Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[Guderian]

Say what you will, Iraq is about to become the first Arab Democracy thanks to the USA and allies.

Indonesia.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Guderian

Indonesia.

And that was supposed to mean... Islamic democracies?
I know Iraqis don't typically regard themselves as Arabs, and the few Arabs I've known (early 70's Beruit) didn't regard Iraqis as Arabs - but many folks here in the States use "Arab" to mean "Islamic and near Arabia" (so Persian Gulf, too - but not Israel).
If you are looking for examples of Islamic democracies a bit closer than Indonesia, why not Turkey? The might not be Arabs, but they did used to oppress them
Or did you mean "Islamic democracy with oil"? Like maybe one of the ex-Soviet *-istans...?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I incorrectly named the survey sponsors ABC and CNN, when in fact we're both reading from the same USA Today and CNN sponsored Gallop poll.

Confirm my link (USATODAY.COM)

Now let's clear this up. I'd said earlier that, according to this poll, 61% of Iraqis wanted US forces to leave immediately. That number comes from question G8:
All we can draw from this 13% is that they feel just answering; "leave immediately" isn't enough.

So according to Gallup we had a majority wanting US/British forces to leave immediately (within a few months), and we can guess many of the others wanted US/British forces to have left some time after that.

OK?

Now what?

Again, I only mentioned the polls because you sited them. I have a wealth of firsthand experience. In fact, this experience makes my opinion an expert opinion. Honestly, Kobuchi you are arguing with a person who has been there, and had tea with local Sheiks, Former/Current Iraqi Generals, doctors, small merchants and simple farmers. I personally don’t need the polls because I have had in depth discussions with Iraqis regarding our occupation.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Occupation by foreign superpower or torture, murder, and rape? You should write polls.

I personally know the Iraqis are honestly skeptical that they will get to vote. Their skeptical not because of the US but because they lived under tyranny for so long. Once the actually get to vote in January the Iraqi perception of their world will change. At that point they will take full ownership of their country as citizens.

Kabuchi, I have two questions; one do you fundamentally believe in democracy and Two what will you say after the elections in January?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Never mind that paragraph, read this one. This first paragraph describes the background.

I repeat my position: the elections were not rigged. There was no electoral fraud.

Then what is the point you are trying to make about our President. Clearly, his election was legitimate by your own admission.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Guderian

Indonesia.

Call me crazy but I think that looks like the South Pacific. Turkey is also an Islamic Democracy, however they are not Arabs.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

I know Iraqis don't typically regard themselves as Arabs, and the few Arabs I've known (early 70's Beruit) didn't regard Iraqis as Arabs - but many folks here in the States use "Arab" to mean "Islamic and near Arabia" (so Persian Gulf, too - but not Israel).

Bob I think you have Iraq and Iran confused. Iraqis are very very Arab. However, Iran's population is Persian (Indo-European)

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Bob I think you have Iraq and Iran confused. Iraqis are very very Arab. However, Iran's population is Persian

Right, I know about the Persians (Darius the Great, who lost to Alexander, right?). I also remember at least one student in Beruit referring to the people who lived in Iraq as "Iraqis and Arabs and Kurds" (we'd been takling about the nonsense borders left behind by the Brittish empire...)

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Again, I only mentioned the polls because you sited them.

Squirm.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I have a wealth of firsthand experience. In fact, this experience makes my opinion an expert opinion... had tea with local Sheiks, Former/Current Iraqi Generals, doctors, small merchants and simple farmers. I personally don’t need the polls because I have had in depth discussions with Iraqis regarding our occupation. I personally don’t need the polls because I have had in depth discussions with Iraqis regarding our occupation.

Then you're better qualified than the guys in Langley, Virginia, better qualified than Powell or now Rice who did not have tea with Sheiks and simple peasants alike. They rely on surveys and second-hand intelligence, so they should heed your words and keep their mouths shut.

For you a hearty, Arab, upward jerk of the thumb, Lothar5150. Maybe a little twisting action too.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Once the actually get to vote in January the Iraqi perception of their world will change.

It was to change when Saddam was taken out. It was to change when all the Ba'athists - right down to every Ba'athist state employed kindergarten teacher and army grunt - were kicked out on the streets. It was to change when people no longer feared Saddam might somehow come back out of hiding. It was to change once the "headquarters of resistance" (Fallujah) was turned into a smoldering ghost town. Tell me what happened to the resistance after each of those events.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

do you fundamentally believe in democracy

Yes. However, I support a unified, secular Iraqi nation that does not call itself "Arab" for the same reason Canada does not call itself "English". For that reason I'm opposed to destabilisation operations in Sunni areas in preparation for elections. Also, I place higher value on the basic right to state sovereignty than democracy within the state, in accordance with the UN Charter. This is one reason I'm opposed to invasion under the banner of democracy.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

what will you say after the elections in January?

If an Iraqi regime arises which is not both corrupt and absolutely dependent on the US for its survival, and may use Iraq's oil wealth as best profits the people of Iraq, then I'll say you've lost big time, Lothar5150. This would destroy your dollars faster than anyone can dump them. I think your government would rather slaughter millions than betray American interests so.

If something like the Saudis gain power in Iraq I'll say mission accomplished.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Right, I know about the Persians (Darius the Great, who lost to Alexander, right?). I also remember at least one student in Beruit referring to the people who lived in Iraq as "Iraqis and Arabs and Kurds" (we'd been takling about the nonsense borders left behind by the Brittish empire...)

The Iraqis are very nationalistic so typically they are Iraqi first ethnic group second. As a rule the majority of Iraqis are ethically Arabs and all are culturally Arabs. Obviously minorities like Kurds, Assyrians and Jews are not ethnically Arab.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Squirm.

