Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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.

So what do you consider brave Kobuchi.

[superart]

Hand to hand combat with swords and clubs.

Thats how real men fight, dontchaknow?

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

OK, enough said.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Two words Afghanistan Republic.

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

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

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Some states are more equal?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Sounds good to me.

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

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

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

Democratic representation or no representation at all?

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

?!

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Eleanor Roosevelt was the chief architect of that document.

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Wow, it is astonishingly close to the close the United States Bill of Rights. So you see your source document was inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Well first off, even if the Emir decided to take Euros instead of US Dollars it would not collapse our economy. We would simply start shrinking our money supply. We adjust the number of dollars in circulation regularly.

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

Sure, that's right.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

So what do you consider brave Kobuchi.

Supposing bravery the obverse of cowardice? Another debate.

Originally Posted by superart

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

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

[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.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

you are misinterpreting both the spirit and letter of the law.

Are you talking to me, or my pastes from the government site?

The spirit of the law, I said, is pro-Israel.

--------------
Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today.

Boycott Alert
U.S. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of Israel.
--------------

Browse the site, you'll find many protective references to Israel, and none to any other boycott target. That's fine by me, just let's be honest where the pointy end of these laws falls on the political compass.

----------------
Antiboycott Laws:
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).
-------------------

What are they ashamed of? Just say Arab embargo. Say Israel. Otherwise, without spelling it out, the letter of the law must be all-inclusive, like so:

-------------------
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
-------------------

The object is to stop people from saying "Israeli business" but, to appear unbiased, the law blankets all and renders normal and harmless discrimination illegal. Just read that last paste again. Such sweeping grandeur is too broad even for a human rights charter. You can't deny "Israeli" cheeses nor "French" cheeses, though you may reject "Golan goat" or "Bree" as you please. That's the law.

The accepted practice though is governed not so much by these laws as it is by a system of winks and nods. So we all understand boycotting French companies naughty but patriotic, while boycotting Israeli ones a deal with Osama. That extrajudicial system's fine by me if it works for you - it's your nation.

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?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Perhaps you should make a complaint about Bill O’Reilly call for a Boycott of France.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

***

It took some goading but I extracted the useful purpose:

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

The other stripe of dictator is the popular strongman, unelected yes but enjoying real support, for a while.

Both types face militant opposition, as a rule, at home or threatened by other regimes, the US or Russia or Rwanda for example, depending on the foreign interests. They'll always get the "message", from one party or another, that people don't support the regime. Arming militant opposition groups sends a clear message. Often the message has teeth enough to thoroughly destabilise the country and keep it under martial law, anarchy, or civil war. This is the effect of intensifying the message.

So your suggestion is not helpful. But how does it look on paper?

Charter Article 1 (Purposes):
1.1 security of states
1.2 peace
1.3 cooperation between countries, and lastly
1.4 "To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."

Charter Article 2 (Principles)
2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

You're proposing the most fundamental Principles of the UN be changed to suit you. It can't be done! The United Nations is the forum of all nations, period. You're proposing, essentially, the United Nations be destroyed and a different organization take its place, one that suits you more perfectly.

Go start your own exclusive club for democratic states then.

***

You've taken time rummaging through the US Constitution and Universal Declaration for matches. So I'll follow up in like spirit:

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.

3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
---
US Declaration:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's a near match, and plainly following yours. Funny how that last Right changes over time. It was "life, liberty, and estate" originally. So you may boast the US Declaration of Independence was copied from the Brits. But if a modern charter of rights uses "Life, Liberty, and Toys", does it copy John Locke, the UDHR, or something in between?


Article 4 is the 13 Amendment to the US Constitution

4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
---
13th: Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.

There. Both human rights documents address slavery. Well, of course they do.


Article 5 is the 8 Amendment to the US Constitution

5th: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
---
8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Both human rights documents address prisoner abuse. As they should.


Article 6 is the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The UDHR affirms the undeniability of the Person. The US 5th Amendment uses the word "person" not just once, but twice, as though to hammer home this key point.


Article 7 is the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Discrimination? No match here.


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

9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Some overlap there.


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

10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You found a pretty good overlap. Of course all human rights documents must address trial, but nice work in spotting how both UDHR Article 10 and US Amendment 6 affirm similar trial rights in their respective paragraphs.


