361–370 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia is not a superpower, its reach is regional and it has few allies. It still has lots of nuclear weapons. And probably more tactical nuclear weapons than the US does. But yes, it has fewer allies, for sure.
Nuclear weapons are difficult tools to apply in diplomatic contexts like this one.
China has a long history of disregarding United Nations and US sanctions. During the second Iraq war they defied UN sanctions by selling anti-aircraft defense systems to Iraq directly endangering US and coalition fighters. Edit: verb tense. https://books.google.com/books?id=grGMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT221&lpg=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare. How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?
> She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.
I would not look forward to being an American businessman abroad in China right now. I think we're all used to the fiction that we live in a world that's totally governed by fairness and laws. That's been a pretty useful fiction for a long time, and in (some) of the developed world that's basically been how it's worked. But I really wonder how many shocks this system can take. I would bet money that an important US e…
Seriously. It's this fiction that makes me believe that, despite it's flaws, America (along with other democratic countries) is a beacon compared to the rest of the world. A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws is so different than a country locking up said foreigner out of retaliation, which is what I imagine China will end up doing.
The United States is currently operating an illegal drone war in other parts of the world.
Imagine how you would feel if Russia was flying drones above the US and targeted bombing a certain extremist group of people. Are you sure the next wedding you attend none of your friends friends is a target (or a mistaken target)?
Imagine how you life would be when death can come from the sky at any moment and there is nothing you can do about it.
This reminds me of the Yinhe incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The article mentions that ..." accomplishes the goal of calling out poor comments while taking the high road.
Sure, and I think that works here. But what do you say when the entire comment doesn't make any sense because it was formed from an incorrect view of what the article was really about, like in the example I linked? I guess "do nothing" is the option I choose, still frustrating.
I think the more important question is: if someone is talking out of their ass, is it worth continuing to talk to them? In RL, other factors may apply, but in a forum like this...?
Unless ofc you end up with an interesting response anyways ;) (note: did you read tfa does not constitute interesting unless your standards are disturbingly low). Imo the minimum is a good backhanded insult thrown in
Can somebody explain to me on what authority the US can request the arrest of a Chinese national on Canadian soil for any action they took while conducting operations of a Chinese organization headquartered in China?
The crackdown on online poker was a striking example of this. To give cliff notes the US, heavily influenced by casino lobbyists, decided to ban online poker. Online poker sites were operating in foreign countries obeying all laws domestically applied to them. In spite of the fact that sites were operating within all laws that domestically applied to them, the US decided to act because they refused to overtly ban US players. In an extremely rapid action the US simultaneously confiscated the domains of these sites, and executed arrest warrants on many of the involved individuals including surreptitious raids and extraditions from places including South/Central America, and froze numerous bank accounts around the world including in places such as Ireland.
The US is powerful enough that its own desire is sufficient authority to enact any action. Guantanamo Bay is a great example. This is not a just a US property under US law. It is operated as a US territory but mostly independent of US legal authority. The Geneva Convention is disregarded as convenient. For instance the three prisoners that were reported as having committed suicide (which would result in condemnation in Islamic belief) were allegedly tortured to death at a secret facility in Guantanamo, known as 'Camp No' (as in, no it does not exist), detached from the main camp. [1]
The dictatorship of Iran is disgusting and dangerous but the US trades with countries governed by equally disgusting and dangerous dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and China.
The US trade sanctions are imposed unilaterally and create mountains of troubles for US allies. Most of the world oppose the trade sanctions. Such sanctions rarely work anyways. It's a huge cost born not only by US companies but by companies in allied countries that have to obey US sanctions in order to avoid repercussions.