371–380 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
She was arrested in Vancouver.
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But al…
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts. I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign comp…
> That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in.…
Indirectly, however, you'll find the Internet is pretty replete. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
Given the strident tone of your post, I suspect you'll dismiss those sources. No doubt you'll suspect them of being self-serving. Very well. Evidence of Iran's doings also exists in forms which cut against the U.S. military's interest, such as the fact that they duped the U.S. military into violating U.S. law by providing them weapons.
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Is-the-US-supporting-Irani...
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2017/9/4/how-iraqi...
https://abcnews.go.com/International/dirty-brigades-us-train...
The fact is that Iranian-sponsored terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, that just defeating Daesh is a moral problem... it's become a logistical nightmare to not only perform Leahy vetting but to actually carry out operations without a Shi'ite militia taking part and committing atrocities in the name of the Coalition.
And those Shi'ite militias? "All are directly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and are notorious among the Sunni minority population for carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture and ethnic cleansing."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/iraqs-shia-militias-accused-of...
----------
You are entitled to your opinion that the "USA is just a big bully," although I personally don't think it's a well-founded opinion. However, the next time you feel inclined to start calling things a "farce" before you've examined any evidence, I'd encourage you to reconsider.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_de... Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by: The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international agreements. The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying with US sanctio…
Plus the arrested party is the daughter of the founder; I can't separate that fact when trying to infer intention here. I definitely feel anxious..
This is supposed to be about Iran? Arresting the daugther of Huawei's founder definately makes it seem like there is more going on.
How is any significant American business man flying through Hong Kong airport supposed to feel right now?
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_de... Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by: The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international agreements. The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying with US sanctio…
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran. But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest. China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets. If Huawei illeg…
please show me how Huawei enjoyed its open access to the US market.
if you like, I can easily show you tons of evidence on how Huawei's competitors say Cisco enjoyed its open access to the Chinese markets.
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But al…
Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.
And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.
The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
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?
What I would like to know is how deals like this go down? Like does the US have some sort of agreement/incentive with Canada for them to spend their own effort on this? The US calling Canada on the phone and asking them to arrest someone they want seems too.. easy? I imagine there's a limit where goodwill only gets you so far, and then some sort of compensation is expected. Maybe there's a lot of backdoor Gov2Gov mon…
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran. But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest. China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets. If Huawei illeg…
She has been arrested for violating a completely unrelated US law (in non-US territory).
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But al…
U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4].
I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o...
Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...