Yeah… Right

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Then you're better qualified than the guys in Langley, Virginia, better qualified than Powell or now Rice who did not have tea with Sheiks and simple peasants alike. They rely on surveys and second-hand intelligence, so they should heed your words and keep their mouths shut

Where do you think they get their information, who produces ground truth? Think about it.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

It was to change when Saddam was taken out. It was to change when all the Ba'athists - right down to every Ba'athist state employed kindergarten teacher and army grunt - were kicked out on the streets. It was to change when people no longer feared Saddam might somehow come back out of hiding. It was to change once the "headquarters of resistance" (Fallujah) was turned into a smoldering ghost town. Tell me what happened to the resistance after each of those events.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Yes. However, I support a unified, secular Iraqi nation that does not call itself "Arab" for the same reason Canada does not call itself "English". For that reason I'm opposed to destabilisation operations in Sunni areas in preparation for elections. Also, I place higher value on the basic right to state sovereignty than democracy within the state, in accordance with the UN Charter. This is one reason I'm opposed to invasion under the banner of democracy.

If you fundamentally believe in democracy then you have to support the push for Iraqi Democracy. It really doesn’t matter if you agreed with the war or thought that it violated the UN Charter. The fact is that we are here now and democracy is what is on the table.

So far as the issue of sovereignty. Of course you should take that position after all sovereignty is the divine right of one single individual by your system of government. However, in the United States we fundamentally believe that the sovereignty of a nation is derived from the will of the Majority and the consent of the minority. In other words the governed are the wellspring of sovereignty. Therefore, any government, which is not elected, is not sovereignty by our fundamental philosophy.

Just take a look at our countries respective military oaths. You swear alliance to a single person who by decree has the divine right to rule you. Take my oath to a defend a piece of paper by which my republic is formed. Note that I’m not even obligated to swear alliance to the United States as a Country or to the Presidential Office, Only to the Constitution. I think that this speaks volumes as to our fundamental view of the relationship of the government and the governed.

United States
I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the _______ of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Canada
I, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD (delete if declaration)

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

If an Iraqi regime arises which is not both corrupt and absolutely dependent on the US for its survival, and may use Iraq's oil wealth as best profits the people of Iraq, then I'll say you've lost big time, Lothar5150. This would destroy your dollars faster than anyone can dump them. I think your government would rather slaughter millions than betray American interests so.

How so…I fail to see how Iraqis economic prosperity will lead to the downfall of America. I suppose like the Japanese and German economies lead us to economic ruin.

I know you have never been to Iraq, but let me inform you that they have more to offer economically than just oil. In fact, there economy has the potential to mirror my home state of California in its diversity.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

If something like the Saudis gain power in Iraq I'll say mission accomplished.

No mission accomplished is when Iraqis have elected their own government written a constitution and take full responsibility for their own security.

[superart]

Originally Posted by Kubuchi

If something like the Saudis gain power in Iraq I'll say mission accomplished.

Why the hell would you want the saudis to gain power in iraq? What have the saudis ever done besides sponsor terrorism and rule with an iron fist?

I can't imagine how someone who suposedly supports democracy would want one of the last surviving aboslute monarchies to gain power in a place that can potentially be the spark that spreads democracy throught the middle east.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Where do you think they get their information, who produces ground truth? Think about it.

Ahmed Chalabi? Remember how your government insisted you guys would be cheered as dear heroes, showered with rose blossoms in a great Liberation Day singalong? Where do they get their information is a good question. Alas, the highly credible protected sources your officials often referenced couldn't be revealed or Saddam would have their throats slit. Remember? I wonder what ever happened to those pre-war producers of ground truth.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

If you fundamentally believe in democracy then you have to support the push for Iraqi Democracy. It really doesn't matter if you agreed with the war or thought that it violated the UN Charter. The fact is that we are here now and democracy is what is on the table.

So if I fundamentally believe in democracy then I have to support the push for democracy at Pro/Forums? First regime change by deadly force, then democracy or death to all who resist! No wait, you don't mean democratic process or democratic organisations and companies, you mean democratic election of representatives who dictate for a limited time. No wait, you mean just for states, not smaller entities or nebulous ones. I don't know, there's so much democracy to kill and die for... can't I just pick one city for this do or die operation? Can I pick my own?

Hey I know: you could force regime change among the United Nations through surgical strikes upon their headquarters - that world forum is bigger game than just a state isn't it? The UN's democratic structure needs an overhaul I say!

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

So far as the issue of sovereignty. Of course you should take that position after all sovereignty is the divine right of one single individual by your system of government. However, in the United States we fundamentally believe that the sovereignty of a nation is derived from the will of the Majority and the consent of the minority. In other words the governed are the wellspring of sovereignty. Therefore, any government, which is not elected, is not sovereignty by our fundamental philosophy.

Nothing so quaint here. The Canadian idea of sovereignty is much like your own. We recognise popular sovereignty - that is we assume a government has popular support (including passive support, as where most citizens don't vote, etc.) and basically speaks for its people better than any other voice unless the people are throwing an enormous tantrum or filling up mass graves. The ceremony of election is welcome but not a condition of popular support and therefore sovereignty. We're easy to recognise de facto sovereignty over legal sovereignty also (e.g. Mainland China, whoever holds the sword and collects the garbage in Iraq, but don't get any ideas about the Northwest Passage).

We're very reluctant to deny sovereignty, especially in the absence of a good alternative, because this puts us a position we can't do anything constructive from (who do you talk to?). Denial of sovereignty I see as a prelude to war, a legal and ethical clearing for intervention or annexation. What other uses can it serve?

To me your definition of sovereignty seems crafted so that your government may operate freely in a legal abyss.