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

18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
---
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here we see both human rights charters address freedom of belief and expression. I wonder what inspires people to dream up these things?

Well, back to your original statement: that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was "inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights". I've shown your evidence, and I suggest you compare again. Unless the fact that both US law and the UDHR both address issues like property, language, etc. constitutes direct inspiration in your mind, you have no argument left. And if you do want to try that road, I promise to show how your own Bill of Rights in most particulars traces from prior works, usually foreign.

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

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

Agreed. It doesn't dictate anything, as a national constitution does. Not unless *ahem* that constitution regards it as the Supreme Law of the Land. But you and I and Bill O’Reilly know not all laws are to be taken seriously.

I think the UDHR potent though, if we can say Chairman Mao's Little Red Book or the Bible or Koran are.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

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 industrialised countries.
[quote=Lothar5150]
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.[/QUOTE
Aha but the joke's on you: it's worth nothing in particular, just paper, Lothar5150, just paper. You should have learned that in kindergarten.

Again, you're pretending the picture isn't moving. What's this got to do with currency speculation? And no, speculation doesn't "base" the value of a currency on your almanac formula. The dollar is going down and is expected to eventually bottom at about 30 - 40% pre-euro value.

Since the Eurozone is 1/5 of the world's GDP and expanding geographically those alone ensure the euro's place in trade not oil. Yet the EU already imports more oil than the US, so a shift from petrodollar to euro seems inevitable.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

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?

[superart]

jesus christ.

Write a novel why doncha.

[Kobuchi]

Curt arguments spark flame wars. But thanks for the advice.

[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?”

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

So you're saying that the antiboycott laws only apply in the case of contracts, with persons outside the US? You're saying, for example, that Americans are free to boycott Israel at their own initiative or endorse the legality of boycotting Israel? In effect, you're supporting the option of boycotting Israel? Or any countries, nationalities, religions, etc? And you're a US citizen? Answer in statement form please.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

No, your argument boils down to insistence on election of national representatives or no democratic participation allowed. It's a pretext to stifling democracy in other arenas. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

You're replying to, "IMO the UDHR was about as fresh a document as was possible at the time", apparently.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

You were talking about personally seeing mass graves in Southern Iraq. IIRC Iran-Iraq (originally called the Persian Gulf War) was fought along the entire border and into the Gulf, mainly on Iraqi soil. The WWI character of Iran-Iraq (the Iranians deployed human wave attacks including unarmed women and children, both sides used gas, mines, trenches) ensured mass graves. What is now called the first Gulf War (Iraq-Kuwait war, or, Desert Storm/Desert Sabre, lest there be confusion) was waged initially from the air, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, then on land, well north into Iraq. The US forces buried Iraqi soldiers in mass graves, and Iraqi "collateral damage" from the intense bombing could very well have been buried with the same expediency we just witnessed in Fallujah: bodies piled in trenches. I don't know just where in Iraq you've been, or when.

Anyway, your point seems to be that I'm ignorant, somehow.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Kobuchi next you will try to convince everyone that the holocaust never happened.

No, and I won't deny Dresden, Hiroshima, or Halabja either.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Well I am happy for Canada, economic health is in our best intrest. However...

Yes, I see you are happy. It's in your interest to be happy.

Nuts.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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

My wife never flipped the Byrd Amendment in my face. Nor have marriage counselors judged her actions "illegal".

I feel better about my role in what Canada is preparing to do , with your self professed LOL on the matter.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

So you're saying that the antiboycott laws only apply in the case of contracts, with persons outside the US? You're saying, for example, that Americans are free to boycott Israel at their own initiative or endorse the legality of boycotting Israel? In effect, you're supporting the option of boycotting Israel? Or any countries, nationalities, religions, etc? And you're a US citizen? Answer in statement form please.

I don’t support a boycott of Israel. Personally, I support all democracies even our current arch nemesis, France. My family came from France to fight this countries first war, I couldn’t be more American. So yes I am a US Citizen.

