis would like US troops to leave in three months or more.

Further when asked about their greatest fears for Iraq only 26% stated that their biggest fear was continued occupation by the United States. The remaining 74% were largely concerned with security, terrorism, and civil war etc…all stability concerned. Therefore, I suppose my credibility is bad if you focus on a poorly written question whose data is inconsistent with the data set.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Kobuchi it is to prevent our international corporations from being strong-armed into contracts with foreign corporations or governments that support that foreign country’s boycott. If you as an individual or company decide you don’t want to buy French goods you are entitled to do just that. What you may not do is enter into an agreement/contract not to do business with a certain country.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Two words Afghanistan Republic

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

Sounds good to me

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Well I think that France is a fine example of a county who the United States Liberated and now feels completely indebted to the United States and often uses its security counsel vote to stand lock step with the US.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

It will not 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.

South Africa was still a relatively open society with a well-educated population and it was a democracy to the same extent the United States was a democracy in 1860. In the case of South Africa you could use economic a political pressure to bring about change. Further, they had a lot of internal pressure as well as a fundamental respect for the rule of law. You can compare a South Africa with a Ba’athist Iraq. Again, you still don’t understand the idea of using the right tool for the right job.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Please give me an example of a treaty we have broken.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

LOL your kidding right…Eleanor Roosevelt was the chief architect of that document. Wow, it is astonishingly close to the close the United States Bill of Rights. So you see your source document was inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Oh and we have only had one United States Constitution. Please advise me as to what older version you are referring.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

I said the rights of individuals not trade agreements. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did do jack shit for the 400,000 Iraqis we found in mass graves. How was international law protecting their rights?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Well first off, even if the Emir decided to take Euros instead of US Dollars it would not collapse our economy. We would simply start shrinking our money supply. We adjust the number of dollars in circulation regularly. Secondly, we found hundreds of millions of US dollars in Iraq. Obviously, the Euro was not the smugglers preferred currency.

Here is the deal the US economy is strong because we are the most productive economy on the planet and we have an abundance of diverse natural recourses. It is pretty much that simple.

Originally Posted by Kabuki

Have some more beef product.

I am not sure I get the joke.