Anyway, we're bound by treaty to recognise and uphold sovereignty in accordance with the principles of the United Nations (Charter article 2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members"). We don't break treaties or bend them.

Your country too is a signatory to the same.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Just take a look at our countries respective military oaths. You swear alliance to a single person who by decree has the divine right to rule you. Take my oath to a defend a piece of paper by which my republic is formed. Note that I?m not even obligated to swear alliance to the United States as a Country or to the Presidential Office, Only to the Constitution. I think that this speaks volumes as to our fundamental view of the relationship of the government and the governed.

And here I thought the mysteries of civilisations revealed by choice of bayonet.

Well maybe one still can judge a Mountie's rank by the growth of his moustache. Or nowadays, the prominence of his turban. How's that for monkeywrenching my concession?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

How so? I fail to see how Iraqis economic prosperity will lead to the downfall of America. I suppose like the Japanese and German economies lead us to economic ruin..

Innocent question, deep problem.

Because oil is the dominant commodity traded worldwide, and because your US dollar is the international currency used in oil trade, your country just keeps printing dollars (debt) which everyone needs to buy their oil with. America prints dollars at whim (fiat); the rest of the world trades you (and each other) those slips of paper for real value. That's brought about a complex in global finances called dollar hegemony: we even horde these dollars (your debt) as reserves to look tough on the banking scene. The world effectively subsidises the American economy. Neat, eh? You guys are now heavily in debt, and the rest of us must accept this debt because there's no alternative. I think it's about $20,000 for every American man, woman, and child currently.

Enter the euro. The EU buys more oil than the US. This makes it attractive to oil exporters. It also is more stable, wielding something like a basket of currencies. This makes it attractive to all as a reserve currency. Sinking feeling? The euro gains against the dollar.

Enter Saddam Hussein. He declares the US dollar "enemy currency" and converts the Oil-for-Food fund into Euros, making an enormous profit instantly as euro builds against the dollar. He decrees that henceforth Iraq's oil must be bought with euros not US dollars.This means oil importers must exchange some of their dollar currency reserves to euro if they want Iraqi oil. It actually looks like a pretty good deal all around. Saddam thinks he has nothing to lose.The dollar slides.

Enter the US Marines, straight to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. They liberate it, and Freedom is installed: henceforth, Iraq's oil must be bought with US dollars not euros. Regime changed; mission accomplished. OPEC countries take note.

So the war is about oil, as much as it is about your monstrous debt and the shiny new alternative, euro (mark the countries most opposed to the war, something click?). It's basically about protecting American interests, the main interest being the embarrassing necessity of sustaining debt. Of course a justification for war so crassly vicious would not go over well with the American public, or any public, and it isn't very stirring anyway. But your leaders are willing to kill and destroy for this, because for them the health of the economy matters more than the lives or livelihood of foreigners. It's certainly more important than cheap oil for American consumers at the pump (Cheney: "What's so bad about high oil prices?"), and it's more important than another country's economic interests of course.

Now the fact is Iraq will do right by its citizens to denominate their fantastic oil wealth (production and reserves) in euros. That was true before regime change, it's truer today, and more yet after elections because your dollar's falling steadily against the euro despite this crucial save from a full tilt run. Now if a country like Iraq repeated that sudden switch, in today's climate, all hell would break loose. You know about the Vietnam domino theory. That, but through the markets of the world, fast as they can carry it. Zip.

It's in my interests nobody make any sudden moves, by the way. I don't want a global depression. Your fellow Americans will help to wind the dollar down nice and slow. You can put on a brave face and call it charity.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I know you have never been to Iraq, but let me inform you that they have more to offer economically than just oil. In fact, there economy has the potential to mirror my home state of California in its diversity.

I'll bet twelve years of sanctions did teach them diversity, yeah. And all power to them now. Except one caveat Iraq's return to normalcy will be good for everyone.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No mission accomplished is when Iraqis have elected their own government written a constitution and take full responsibility for their own security.

In other words, US forces will stop fighting in Iraq when there's nobody left to fight. Like that's going to happen.

***

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

If something like the Saudis gain power in Iraq I'll say mission accomplished.[/b]

Originally Posted by superart

Why the hell would you want the saudis to gain power in iraq? What have the saudis ever done besides sponsor terrorism and rule with an iron fist?

I can't imagine how someone who suposedly supports democracy...[/b]

"Mission accomplished" was tongue in cheek. Anyway the Saudis are the lynchpin of the petrodollar system; they effectively set OPEC policy. They hold OPEC to US currency in exchange for US security guarantees against external and internal threats to their hated throne. The US has supplied them with a fully equipped air force, SWAT teams, satellite imagery and other intel, and of course Bush Senior's "line in the sand" to defend the Saudis though his own CIA had no reason to believe Saddam wanted more than annexation of Kuwait. They're America's ally, though neither party likes to admit it. The arrangement is mutually beneficial.

I'm with you superart. I can't imagine how someone who supposedly supports democracy would want anything like the corrupt Saudis pulling the strings.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Ahmed Chalabi? Remember how your government insisted you guys would be cheered as dear heroes, showered with rose blossoms in a great Liberation Day singalong? Where do they get their information is a good question. Alas, the highly credible protected sources your officials often referenced couldn't be revealed or Saddam would have their throats slit. Remember? I wonder what ever happened to those pre-war producers of ground truth.

How is Chalabi relevant to where we are now? My point is that ground truth is derived by US forces on the ground. I was one of the guys on the ground. So yes, my opinion is as expert as anyone in the administration. By the way, I was greeted with waves and smiles.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

So if I fundamentally believe in democracy then I have to support the push for democracy at Pro/Forums? First regime change by deadly force, then democracy or death to all who resist! No wait, you don't mean democratic process or democratic organisations and companies, you mean democratic election of representatives who dictate for a limited time. No wait, you mean just for states, not smaller entities or nebulous ones. I don't know, there's so much democracy to kill and die for... can't I just pick one city for this do or die operation? Can I pick my own?

