[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Look at the wording, the first half to the sentence is not clear.
...poorly written question...

OK, enough said.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

Not just corporate "persons":
Office of Antiboycott Compliance - Who Is Covered by the Laws?
-------------------
all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates.
...
Generally, the TRA applies to all U.S. taxpayers (and their related companies).
-----------------
Not just agreements/contracts:
Office of Antiboycott Compliance - What's Prohibited?


Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
-------------------
And again a "person" here includes a company or corporation.

I think we'll agree the spirit of the laws is pro-Israel. The letter of the laws though is broadly anti-boycott.

You cannot boycott "French" companies. You can't even identify a company as being "French". Nor "Canadian" for that matter. Moreover:

---------------------
The EAR requires U.S. persons to report quarterly requests they have received to take certain actions to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.
----------------------
You're a "US person" right, Lothar5150? Heh. Want some paperwork?

I guess you'll tell me the laws are poorly written and I'm just not interpreting them properly.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Two words Afghanistan Republic.

One word Vietnam? Oh, the two word rule: Saudi Arabia?

Anyway Afghanistan was totally ruined by proxy war, and now you tell me it was war that improved it?! Let's just say Afghanistan is where it is today because of war.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Some states are more equal?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Sounds good to me.

I'll admit a selfish interest in this issue. You see, I can vote. But my son (underage) and wife (non-citizen) cannot. My vote carries their tacit approval, and they're governed. I also help represent all those qualified voters who don't bother to cast a ballot - they leave the decisions to me, and they're governed.

Now, you're saying that only those most pure ballots should count. Those supposed to represent non-voting individuals shouldn't be counted. How does that work? I represent people, perhaps contrary to their real political wishes, but this is wrong because I shouldn't be allowed to presume or impose? But if my wife acquires citizenship, my son reaches voting age, and I drive my neighbour to the polling station, then my ballot is acceptable because it is truely self-interested without representing anyone else?

Then we have the various organs of the UN, pretending at democratic process when, as you point out, they're tainted by the nonelected: the WHO is riddled with agents from undemocratic countries, as is Interpol, the Economic Commission for Africa, the International Seabed Authority, and so on. And all these representatives who pretend to speak for those who didn't elect them, should be silenced?

Democratic representation or no representation at all?

What about the unelected Security Council? Bar those from the General Assembly?

Even your National Endowment for Democracy ought to have its funding suspended by your argument - those self-appointed hypocrites conduct their internal operations without a glimmer of democratic process. They've had the same "president" since 1984!

Hmm. Time to reform NATO? Only generals fairly and transparently elected by their troops may speak? Why not?

OK. Now for the last time I ask what useful purpose it would serve to isolate countries within the United Nations.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

?!

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Eleanor Roosevelt was the chief architect of that document.

I believe she was the most visible champion yes, especially in your country of course, but not an architect by any means. John Peters Humphrey (longtime director of UN Human Rights Division) is credited as the principal drafter and organiser.
Check the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute's web site, and read between the lines:
"Unlike most other members of the Commission, Mrs. Roosevelt was neither a scholar nor an expert on international law. Her enthusiasm ..."
"Although she often joked that she was out of place among so many academics and jurists..."
"With characteristic modesty, Eleanor Roosevelt considered her position on the Commission to be one of ambassador..."
To make a long story short, the delegates decided Roosevelt best suited to the task of chairperson. You must know what that means.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

These documents appear, to me, surprisingly far removed considering they should cover the same matters.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
US Bill of Rights
I hadn't read this Bill of Rights before. It's not really a Bill of Rights is it? It's your constitutional amendments, most of them directed at police, specifically limiting police powers.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Oh and we have only had one United States Constitution. Please advise me as to what older version you are referring.

I was just confirming we're talking about Canadian constitutional documents newer than the US Constitution, because our laws grew from British laws.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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?

You exhumed the remains of 400,000 people? And these were not military and civilian victims of Iraq's three recent overt wars, two earlier rebellions, disease or starvation? So what happened? Did certain Iraqi's tell you go there and dig a hole yankie, Saddam did it.

Anyway, how was international law protecting their rights? Well, no law has the magical power to enforce itself. I could say the US Constitution does jack shit to protect your rights, since in reality it's the concrete acts of lawful minded citizens who protect them. A police officer could indicate his gun to you and say the Bill of Rights does jack shit but that gun does protect your rights. That's your argument. Why? What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

The debt clock just struck $25,646.84 ...per US citizen, all ages. That's not money you can "simply" adjust at will. It's out of your hands. You don't think a run on the dollar possible?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Secondly, we found hundreds of millions of US dollars in Iraq. Obviously, the Euro was not the smugglers preferred currency.

Sure, that's right.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Here is the deal the US economy is strong because we are the most productive economy

Sure, and less productive economies are weak because they are weak economies.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly America enjoys great natural wealth of resources too. This is why Canada should apply tariffs to many of your exports, just as the US illegally penalises Canada's "unfair" production of softwood lumber. I bring this up because you asked for an example of broken treaty, NAFTA in this case.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

they'll just strike from greater distance. The Americans always win these fights through superior cowardice of attack. Better wage war with our tireless reserves of unconventional cowardice.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

So what do you consider brave Kobuchi.

Supposing bravery the obverse of cowardice? Another debate.

Originally Posted by superart

Hand to hand combat with swords and clubs.
Thats how real men fight, dontchaknow?

The suffragette Alice Miller, in Why We Don't Want Men to Vote(1915):
-----------------
Why We Don't Want Men to Vote
- Because man's place is in the army.
- Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
- Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no longer look up to them.
- Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
- Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government.
----------------