[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Now, back to where we started. The antiboycott laws plainly state boycotting (not state sanctions) is illegal. Just the name antiboycott gives that away, don't you think? Who is covered by the laws? "US taxpayers", the law says. "US persons", it says. So how am I misinterpreting the letter of the law?

I'm a foreign national, for one thing, and that mechanism is for American use. For another, it would be naive of me to think Bill O’Reilly or off-record officials can't supersede your written laws.

You missed the important part which are the words ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT. Further, you posed your self the other magic words, ANOTHER NATIONS BOYCOTT. This also means sign a contract. Your right in pointing out that these laws came into play because the oil producing Arab countries tried to strong-arm our oil companies into contracts stating that they would not do business with Israel. The Arabs were trying to save face after the Israelis had kicked their asses in short order. Happy Chanukah.

Ok you obviously missed my point about Bill O’Reily. The point was that you should lodge a compliant about his call for a boycott and then tell what official response you receive. I agree with you no man is above the law in the US so make your complaint.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Afghanistan was ruined by proxy warfare. Man, your own country built the Taliban, puffed bin Laden up, taught psycho little war orphans to chant, "Death to the secularists! Jihad! Jihad!" in the madrassas and then taught them explosives in "freedom fighter" camps. Who says so? The CIA says so. If you don't think that's bad go talk to the 9/11 families. OK then help Afghanistan with another twist by declaring war on your own thoroughly odious jihadists once they've lost all credibility and usefulness, install a new regime. So when's the next War on Afghanistan? When Karzai declares indefinite martial law, or later, when he's assassinated? It should ideally be after Americans forget how he got to power. Then you can point to that tottering Islamic Republic and say how awful we need to go in and fix the poor country.

Not "bad", not "evil" - not future friendly either. And that Americans suffered blowback doesn't vindicate US policy for making Afghanistan a hornet's nest for the Soviets. Peace and stability, in my opinion, would have been better for Afghanistan and all concerned than this 30 years of US sponsored proxy warfare and regime change. Not evil; shortsighted, again and again.

Let us see if your present denial of history to prove a moment isn't yet another twist in it.

I never deny history. In fact my professionalisum and that of my peers is guided by an accurate view of events. How in the world did the US make Afghanistan a hornets nest for the Soviets. I seem to remember they kicked they hive all on there own. Yes, it was to some degree by proxy but no it was not 30 years. Try 10 years.

If you are going to be intellectually honest, you have to tell the whole story. The Soviets invaded and we supported all factions opposing the Soviets. When the Soviets pulled out, we stopped supporting the anti-Soviet factions and left a power vacuum the Taliban filled. Now yes we did funnel money to Islamiests during the years of support and some later morphed into the Taliban but we also supported the factions, which later became the Northern Alliance lead by Ahmad Shah Masoud, a great freedom fighter I might add.

In the end what is your point. Personally, I am about fixing problems not fixing the blame.

You’re a guy who points at something broken. I’m a guy who fixes something broken.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

It took some goading but I extracted the useful purpose:

Tin pot dictators know well enough their authority is tenuous. That's why they resign their countries to the verge of anarchy, and rely on soldiers to enforce the few laws. Of course they'd love to wield the same powers enjoyed by election, if they can set that up…..

Go start your own exclusive club for democratic states then.

It really boils down to this. Do you support freedom and democracy for all people or not.

We did it is called NATO

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

IMO the UDHR was about as fresh a document as was possible at the time.

That is laughable do you think that ideas form in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Interesting. So did you see any graves from the Iran/Iraq war, the Inter-Kurdish (proxy) wars, Kurdish rebellions, Desert Storm, Shi'ite uprising, Desert Fox, US Invasion, or the million kids dead of malnutrition and foul water during sanctions? There must be many. I understand that Saddam had his defeated troops of Desert Storm/Desert Sabre simply plowed under while machine-gunning them to make double sure. A guy who could plan that obviously places little real value on the lives of Iraqis.

Proxy must have been on your word of the day calendar. It is obvious to me you have know idea where the Iran Iraq war was fought. Hell I do not think you have any idea where the first Gulf War was fought or you would not even bring them up in context with mass graves of civilians. I’m sure many of the mass graves in the Kurdish areas are from uprising and Saddam ordering VX and mustered gas dropped on civilian areas. In fact, we know that did happen. Kobuchi next you will try to convince everyone that the holocaust never happened.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I was talking about economic trends, not snapshots. Since you mention Canada, I'm glad to say we've been running surpluses and paying down the debt for seven consecutive years now, and we're still enjoying government service levels way above most industrialized countries.

Well I am happy for Canada, economic health is in our best intrest. However, You still have a higher debt per person per capita. Further, it is in no ones interest that the US economy collapses, particularly our largest trading partner.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

That's right and your government balks at any agreement for free trade in lumber, in particular. Both the WTO and NAFTA panels have ruled US tariffs illegal, and will soon declare your government turning that money to subsidise US forestry illegal too, so now the issue is larger than a stalled softwood agreement. The issue is America's keeping with the NAFTA agreement. Why would anyone sign into NAFTA knowing the other party will only form agreements in transactions where it has advantage? Why should Canada keep its end of the bargain by upholding free trade in Florida oranges? How is this different?

LOL you expect any trade agreement to work out perfectly. Let me ask you a question, “do you argue with your wife?”