No, you don’t have to support it at Pro/Forums, but this is where the thread got started. Sarcasm translates poorly in to the written word. It requires a certain measure of body language. Further, it's really not a rebuttal.

Here is my position. I am a member of Amnesty International, but I am a realist and I realize that a letter writing campaign to a tyrant is a complete waist of time. Do you honestly think that dictators care about letters? If the guy was not elected and took over by force do you honestly think he has a real conscious you can appeal too.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Hey I know: you could force regime change among the United Nations through surgical strikes upon their headquarters - that world forum is bigger game than just a state isn't it? The UN's democratic structure needs an overhaul I say!

See here is the problem. You have a hammer and you think every problem is a nail. This is where you can affect peaceful reform. The UN and Democratic institutions are open to letter writing and speeches...there is a conscious you can appeal ...You need to understand which is the right tool for the right job.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Nothing so quaint here. The Canadian idea of sovereignty is much like your own. We recognise popular sovereignty - that is we assume a government has popular support (including passive support, as where most citizens don't vote, etc.) and basically speaks for its people better than any other voice unless the people are throwing an enormous tantrum or filling up mass graves. The ceremony of election is welcome but not a condition of popular support and therefore sovereignty. We're easy to recognise de facto sovereignty over legal sovereignty also (e.g. Mainland China, whoever holds the sword and collects the garbage in Iraq, but don't get any ideas about the Northwest Passage).

We're very reluctant to deny sovereignty, especially in the absence of a good alternative, because this puts us a position we can't do anything constructive from (who do you talk to?). Denial of sovereignty I see as a prelude to war, a legal and ethical clearing for intervention or annexation. What other uses can it serve?

To me your definition of sovereignty seems crafted so that your government may operate freely in a legal abyss.

Anyway, we're bound by treaty to recognize and uphold sovereignty in accordance with the principles of the United Nations (Charter article 2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members"). We don't break treaties or bend them.

Your country too is a signatory to the same.
And here I thought the mysteries of civilisations revealed by choice of bayonet.

No legal abyss. It's pretty simple true sovereignty is comes from the people. No matter how you may view your selves you are still subjects, not citizens and it is clear by your oath.

The UN Charter needs some amending. In fact, this is being looked at right now. The fact is that when the UN was formed we had to fully recognize non-democratic nations, because the only 10 democratic nations existed. 121 Democratic nations now exist. I personally believe in the principals of the UN but I have real issue with non-democratic nations having equal voice with democratic nations. Do you honestly think that totalitarian governments like North Korea have there peoples interest in mind?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Well maybe one still can judge a Mountie's rank by the growth of his moustache. Or nowadays, the prominence of his turban. How's that for monkeywrenching my concession?

I'm not too concerned with the grooming habits of your Mounties.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Innocent question, deep problem.

Because oil is the dominant commodity traded worldwide, and because your US dollar is the international currency used in oil trade, your country just keeps printing dollars (debt) which everyone needs to buy their oil with. America prints dollars at whim (fiat); the rest of the world trades you (and each other) those slips of paper for real value. That's brought about a complex in global finances called dollar hegemony: we even horde these dollars (your debt) as reserves to look tough on the banking scene. The world effectively subsidises the American economy. Neat, eh? You guys are now heavily in debt, and the rest of us must accept this debt because there's no alternative. I think it's about $20,000 for every American man, woman, and child currently.

Enter the euro. The EU buys more oil than the US. This makes it attractive to oil exporters. It also is more stable, wielding something like a basket of currencies. This makes it attractive to all as a reserve currency. Sinking feeling? The euro gains against the dollar.

Enter Saddam Hussein. He declares the US dollar "enemy currency" and converts the Oil-for-Food fund into Euros, making an enormous profit instantly as euro builds against the dollar. He decrees that henceforth Iraq's oil must be bought with euros not US dollars.This means oil importers must exchange some of their dollar currency reserves to euro if they want Iraqi oil. It actually looks like a pretty good deal all around. Saddam thinks he has nothing to lose.The dollar slides.

Enter the US Marines, straight to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. They liberate it, and Freedom is installed: henceforth, Iraq's oil must be bought with US dollars not euros. Regime changed; mission accomplished. OPEC countries take note.

So the war is about oil, as much as it is about your monstrous debt and the shiny new alternative, euro (mark the countries most opposed to the war, something click?). It's basically about protecting American interests, the main interest being the embarrassing necessity of sustaining debt. Of course a justification for war so crassly vicious would not go over well with the American public, or any public, and it isn't very stirring anyway. But your leaders are willing to kill and destroy for this, because for them the health of the economy matters more than the lives or livelihood of foreigners. It's certainly more important than cheap oil for American consumers at the pump (Cheney: "What's so bad about high oil prices?"), and it's more important than another country's economic interests of course.

Now the fact is Iraq will do right by its citizens to denominate their fantastic oil wealth (production and reserves) in euros. That was true before regime change, it's truer today, and more yet after elections because your dollar's falling steadily against the euro despite this crucial save from a full tilt run. Now if a country like Iraq repeated that sudden switch, in today's climate, all hell would break loose. You know about the Vietnam domino theory. That, but through the markets of the world, fast as they can carry it. Zip.

It's in my interests nobody make any sudden moves, by the way. I don't want a global depression. Your fellow Americans will help to wind the dollar down nice and slow. You can put on a brave face and call it charity.