Yes, Americans are free to boycott or advocate for the boycott of any country they wish. The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to advocate any political view they wish. Including advocating the boycott of Israel, France or whomever. Look, Kobuchi your interpretation is wrong, if you want to prove you are right you will need to find some United States CASE LAW that supports your contention. The law is over 25 years old thus there should be a lot of case law generated.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

No, your argument boils down to insistence on election of national representatives or no democratic participation allowed. It's a pretext to stifling democracy in other arenas. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I pretty sure democracy requires a vote by the people. All though there are a few counties that call them selves democracies and are not , such as Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea)

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You're replying to, "IMO the UDHR was about as fresh a document as was possible at the time", apparently.

Yes, the US Constitution is undeniably one of the most important and inspirational documents in the history of law and government.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You were talking about personally seeing mass graves in Southern Iraq. IIRC Iran-Iraq (originally called the Persian Gulf War) was fought along the entire border and into the Gulf, mainly on Iraqi soil. The WWI character of Iran-Iraq (the Iranians deployed human wave attacks including unarmed women and children, both sides used gas, mines, trenches) ensured mass graves. What is now called the first Gulf War (Iraq-Kuwait war, or, Desert Storm/Desert Sabre, lest there be confusion) was waged initially from the air, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, then on land, well north into Iraq. The US forces buried Iraqi soldiers in mass graves, and Iraqi "collateral damage" from the intense bombing could very well have been buried with the same expediency we just witnessed in Fallujah: bodies piled in trenches. I don't know just where in Iraq you've been, or when.

Both Gulf War and the Iran/Iraq wars were fought in the Eastern and South-Western Deserts of Iraq, respectively. The mass graves are all located in the interior of Iraq…far from any battles. Moreover, bullet holes to the head look a lot different from the damage done by 1000-pound bombs. Most of the bombing of Iraqi Troops occurred in the Northern Deserts of Kuwait and Southwestern Desert if Iraq. There was not collateral damage because the troops where in trenches in open desert.

Once the trial of Chemical Ali starts, you will hear plenty on the mass graves we found in the south.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Anyway, your point seems to be that I am ignorant, somehow.

Yep

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

No, and I won't deny Dresden, Hiroshima…...

I agree I think both Dresden and Hiroshima were a shame. However, they are certainly not comparable to the systematic extermination. Which both Japan and Germany participated. Or the Ba’athist in Iraq

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

My wife never flipped the Byrd Amendment in my face. Nor have marriage counselors judged her actions "illegal".

I feel better about my role in what Canada is preparing to do , with your self professed LOL on the matter.

I’m sure this will all work out in the end. Between democratic nations, these things ALWAYS do…you act like trade disputes are something new or uncommon.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Yes, Americans are free to boycott or advocate for the boycott of any country they wish.

Thank you.

Now, suppose you run a cheese shop, and you want to boycott Israeli products through it...

----------
The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services (including information) within the United States or between the U.S. and a foreign country.
----------

...the boycott would begin with telling your suppliers or purchasing agents, "Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable". Are you free to do that?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

the US Constitution is ... one of the most important and inspirational documents in the history of law and government.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Once the trial of Chemical Ali starts, you will hear plenty on the mass graves we found in the south.

I'm curious to see how it plays out, and the precedent it will set.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Yep.

I'll take that for an emoticon.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Dresden and Hiroshima were a shame. However, they are certainly not comparable...

Halabja isn't comperable to Dresden and Hiroshima? OK both sides were bombarding it, but isn't that irrelevant to the dead? It was a slaughter.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I’m sure this will all work out in the end. Between democratic nations, these things ALWAYS do...you act like trade disputes are something new or uncommon.

Contradictory to say these trade disputes work out, in the end, and also admit they're eternal (lumber for example has been an issue between out countries for centuries). Pick one.

I didn't mean to act like trade disputes haven't been around as long as lying and stealing and squandering your good name. That you, Lothar5150, excuse it as normal behaviour (in your "interest", perhaps?) really illuminates the problem to me, and blesses the solution.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Thank you.

Now, suppose you run a cheese shop, and you want to boycott Israeli products through it...

----------
The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services (including information) within the United States or between the U.S. and a foreign country.
----------

...the boycott would begin with telling your suppliers or purchasing agents, "Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable". Are you free to do that?

Your theory on how the law should work has some major First Amendment issues. Let’s not speculate on how the law should work in theory. Show me some case law. This has been on the books for 25 years.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Halabja isn't comperable to Dresden and Hiroshima? OK both sides were bombarding it, but isn't that irrelevant to the dead? It was a slaughter.

