[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

OK, enough said.

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.

Yes you are misinterpreting both the spirit and letter of the law. I recommend that you at least take a few law courses be for you comment on US Law. Again this is all about participation in a forign countres boycott.

Perhaps you should make a complaint about Bill O’Reilly call for a Boycott of France. Please advise us as to the outcome.

[quote=Kobuchi] One word Vietnam? Oh, the two word rule: Saudi Arabia? [quote=Kobuchi]
Only those completely ignorant of history would make a comparison with the present conflict and Vietnam. The only comparison is in the type of warfare.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

What is it America’s fault that the Soviets Invaded Afghanistan? Lets see hear. The Soviet invade and ruin the county they pull out and anarchy in sues. American forces invade and help establish a democracy for the first time in Afghanistan’s history….yep we are bad people…to the bone evil.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

Your wife is Japanese, yes? Then she may vote in her own land thanks to the United States of America. Citizenship and minimum voting age are part of any democracy therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand. Bureaucratic organizations tasked by democratic organizations are normal. ALL of our democracies have them and again this is not relevant.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

Its is being looked at right now. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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!

Irrelevant, they don’t govern an any capacity

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

You’re kidding right? NATO has civilian leadership and a parliment. Please let me know which NATO country is not a democracy. Again, military organizations are bureaucratic arms of the democratic state not a governing body.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

It sends a clear message that tin pot dictators do not have the same authority as those leaders who represent the collective will and consent of their people. Further, they don’t get a equal voice because they don’t represent their people.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

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.

You ignore the obvious.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually from the United States Declaration of independence. They just replace pursuit of happiness with security of person.

Article 4 is the 13 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 5 is the 8 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 6 is the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 7 is the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 9 is part of the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

Article 10 is part of the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

Articles 18 and 19 are part of the 1 Amendment to the US Constitution

Now I can cut you a break on the article three because you may not be familiar with the declaration of independence and the 13th Amendment is part of the original Bill of Rights but he rest is obvious. I could continue to compare but I think it would belabor the point.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

No, I did not personally exhume anyone but I did see the graves they are all over southern Iraq. The graves are from Saddam ordering entire villages exterminated. How do we know? I witness accounts from other villages and the physical evidence. The sear number of children found in the graves suggest it was completely indiscriminate...not collateral damage. Saddam's track records in these matters are obvious. This will all come out in his trial.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

Your right there is no magic however, the US Constitution is enforceable. There is no international body for enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an individual. The only counties which truly honor that document are though who have element written into their own constitution or where the inspiration for the elements.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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?

Canada’s debt is 77% of GDP if you really worry about public debt, I would worry about your own house. Our debt may be a larger number but it is only 62.4% of GDP in fact Canadian debt per person is only about $3,000 less and your average income is about $10,000 lower.

Some numbers for perspective
National Debts by GDP

UK 51%
United States 62.4%
Germany 64.2%
Austria 67.6%
France 68.8%
Canada 77%
Japan 154.6%

As you can see we all, live in glass houses. The joke is that it is all fiat, just paper Kobuchi, just paper. You should have learned that in economics 101A. We base the value of that paper on the GDP and how many pieces of paper in circulation. If you reduce the number of pieces of paper in circulation then the value of exchange for each piece of paper becomes higher when compared with other pieces of paper. The United States GDP is 11 Trillion the world economy 51 trillion. Since the US is, a 1/5 of the words GDP that alone ensures the US Dollars place in trade not oil.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

Try again the agreement regarding softwoods ended March 31, 2001.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.
----------------

Honestly, only a woman would post that.