As much as you might like to see us go down economically, I think you should look at the real economic numbers. Our current debt is 64% of GDP. Now being an economic conservative, I believe that we should get that down to about 20-30% and all held by citizens or US companies. Now actual economic growth is 2.5% per year completely consistent with the last 50 years. While or total debt is only about 10% higher than the past 50 years. So where is this going? The trade deficit is our biggest problem right now. We import far too much from other counties and export too little. However, the slipping dollar is a way to correct the trade imbalance. The cheaper our goods are to foreign countries particularly Canada and EU the more the will be exported. Further, the percentage of Debt to GDP will go down in this process.

As far as oil, prices are concerned. We hold the trump card. It is called the Strategic Oil Reserve. 30 years of oil in storage. Don’t think for a minute that we cant control the price of oil if we want too.

Nevertheless, thanks for the lecture on Macro-Economics ...see the eyes that is sarcasm

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

In other words, US forces will stop fighting in Iraq when there's nobody left to fight. Like that's going to happen.

When Iraq has an elected government. People will feel that they have a real stake in there government, there fore they will take full ownership of their security and US Forces will be replacing with Iraqi Forces. Is that so difficult to understand. ...see the eyes again.

[Lothar5150]

Afghanistan Republic

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

How is Chalabi relevant to where we are now? My point is that ground truth is derived by US forces on the ground. I was one of the guys on the ground. So yes, my opinion is as expert as anyone in the administration. By the way, I was greeted with waves and smiles.

You originally claimed something like just 13% of Iraqis presently want US forces out of their country. Are you now saying the poll you mis-quoted (actual figure is 58% "leave immediately") is wrong? Sure I won't contest the smiles and waves greeting you, since you say so. If both are true I can only assume Marines have lost hearts and minds in the meantime, somehow. Share your expert opinion.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Here is my position. I am a member of Amnesty International, but I am a realist and I realize that a letter writing campaign to a tyrant is a complete waist of time. Do you honestly think that dictators care about letters? If the guy was not elected and took over by force do you honestly think he has a real conscious you can appeal too.

Huh? AI and moral appeal to despots is your problem. I don't "honestly think" any of those things. I do honestly think this must be your own thing bugging you and now you're projecting it onto me so you can finally win your inner debate about it. Now think honestly: why don't you just quit the letter writing?

You, on the other hand, have a real "conscious" I can appeal to, even if your last sentence was another involuntary projection.

***

Alternatives to Amnesty International? Boycotting is illegal in your country, but you can still write letters that are purposeful. I don't try to justify my position to a party. I just figure out the most harm I can do them conveniently and without risk to myself, then tell them what I'm doing and what they have to do to change it.

I don't believe government officials (including leaders) are much moved by appeals to conscience, and that's universally true: it hasn't moved North Korea's Kim Jong Il, it didn't move South Africa's de Klerk, and the UK's Tony Blair didn't bat an eye when over a million demonstrators gushed through London. What were they going to do? Give him pause?

I think the only forces politicians of any kind can't shirk are threats to their position or personal finances. Position can be threatened by elections or tomahawk missiles. Where the official relies on support from financial elites, then economic "argument" works. Most governments also operate within legal constraints, internal and external, so reminders of their legal obligations work too.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

This is where you can affect peaceful reform. The UN and Democratic institutions are open to letter writing and speeches...there is a conscious you can appeal ...You need to understand which is the right tool for the right job.

I don't see how the UN or democratic institutions should be susceptible to flakey letter writing campaigns. They aren't structured to take input in that way. Democracy is fundamentally bureaucratic.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No legal abyss. It's pretty simple true sovereignty is comes from the people.

You won't recognise de facto sovereignty, nor legal sovereignty, only sovereignty popping out of the ballot-box. This dilated (and illegal) criteria of sovereignty creates an interesting landscape of non-sovereign zones. But you say that's no legal abyss - so I wonder how your country's laws engage these negated countries.

I think your concept of sovereignty undeveloped and, well, utterly useless. You must float ballot boxes off shore to maintain territorial waters. Many countries don't legally exist. I ask again: what useful purpose does this serve? That's not a rhetorical question.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No matter how you may view your selves you are still subjects, not citizens and it is clear by your oath.

I think the California law actually says you can't ride your horse into the tavern.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The UN Charter needs some amending. The fact is that when the UN was formed we had to fully recognize non-democratic nations, because the only 10 democratic nations existed. 121 Democratic nations now exist.

The US Constitution needs amending. The fact is, when that parchment was inked in the 1700's America was both isolated and exceptional. Globalisation and the vertical proliferation of democracy prompts a fundamental rewriting, to recognise the now well-established Higher Laws and Principles, and clearly affirm international law as the Supreme Law of the land.

***

You say "we" "had to" recognise non-democratic countries. But the UN isn't about you, or democratic countries. It's a democratic congress of nations, not a congress of democratic nations.

I am open to revising the UN. You say that's prompted by the fact that now democratic governments constitute a majority of the General Assembly. Are you thinking the GA should have more power? Binding resolutions for example? Or maybe your eye for democracy reviews the dictatorial oligarchy of the Security Council? Perhaps the SC dignitaries could have ceremonial function only, and refrain from pronouncements, like Canada's Queen. We could tour them about in a motorcade. Of course SC states would participate fully in the GA and enjoy great respect therein. What do you have in mind?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Do you honestly think that totalitarian governments like North Korea have there peoples interest in mind?

No government is perfect, some offer little more than anarchy, others are cruel. Ultimately though they do represent their people better than any other. If there's a nuclear exchange on the Korean Peninsula ,you can guess Pyongyang didn't bomb Pyongyang, and trident subs didn't vapourise their naval base plus Chinhae, let alone Chicago, Illinois.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I think you should look at the real economic numbers.