No Halabja is more comparable to what the Turks did to the Armenians. Kobuchi dead is dead, no doubt. However, circumstances and intent are always factors.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Contradictory to say these trade disputes work out, in the end, and also admit they're eternal (lumber for example has been an issue between out countries for centuries). Pick one.

I didn't mean to act like trade disputes haven't been around as long as lying and stealing and squandering your good name. That you, Lothar5150, excuse it as normal behaviour (in your "interest", perhaps?) really illuminates the problem to me, and blesses the solution.

Self-interest is modeus operandi of all involved in free trade. That doesn’t mean lie, cheat or steal but it does mean the every trade is a quid pro quo or be perceived as such by both parties. Sure the dispute over lumber will likely pop up repeatedly. Each time we will come to an acceptable, albeit temporary, compromise. There are some very complicated underlying issues in all these disputes so don’t fall into the trap of oversimplification.

For instance, agriculture is an industry where we need insure our ability to produce food our population. Lumber, mining of certain base metals, transportation etc… also fall into this category. Not that I think these industries should not have to compete with foreign goods or services but we do need to insure that we maintain the industrial capability.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Let’s not speculate on how the law should work in theory. Show me some case law. This has been on the books for 25 years.

Won't answer the question, eh? Well I'll show you why I posed that question, phrased just so. From the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Examples of Boycott Requests:

----------
"Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable."
----------

Case law? But that would prove my second point that the spirit (though not the letter) of the law is pro-Israel, and everyone knows it. You won't see the law applied in defense of other countries. OK then let's see what happens when the Presbyterian Church decides to openly divest from Israel: Boycott Watch - Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws . But watch out for these guys, they also pen "balanced" open letters like "Boycott Watch to Duke University: Do You Stand With Us, Or The Terrorists?" Anyhow, they're lawyers, plainly.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No Halabja is more comparable to what the Turks did to the Armenians. Kobuchi dead is dead, no doubt. However, circumstances and intent are always factors.

Both sides saw it as strategic, that's why they fought over it so long, why the town kept changing hands. I think the intent was purely military, without much consideration for civilians in the crossfire, and then finally no consideration. The circumstance was desperate, brutal attrition warfare. They put military objective before the lives of local civilians. For this those soldiers and commanders are guilty of a crime against humanity.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Self-interest is modeus operandi of all involved in free trade. That doesn’t mean lie, cheat or steal...

That's right. Still your trading partners are now authorised to retaliate. US government should not have tested the law you now acknowledge. You see that behaviour harms us all. Why I put "self interest" in quotes - it's pavlovian mindset and if one insists on living it the others finally play that game by applying negative reinforcement.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

For instance, agriculture is an industry where we need insure our ability to produce food our population. Lumber, mining of certain base metals, transportation etc… also fall into this category. Not that I think these industries should not have to compete with foreign goods or services but we do need to insure that we maintain the industrial capability.

So in that light what should Japan do? Seems to me all your trade partners have a greater problem with potential self-sufficiency. Shouldn't they protect or subsidise their industries even more then?

[yoshana]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

"Today, the SPR(Strategic Petroleum Reserve) has the capacity to hold 727 million barrels."
- US DOE

Demand
US OIL DEMAND, 2004: Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day

727,000,000/20,000,000=36.35 Days (slightly shy of 30 years)

(Actual current SPR total is 673.5 million bbls or 33.675 Days)

How do we control price with 36 days supply of oil? Wait you mean the total amount of available, drillable, oil in the US right?


"According to the Oil and Gas Journal, the United States had 22.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2004, eleventh highest in the world."

Ok
22,700,000,000/20,000,000= 1135 days of proven drillabe oil in the US (3.1Years)
(Still shy of 30 years)

This is assuming that consumption in the US remains constant.. and I think a jump of 1.5 million barrels per day from 2002 to now shows thats just not the case.

But here is the kicker on that little tidbit.

The US can't come close to producing 20 Million barrels per day..


"During 2003, the United States produced around 7.9 million barrels per day (MMBD) of oil, of which 5.7 MMBD was crude oil, and the rest natural gas liquids and other liquids. U.S. total oil production in 2003 was down sharply (around 2.7 MMBD, or 25%) from the 10.6 MMBD averaged in 1985."