I thought currency exchange rates were real numbers. What do I know - I'm just watching the dollar sink... er, descend purposefully.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Afghanistan Republic

In a natty hat too. Looking good.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You originally claimed something like just 13% of Iraqis presently want US forces out of their country. Are you now saying the poll you mis-quoted (actual figure is 58% "leave immediately") is wrong? Sure I won't contest the smiles and waves greeting you, since you say so. If both are true I can only assume Marines have lost hearts and minds in the meantime, somehow. Share your expert opinion.

That figure comes directly from Gallup. Get an account and check it for yourself. All I did was cut and paste there analysis. However, I can say that their analysis matches my expert opinion of things on the ground in Iraq and those of my friend who went back for second tours. Further, the figures match Ghazi Al-Yawar statements last night on Charlie Rose. If you missed the interview I recommend you try and watch it when it re-airs.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Huh? AI and moral appeal to despots is your problem. I don't "honestly think" any of those things. I do honestly think this must be your own thing bugging you and now you're projecting it onto me so you can finally win your inner debate about it. Now think honestly: why don't you just quit the letter writing?

You, on the other hand, have a real "conscious" I can appeal to, even if your last sentence was another involuntary projection. .

No involuntary projections here. LOL, the letters I write weight between 500 and 2000 lbs. My point was that you need to have the right strategy for the right set of circumstances. In Iraq the only way you were to bring about any positive change was through force.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Alternatives to Amnesty International? Boycotting is illegal in your country, but you can still write letters that are purposeful. I don't try to justify my position to a party. I just figure out the most harm I can do them conveniently and without risk to myself, then tell them what I'm doing and what they have to do to change it.

Boycotting is Illegal??? I give to Amnesty because there fundamental beliefs match mine; however, they piss into the wind a lot. 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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I don't believe government officials (including leaders) are much moved by appeals to conscience, and that's universally true: it hasn't moved North Korea's Kim Jong Il, it didn't move South Africa's de Klerk, and the UK's Tony Blair didn't bat an eye when over a million demonstrators gushed through London. What were they going to do? Give him pause?

I think the only forces politicians of any kind can't shirk are threats to their position or personal finances. Position can be threatened by elections or tomahawk missiles. Where the official relies on support from financial elites, then economic "argument" works. Most governments also operate within legal constraints, internal and external, so reminders of their legal obligations work too. .

I don't see how the UN or democratic institutions should be susceptible to flakey letter writing campaigns. They aren't structured to take input in that way. Democracy is fundamentally bureaucratic.

Leaders in a democracy are held accountable by their constituents. You can be cynical about the process all you want but look what happened to the Former Governor of California. Further, the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage movements both appealed to conscious. Gandhi appealed to conscious but that only works in a democracy.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You won't recognise de facto sovereignty, nor legal sovereignty, only sovereignty popping out of the ballot-box. This dilated (and illegal) criteria of sovereignty creates an interesting landscape of non-sovereign zones. But you say that's no legal abyss - so I wonder how your country's laws engage these negated countries.

I think your concept of sovereignty undeveloped and, well, utterly useless. You must float ballot boxes off shore to maintain territorial waters. Many countries don't legally exist. I ask again: what useful purpose does this serve? That's not a rhetorical question.

The US recognizes the de-facto sovereignty of lots of non-democratic nations. However, if you look at the fundamental philosophy of our republic, you will find that the basis for sovereignty is derived from the governed.

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I think the California law actually says you can't ride your horse into the tavern

Yep and you can only bet your wife once a week unless she says it is ok.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

The US Constitution needs amending. The fact is, when that parchment was inked in the 1700's America was both isolated and exceptional. Globalisation and the vertical proliferation of democracy prompts a fundamental rewriting, to recognise the now well-established Higher Laws and Principles, and clearly affirm international law as the Supreme Law of the land.

The US Constitution is the finest constitution ever crafted. In fact, it is the model for all modern constitution. Further, it is a living document, which means it has and continues to evolve. What would you amend??

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.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You say "we" "had to" recognise non-democratic countries. But the UN isn't about you, or democratic countries. It's a democratic congress of nations, not a congress of democratic nations.

We democratic nations, 10 total at the time of ratification. The UN will lack real authority until it is a democratic congress of democratic nations.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I am open to revising the UN. You say that's prompted by the fact that now democratic governments constitute a majority of the General Assembly. Are you thinking the GA should have more power?

Only If non-democratic nations are excluded as voting members

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

No government is perfect, some offer little more than anarchy, others are cruel. Ultimately though they do represent their people better than any other. If there's a nuclear exchange on the Korean Peninsula ,you can guess Pyongyang didn't bomb Pyongyang, and trident subs didn't vapourise their naval base plus Chinhae, let alone Chicago, Illinois.

I find it amazing that you would just accept the status que when it comes to non-democratic governments. I suppose as long as you have your freedom you’ll accept the subjugation of others.

In the 21st Century, I honestly do not know if you could morally justify vaporizing Pyongyang. If we knew there were no other attacks coming, I think we would go the conventional route. Nukes are primitive, clumsy weapons and we have surgeons now.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I thought currency exchange rates were real numbers. What do I know - I'm just watching the dollar sink... er, descend purposefully.