I love your faith in our contry. I love you commitment to the US, and your dedication to defend it.


But I also see Iraq as 300,000,000,000/20,000,000= 15,000 Days of Oil for the US
(Theres the 41 years we wanted, right?)
Bought at $0.66/Barrel plus the cost of actually drilling it.
Iraq is the new US oil reserve.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Won't answer the question, eh? Well I'll show you why I posed that question, phrased just so. From the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Examples of Boycott Requests:

----------
"Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable."
----------

Case law? But that would prove my second point that the spirit (though not the letter) of the law is pro-Israel, and everyone knows it. You won't see the law applied in defense of other countries. OK then let's see what happens when the Presbyterian Church decides to openly divest from Israel: Boycott Watch - Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws . But watch out for these guys, they also pen "balanced" open letters like "Boycott Watch to Duke University: Do You Stand With Us, Or The Terrorists?" Anyhow, they're lawyers, plainly.

Case Law…lets see it. Again, this law is almost 30 years old let us see how this law played out in the courts. We don’t need to wait for the Presbyterian Church to go to court, let’s look at few cases that have been ruled upon including appeals and judicial reviews up to the US Supreme Court. (I’m waiting)

No doubt these laws were enacted to protect Israel but I’m sure that was addressed a page or two ago.
What is your point…are you anti-Semitic?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Both sides saw it as strategic, that's why they fought over it so long, why the town kept changing hands. I think the intent was purely military, without much consideration for civilians in the crossfire, and then finally no consideration. The circumstance was desperate, brutal attrition warfare. They put military objective before the lives of local civilians. For this those soldiers and commanders are guilty of a crime against humanity.

Was their a point you where trying to make?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

That's right. Still your trading partners are now authorised to retaliate. US government should not have tested the law you now acknowledge. You see that behaviour harms us all. Why I put "self interest" in quotes - it's pavlovian mindset and if one insists on living it the others finally play that game by applying negative reinforcement.

Don't be rediculos there will not be any type of trade war.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

So in that light what should Japan do? Seems to me all your trade partners have a greater problem with potential self-sufficiency. Shouldn't they protect or subsidise their industries even more then?

You’re kidding right? Japan protects its farmers big time. We (California) are one of the largest producers of rice in the world and we have been trying to export rice to Japan for decades but the import laws in Japan insulate the rice farmers from competition. Personally, I don’t blame them for doing it. Like I said you have to ensure you maintain a base for certain industries.

[Lothar5150]

yoshana, the 30 year estimate is based on rationing and widespread use of nuclear energy. Further, I would not take the number published on the DOE website as gospel.

However, no one is suggesting that we would stop buying oil on the open market. That is not necessary to significantly affect price. Consider that the last time we began to fill the SPR in 1994, that action raise the price of oil $0.28, the fill rate was set at 100,000 barrels per day. Therefore, what if we began to add 100,000 barrels per day. We can easily sustain that for ten years or more at the DOE published capacity.

Originally Posted by yoshana

"I love your faith in our contry. I love you commitment to the US, and your dedication to defend it.


But I also see Iraq as 300,000,000,000/20,000,000= 15,000 Days of Oil for the US
(Theres the 41 years we wanted, right?)
Bought at $0.66/Barrel plus the cost of actually drilling it.
Iraq is the new US oil reserve.

Thanks, I think that is called a left-handed complement. I Think I said this before we get the vast majority of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. If I use your assumption (not a good assumption by the way) that we would consume every barrel produced by Iraq then we could have saved $0.66 a barrel. It would have been far cheaper to get the UN to lift sanctions on Saddam and just buy it on the open market. If our motivation was the oil that would have been the logical decision.

[superart]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

It would have been far cheaper to get the UN to lift sanctions on Saddam and just buy it on the open market. If our motivation was the oil that would have been the logical decision.

So what exactly, in your opinion, was our motivation for going to war?

It certainly wasn't to free Iraqi peple from Sadam. That was just a nice side effect.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

So what exactly, in your opinion, was our motivation for going to war?

It certainly wasn't to free Iraqi peple from Sadam. That was just a nice side effect.

Yes, I do think that was a major reason. I also think that we thought Saddam had WMD and he was in constant violation of the UN and cease fire agreements.

Liberating the Iraqis was part of the a policy you will not hear on the news but if you look at the issues of Foreign Affaires right after 9/11 you’ll see quite a few articles on it. It is also outlined in the National Strategy. Honestly, it is called Pax Americana. The basic premise is that democratic nations have the best chance for stability and that by establishing stable democratic nations we will ultimately create long-term international stability and peace. Yes, it is a policy to establish some degree of hegemony throughout the world. However, unlike previous world powers attempting hegemony we have no interest in grabbing land or subjugating the population. Quite the opposite is the ultimate aim. The best example of this policy in action is post WW2 Western Europe.

I also think that we honestly thought Saddam possessed WMDs. If you talk to most people who have any experience as an intelligence consumer they have no problem with the idea that we received bum scoop. Intelligence analysis uses many assumptions and in many cases, the assumption is based on indirect observation. Honestly, weathermen have a better track record.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Case Law... lets see it. Again, this law is almost 30 years old let us see how this law played out in the courts. We don’t need to wait for the Presbyterian Church to go to court, let’s look at few cases that have been ruled upon including appeals and judicial reviews up to the US Supreme Court. (I’m waiting)

You were waiting for me? Well... thank you!

Here's an odd one. Discriminatory hiring. What's that got to do with illegal boycotts? Antiboycott law applied because the discrimination was against a Jew who wanted a position managing sales to Arab countries. Weird, but idealistic - I like it.

Here's another. On eight occasions, the mail-order company McMaster-Carr "failed to report its receipt of boycott-related requests within the time period required by the EAR". Although the company did voluntarily disclose the alleged violations to the department, it has agreed to pay an $8,000 civil penalty. Want a bet none of those offending requests involved France, Zimbabwe, or China?

This one's cute. "Specifically, the OAC (Office of Antiboycott Compliance) alleged that G.M. Marketing told other parties to the transactions that ships involved in the transactions were able to enter ports located in the boycotting countries. These statements, according to OAC, conveyed information about the blacklist status of those ships, thereby illegally complying with the boycott."

Here's a German subsidiary of Dell forking over to the US Department of Commerce, because it "furnished information regarding its business relationships with Israel" to a customer. I wonder if Dell USA furnished information regarding its business relationships with Germany? Why not get them twice? Anyway, the German company pays because otherwise it'll be blacklisted. Antiboycott operates by counter-boycott.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

What is your point... are you anti-Semitic?

No. But I said the spirit of these laws is pro-Israel and you said I'm mistaken. Your accusation is little more appropriate than if I'd said a law was pro-Brazil and you asked am I anti-Catholic. Also, it's impossible to discuss the antiboycott laws without Israel in the foreground. I think these laws funny because they're written broadly to cover any country not officially sanctioned, yet they're enforced in a very selective way. I stand by that and you aren't doing well to disprove it.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Don't be rediculos there will not be any type of trade war.

Any type of trade war is out of the question... and trade disputes involving tariffs and counter-tariffs are normal? You said both. Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Personally, I don’t blame them for doing it. Like I said you have to ensure you maintain a base for certain industries.

Fair enough.

America will not be held hostage by foreign energy exporters. Canada and its friends are committed to fostering strength in the US energy industry. To this end *pulls plug* we believe hard incentives necessary *cranks valve* to prompt increased self reliance *throws switch* and ultimate self-sufficiency to protect the American way of life from the whims of foreign interests.

*fires up aluminum smelter*

***

The DOE site:

-----------
Oil can be pumped from the Reserve at a maximum rate of 4.3 million barrels per day for up to 90 days, then the drawdown rate begins to decline as storage caverns are emptied. At 1 million barrels per day, the Reserve can release oil into the market continuously for nearly a year and a half.
----------

Nothing to sneeze at. It could steadily supply 1/20th of demand for sour crude, for over a year.

***

Weathermen aren't often in the position of selling snowsuits on the side.

It was obvious from the start WMD was a Big Lie. Drones of Death!? Come on. Transcript of the Hussein Kamel interrogation was available to the public well before the invasion. Analysis of his defection and the consequences of secretly "leveraging" his testimony illuminated otherwise odd behaviour on both sides. Certain individuals tried hard to get this intelligence out, but we were up against a childish anti-war chant on one side, and cognitive dissonence already in motion and on the other. And it's still in motion, spiraling day by day. The majority of Americans now think the invasion wasn't worth it. Democracy for Iraqis is just the last rationalisation.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

You were waiting for me? Well... thank you!