A week dollar is good for a trade deficit. Which is what we suffer from right now. In fact, right now a lot of Euros are being pumped into the economy via real estate. LOL….we took many Japanese Yen like this…LOL

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

As much as you might like to see us go down economically, I think you should look at the real economic numbers. Our current debt is 64% of GDP....
...
Nevertheless, thanks for the lecture on Macro-Economics ...see the eyes that is sarcasm

AFAICT this is a response to Kobuchi's

Because oil is the dominant commodity traded worldwide, and because your US dollar is the international currency used in oil trade, your country just keeps printing dollars (debt) which everyone needs to buy their oil with. America prints dollars at whim (fiat); the rest of the world trades you (and each other) those slips of paper for real value. That's brought about a complex in global finances called dollar hegemony

Yes? If so, you haven't answered his point of the US invasion being a response to this "dollar hegemony" being threatened. (apologies if I'm mis-construing this comment as a reply to that).
Back when the US was ramping up to invasion, when there were street protests before the war, this seemed like the most likely reason for this rush to war, not the series of lame reasons that we got, one after another, until it was finally "support our troops". When we get to "dollar hegemony, it's economics, of course - where there are several conflicting answers for every question

BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative, too. How exactly is the current administration being fiscally conservative? Or do you figure the point of deflating the dollar to be an attempt to reverse the current balance of trade? Didn't we once have a balanced budget? Where'd that go?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

AFAICT this is a response to Kobuchi's
Yes? If so, you haven't answered his point of the US invasion being a response to this "dollar hegemony" being threatened. (apologies if I'm mis-construing this comment as a reply to that).
Back when the US was ramping up to invasion, when there were street protests before the war, this seemed like the most likely reason for this rush to war, not the series of lame reasons that we got, one after another, until it was finally "support our troops". When we get to "dollar hegemony, it's economics, of course - where there are several conflicting answers for every question

BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative, too. How exactly is the current administration being fiscally conservative? Or do you figure the point of deflating the dollar to be an attempt to reverse the current balance of trade? Didn't we once have a balanced budget? Where'd that go?

Sorry war for dollar hegemony is lunacy. There is a left or a right wing conspiracy theory for why the sun comes up every morning. Wars cost billions and there are no guarantees…as a pure accounting exercise you will loose every time.
Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States…let me say that again Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States. Now all together, Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States.

The top five largest importers of oil to the US account for 71% of all oil imported and only one is in Southwest Asia (Middle East for old school). Two are just South of the United States one is obviously just North. The fifth country is in Sub-Saharan Africa. The dollar hegemony doesn’t stand to the realities of the oil trade. If we really wanted to get our hands on oil, we could just take down Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Hell the Cub Scouts could take down Canada with a Hockey stick and a six-pack of Labatt Blue.


Despite the present shrinking dollar, our economy is still the most productive in the world. Moreover, will continue to be so in the next century. Look by, 2020 30% of China's population will be over 60 and a third of young males will have not possibility of reproduction due to the imbalance of men to women. 60 is well past productive years for a 2nd world country and I’d say it is likely that a third of the male population will move out of China. Japan and France will have an even larger percentage over 60 the rest of Europe looks much like France. Africa...is largely dying of HIV and I don't say that to be glib, it is a real tragedy. Futility rates in Latin America are below replacement levels and the Middle East has the lowest reproduction rates on the planet. What does this mean? Most of the worlds populations will not have an opportunity to gain wealth before the become old. While most other nations are currently, at there respective economic peeks and can expect to loose productivity over the next 50 years. On the other hand, America has a well educated largely stable population our mean age will max out at 39. This means our economy will remain strong and highly productive compared with all other nations.

I think that the present administration is relying too heavily on economic growth to bring down the deficit. The shrinking dollar is reversing the trade deficit, how much will be the question. Right now, the French are screaming bloody murder because they are being killed on exports to the US. In the mean time, many EU investors are buying up property in NYC. As I said in the previous post, we played this same game with Japan. Everyone said the Japanese were going to own America….

You are correct we did have a balanced budget at one time and I would like to see us go back to a balanced budget. However, the present deficit is largely due to tax cuts. I think it is good logic to assume tax cuts stimulate growth but I think you have to cut programs with taxes. The military budget is very streamlined even for a war (just a percent over the Clinton Budget), what do you cut fellow fiscal conservative.

[bobkoure]

Yes, of course invading a country to protect dollar hegemony is lunacy. The whole rush to war was lunacy. The stated reasons did not add up and the necessity was not there. So why did they (really "we", but I tried hard to not do it) invade? War on terror? Nah - no connection to alquaida. WMDs? Nah - we didn't let the UN inspector scenario play out. Desire to free Iraqi people from tin-pot despot? Nah - the US has a history of not deposing despots.
So that leaves a rush to war to make sure we're having victory celebrations in time for the Nov presidential elections (possible - seems to have worked in spite of the slow going there). Or possibly some other reason. Protect dollar hegemony? Protect Israel? Shore up relations with Saud family? Special vendetta against Hussein because of an attempt on GWH Bush's life? Something else?

If I was going to spend this kind of money and blood to rescue a people, I'd be in Colombia. They want democracy, and are standing up to terrorism in a way that totally shames this country (we get one major terrorist act and end up with the patriot act - they're under much worse assault and are still trying to maintain citizen rights).

We've already tried to invade and annex Canada. You know the story, including ol' Benedict not getting the recognition he thought he deserved... As far as Canada now not being able to defend against a hockey stick, well, first, that was totally uncalled for, and second, do you really want to start an asymmetrical war with a country you share a three thousand mile border with? Think they'd stay home or would a sizable minority bring the war to us? It'd be just like Nazi Germany, trying to sort out infiltrators. ("Your papers please...")
All that said, if Quebec separates, the Indian nations to the north will try to separate from them, and given the recent history of the Mohawks, this will be armed. We could easily be drawn into that one (and it would be in our national interest to see it settled). If that scenario plays out, it's quite possible that the maritimes might eventually become part of the US.