No a single incident you posted went to court. I am still waiting for some case law.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

America will not be held hostage by foreign energy exporters. Canada and its friends are committed to fostering strength in the US energy industry. To this end *pulls plug* we believe hard incentives necessary *cranks valve* to prompt increased self reliance *throws switch* and ultimate self-sufficiency to protect the American way of life from the whims of foreign interests.

Canadian Oil Companies are interested in continuing to sell oil for profit to the US.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Weathermen aren't often in the position of selling snowsuits on the side.

Don’t be foolish you are talking about a process you have no experience with. Why do you think the joke Military Intelligence is a funny joke to people in the military? Do you think it is a matter of self-deprecation or maybe we know something about the nature of intelligence gathering and analysis, which makes that joke funny to us?

[superart]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Yes, I do think that was a major reason. I also think that we thought Saddam had WMD and he was in constant violation of the UN and cease fire agreements.

Liberating the Iraqis was part of the a policy you will not hear on the news but if you look at the issues of Foreign Affaires right after 9/11 you’ll see quite a few articles on it. It is also outlined in the National Strategy. Honestly, it is called Pax Americana. The basic premise is that democratic nations have the best chance for stability and that by establishing stable democratic nations we will ultimately create long-term international stability and peace. Yes, it is a policy to establish some degree of hegemony throughout the world. However, unlike previous world powers attempting hegemony we have no interest in grabbing land or subjugating the population. Quite the opposite is the ultimate aim. The best example of this policy in action is post WW2 Western Europe.

I also think that we honestly thought Saddam possessed WMDs. If you talk to most people who have any experience as an intelligence consumer they have no problem with the idea that we received bum scoop. Intelligence analysis uses many assumptions and in many cases, the assumption is based on indirect observation. Honestly, weathermen have a better track record.

OK, I'll grant you that its very possible that we did indeed believe that sadam had WMD's

However, i still doubt that Iraqi liberty was verry high on the list. If it was, why would they beat arround he bush the way they did. First it was terrorism connections, ten WMD, then when that didn't pan out they started tooting the liberty horn. Just sems very shady to me.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

OK, I'll grant you that its very possible that we did indeed believe that sadam had WMD's


However, i still doubt that Iraqi liberty was verry high on the list. If it was, why would they beat arround he bush the way they did. First it was terrorism connections, ten WMD, then when that didn't pan out they started tooting the liberty horn. Just sems very shady to me.

You can read the National Security Strategy for yourself. This is the source document driving our foreign policy right now, both in terms of diplomatic goals and military operations.

I think that part of the problem that all administrations face is that the issues and strategies are very complex. When you’re the guy in the hot seat you may have a set of analysts telling you there is a high probability that he has WMD, We think he has connections to terrorist because money is being funneled to the PLO, Saddam has violated the cease-fire and fired on our aircraft for the last 10 years. Finally the National Security Strategy call for spreading democracy in order to foster long term stability....What to do you do as President, if you take out Saddam no one will really miss him, some might complain but deep down everyone would like to see him gone. On the other hand if he does have WMD and there is an attack using WMD, the American People will be asking for your resignation at best, more than likely they will want a piece of your ass. So you error on the side of taking out Saddam and give the one simple reason for going to war. However, it was not the only one but it is easier to get the people to rally around one idea rather than a multitude of probabilities.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No a single incident you posted went to court. I am still waiting for some case law.

If you can't retreat further, deny all evidence and stonewall. I'm done.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Canadian Oil Companies are interested in continuing to sell oil for profit to the US.

Of course we prefer to send it your way. Our oil happens to be in the transportation cost centre of the continent, uphill of America. Oil is just 25% of our energy export. We ship a lot of coal out of BC (11%) to Japan and South Korea.

Other energy exports can't go overseas; natural gas at 39%, hydropower at 20%, and nuclear power at 5%. The energy trade relationship is not so much like one of a free market as it is like that between management and an entrenched workforce: ultimately America has the power to set the price (i.e. wage), or could gradually replace (i.e. unemploy) its Canadian import, but Canada has the power to disrupt and force a settlement through American public outcry. I've talked to one Canadian politician who was very explicit: "pull the plug" were the words he used. I imagine this threat has been hinted in past bargaining with the US. We have little more choice in our energy exporting than a trade union does in who employs its members, so I don't think your general statement about interest and profit among oil traders suits the case.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Don’t be foolish you are talking about a process you have no experience with.

My forecasts of Iraq were spot on before the invasion, and they still are. Go back in the thread to consequences of the Fallujah assault, for example.

Look, I know how your nation's intelligence fails, because I know what it wants to see. Remember the yellowcake prank we played on you? Iraq just isn't something your nation views objectively anymore. Outsiders map that distorted view and sell into it, or work around it. We all have our blind spots. Maybe you see mine.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Why do you think the joke Military Intelligence is a funny joke to people in the military? Do you think it is a matter of self-deprecation or maybe we know something about the nature of intelligence gathering and analysis, which makes that joke funny to us?

I understand your problem, and appreciate you can have a good chuckle about destroying and invading a country by accident.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

If you can't retreat further, deny all evidence and stonewall. I'm done.

Its simple Kobuchi in many cases it is cheaper to settle fines out of court because the fine is less that the first hour of trial lawyer’s fees. Further, case law is only created after a case has been completely through the applet system. Its not stonewalling you just have not proven your interpretation is correct, all you have shown is that it was cheaper to pay the fine rather than go to court.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

My forecasts of Iraq were spot on before the invasion, and they still are. Go back in the thread to consequences of the Fallujah assault, for example.

And doesn’t it bother you that we idiots of the world make the decision that count...given that you are so much smarter than everyone else.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Look, I know how your nation's intelligence fails, because I know what it wants to see. Remember the yellowcake prank we played on you? Iraq just isn't something your nation views objectively anymore. Outsiders map that distorted view and sell into it, or work around it. We all have our blind spots. Maybe you see mine

I understand your problem, and appreciate you can have a good chuckle about destroying and invading a country by accident.

I find that funny...all intelligence fails not just American Intelligence. The joke is that it is all an educated guess just like the weather. There was no accident about invading Iraq and the country was far from destroyed. In fact, Iraq’s infrastructure is in better shape today than it was before the war.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

doesn’t it bother you that we idiots of the world make the decision that count...

By context I assume you mean "US government" by "we idiots". No, I don't believe the US government makes the decisions that count.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

...given that you are so much smarter than everyone else.

I said we all have our blind spots, myself included. Of course your nation enjoys objectivity on some subjects mine cannot.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I find that funny...all intelligence fails not just American Intelligence.

A while back you claimed your expert opinion the producer of ground truth straight up to the President, and that your "professionalisum and that of (your) peers is guided by an accurate view of events" for example reinterpreting a "poorly written" Gallup survey to better reflect reality. Now you're throwing up your hands and calling intelligence a joke nobody should take seriously.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

There was no accident about invading Iraq and the country was far from destroyed. In fact, Iraq’s infrastructure is in better shape today than it was before the war.

My neighbour's household doesn't operate with fair and transparent democratic process. For example they don't use secret ballots. They don't even have elections. I've seen him hit his wife. What do you say? I'll give my neighbour an ultimatum to disarm himself of the illegal tracked combat vehicle I know he has stowed in the secret basement bunker, or I'll invade his house and disarm him myself, since the so-called police can't even find the illegal tracked combat vehicle in their searches. Then I'll smash everything he has that I can replace for him at a real bargain, and lockdown the family and install order. They'll be real friendly and offer me a chair and a cup of tea and listen to my advice. Then when the police arrive to ask is everything OK I'll have one of the brats declare, "yes I'm the new boss... we need money to fix the broke toilet can you give it to that man holding the baseball bat?" and I'll say, "you wouldn't want them to suffer more, would you?" I'll buy the family a new toilet! Have it delivered and installed by a guy I know does good work. And then I'll teach the family democratic process. But I won't leave until I've taught them to punch each other. When the heat is on, failure to strike is unacceptable, I'll tell them. Also I want to keep several of my dogs tied up in the yard, and I want the tenant downstairs and the family across the street to stop interfering with the neighbours, and I mean it.

That family will be a lot better off when I'm through with them.



That was fun.

EDIT: Fixed link.