Finally, what would I cut? Well, there's a war that we rushed into. Because of the rush, we're getting essentially no financial backing from the rest of the world - and they'd be idiots to give us money after we rushed right past the consensus process as it would just encourage us to do it again.
We probably disagree on the value of consensus. I would guess that, as a Marine, you get very little exposure to it. I live in a consensus based community. My experience with is is that, although it can be slow and unwieldy at times, it does a really good job of keeping you from doing something stupid - or at least knowing that it's stupid before you do it
On a more macro level, trying to become "world policeman" on our own is a very bad sign. Seems to me Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" was on that "Marine University" list. Care to poke some holes in his observations/theories?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Yes, of course invading a country to protect dollar hegemony is lunacy. The whole rush to war was lunacy. The stated reasons did not add up and the necessity was not there. So why did they (really "we", but I tried hard to not do it) invade? War on terror? Nah - no connection to alquaida. WMDs? Nah - we didn't let the UN inspector scenario play out. Desire to free Iraqi people from tin-pot despot? Nah - the US has a history of not deposing despots.
So that leaves a rush to war to make sure we're having victory celebrations in time for the Nov presidential elections (possible - seems to have worked in spite of the slow going there). Or possibly some other reason. Protect dollar hegemony? Protect Israel? Shore up relations with Saud family? Special vendetta against Hussein because of an attempt on GWH Bush's life? Something else?

How about over 10 years of constant violations of a cease-fire. How about not allowing unimpeded inspections of facilities to UN inspectors. How about the fact that he had and used WMD in the past and the reasonable assumption is that he will use them if he has them. I know you guys think that we in the military and intelligence services are infaluable but maybe the Intel was bad. Protect Israel; give me a break…from whom. Shore up relations with Saudi Royal Family…what by creating a Democratic Republic next door…Yeh that helps their hold on power. Special vendetta against Hussein because of an attempt on GWH Bush's life, Why not, he was our President but doubtful.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

If I was going to spend this kind of money and blood to rescue a people, I'd be in Colombia. They want democracy, and are standing up to terrorism in a way that totally shames this country (we get one major terrorist act and end up with the patriot act - they're under much worse assault and are still trying to maintain citizen rights).

It seems to me that Latin America has made great strides toward democracy through gental persuasion. The right tool for the right job.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

We've already tried to invade and annex Canada. You know the story, including ol' Benedict not getting the recognition he thought he deserved... As far as Canada now not being able to defend against a hockey stick, well, first, that was totally uncalled for, and second, do you really want to start an asymmetrical war with a country you share a three thousand mile border with? Think they'd stay home or would a sizable minority bring the war to us? It'd be just like Nazi Germany, trying to sort out infiltrators. ("Your papers please...")
All that said, if Quebec separates, the Indian nations to the north will try to separate from them, and given the recent history of the Mohawks, this will be armed. We could easily be drawn into that one (and it would be in our national interest to see it settled). If that scenario plays out, it's quite possible that the maritimes might eventually become part of the US.

We were only after a small part of Canada the area around the Great Lakes and that was during the War of 1812 not the revolution. We burned the Canadian Parliament but it was more a raid than a campaign for occupation, mostly militia. Besides I was making a point not advocating a policy, come on Bob

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Finally, what would I cut? Well, there's a war that we rushed into. Because of the rush, we're getting essentially no financial backing from the rest of the world - and they'd be idiots to give us money after we rushed right past the consensus process as it would just encourage us to do it again.
We probably disagree on the value of consensus. I would guess that, as a Marine, you get very little exposure to it. I live in a consensus based community. My experience with is is that, although it can be slow and unwieldy at times, it does a really good job of keeping you from doing something stupid - or at least knowing that it's stupid before you do it
On a more macro level, trying to become "world policeman" on our own is a very bad sign. Seems to me Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" was on that "Marine University" list. Care to poke some holes in his observations/theories?

Therefore, you advocate pulling out of Iraq now regardless of the long-term consequences of that action, based on economic grounds.

No disagreement on the value of consensus I believe in democracy enough to die for the idea. Again a misconception of US Military Culture. You have no idea how democratic the planning process is inside the Marine Corps. We practice bottom up planning, top down review. Rational debate occurs at every level, But when the man in charge makes a final decision everyone support that decision as if it were their own. As professionals we all understand that there usually several logical courses of action, and someone has to make the final call. Further, there are times when I don’t expect to be questioned, for instance if we were under fire, I make the call no debate. I contrast that with my experience working with the British. Who have almost pure top down planning, top down review. Almost no debate at any level occurs during the planning process and that is how they ended up with catastrophes like Gallipoli.

I personally think that our status forces us to be the world police in some cases. Look at Kosovo, if we did not commit to intervention no one was going to intervene. I haven’t read Kennedy’s book yet but I am intimate with the subject. I think that it is difficult to compare America with previous great powers because our very nature is different. We never seek to hold foreign territory. In countries like Germany and Japan, our troops haven’t remained as occupiers. We are there literally as guest of the host nation. There are no issues of extra territoriality with regard to our citizens or troops. Further, once we have defeated a country it is turned into an autonomous democracy with strong economy. Normally, we continue to have great symbiotic political, military and trade relationships with these counties. Contrast that with the nature of the Colonel European Powers.

I think that every one should be very happy that the country that is now the world power is dedicated to the democratization of the world vice the subjugation of the world.

[superart]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

It seems to me that Latin America has made great strides toward democracy through genital persuasion. The right tool for the right job

Freudian slip? or typo?

[BillA]

the Spanish white blood ? - ohhh, too hot for me (and I have a Latina wife !)
'bout the only good part in the last 10 pages

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

Freudian slip? or typo?

LOL...what a great typo

[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.

[9mmCensor]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

Naw man, our snipers would be picking the Cub Scouts off from kilometers away.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by 9mmCensor

Naw man, our snipers would be picking the Cub Scouts off from kilometers away.

Once they convert the range into football fields, though, 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.

[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.