Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

Thanks Doug for perfectly illustrating my centre point.
The US suffers from extreme hubris to believe that its laws should have sway in another sovereign country. I am amazed that the UK government hasn't had the balls to tell them to piss off. As the acts happened in the UK it was certainly the UK government's call if it was a crime or not, not the US's. As a ridiculous example I was personally quite offended to see those swaggering thugs carrying automatic weapons in the streets of Michigan. Now if I was to convince my government that it was a crime against humanity, and to demand their extradition for trial here, how far would I get?
Regarding the WMD matter. The US knew that Saddam did have some, because in a previous role Rumsfeld had authorised the transfer of them there to aid in the battle against Iran. However over time most had either been expended against the Kurds and others, or had deteriorated to uselessness. As the UN inspectors found, at that time Iraq had no effective WMD, and the few nerve gases that they had had would only have been effective in internal skirmishes. No threat to the world, as was tried to be sold to the UN.
Then your final point completes the trifecta. How dare the US claim that they are owed taxes on profits made in other countries, and that those countries can't be recompensed for the infrastructure used by those US companies. As you say, only the US takes that stance, and only they can get away with it, being the biggest bully in the schoolyard.
That you proffered those three defences implies that you believe those defences are reasonable. As you have proven on here to normally be a sensible and highly intelligent person, that implies that the US will continue to ride rough shod over everyone else.

doug941 wrote:

Daryl wrote:Rereading what I had written, I was a bit clumsy.
Firstly I didn't mean any insult to the US, sorry. Secondly I used the example of unobtainium to make a different point than the obvious.
The point I was really trying to make was the disregarding of sovereignty. Not actually trying to steal resources, although that has happened.
I could list many instances where the US has just plain ignored the rights of other countries. Even with BinLaden, while I agree that he got what he deserved, riding roughshod over Pakistan's rights was illegal. Killing that Iranian general with a drone strike, imagine if they had taken out a senior US General the next day in response? Both Iraq and Afghanistan complain continuously about US presence and actions.
Rendering the citizens of other countries, charging Assange for journalist activities on UK soil.
Invading Iraq for WMD, when it was obvious that they had none, but North Korea did have (as does the US). US corporations who pay no tax in the countries where they make their profits. Could list dozens more.

Several points. Possession of US classified materials is a crime under US law no matter where you might happen to be standing. The decision of extradite or not to extradite is for the Foreign Office 10 Downing etc to make, but it is NOT theirs to decide on if it was a crime.

Second, your statement about WMD, which was completely in error. Saddam DID have WMD and used WMD. After invading in 2003, approx 5,000 weapons were recovered, many still containing nerve gas. The only question that had to be answered was what did he do with the weapons he had.

Last point. Of all of the First and Second World countries, only the US taxes corporations on income made outside of the home country. Companies based in say, the UK, don't pay UK taxes on income earned in Italy. An American company would be charged taxes if it was to sell candy bars and soft drinks on the Moon.

Daryl wrote:Thanks Doug for perfectly illustrating my centre point.
The US suffers from extreme hubris to believe that its laws should have sway in another sovereign country. I am amazed that the UK government hasn't had the balls to tell them to piss off. As the acts happened in the UK it was certainly the UK government's call if it was a crime or not, not the US's. As a ridiculous example I was personally quite offended to see those swaggering thugs carrying automatic weapons in the streets of Michigan. Now if I was to convince my government that it was a crime against humanity, and to demand their extradition for trial here, how far would I get?
Regarding the WMD matter. The US knew that Saddam did have some, because in a previous role Rumsfeld had authorised the transfer of them there to aid in the battle against Iran. However over time most had either been expended against the Kurds and others, or had deteriorated to uselessness. As the UN inspectors found, at that time Iraq had no effective WMD, and the few nerve gases that they had had would only have been effective in internal skirmishes. No threat to the world, as was tried to be sold to the UN.
Then your final point completes the trifecta. How dare the US claim that they are owed taxes on profits made in other countries, and that those countries can't be recompensed for the infrastructure used by those US companies. As you say, only the US takes that stance, and only they can get away with it, being the biggest bully in the schoolyard.
That you proffered those three defences implies that you believe those defences are reasonable. As you have proven on here to normally be a sensible and highly intelligent person, that implies that the US will continue to ride rough shod over everyone else.



[quote="doug941"

Several points. Possession of US classified materials is a crime under US law no matter where you might happen to be standing. The decision of extradite or not to extradite is for the Foreign Office 10 Downing etc to make, but it is NOT theirs to decide on if it was a crime.

Second, your statement about WMD, which was completely in error. Saddam DID have WMD and used WMD. After invading in 2003, approx 5,000 weapons were recovered, many still containing nerve gas. The only question that had to be answered was what did he do with the weapons he had.

Last point. Of all of the First and Second World countries, only the US taxes corporations on income made outside of the home country. Companies based in say, the UK, don't pay UK taxes on income earned in Italy. An American company would be charged taxes if it was to sell candy bars and soft drinks on the Moon.

[/quote]


Actually, if someone from "Country X" obtained materials from the UK's MoD, from MI5, from MI6, in violation of the Official Secrets Act of 1989, Whitehall most certainly WOULD go after them and their location at the time would not matter unless the country he/she is in gives him/her sanctuary. Most other if not all other First World countries would do the same. As for deciding not to extradite the person in question, that is the host country's right but the aggrieved country has exactly the same right as to legal reciprocity, i.e. extradite or not.

The weapons Saddam had? Many of them were in good enough condition that EOD team members had to be hospitalized for treatment after exposure. Saddam as part of the ceasefire had to account for EVERY SINGLE WEAPON, which he did not and tried his damnedest to avoid doing. Pure nerve gases in useable form can be stored for years, in binary form for quite a while longer.

I see that Julian Assange's extridition is still tied up in a London court. Now there is someone who needs to be answering in an American court.

Don

-

I'm going to take issue with the WMD claims.

The US along with other countries is guilty of selling Iraq the dual use technology for chemical weapons. A pesticide plant can make Sarin. A machine shop that can manufacture artillery explosive projectile s can manufacture projectiles for chemical weapons. Many countries were willing to turn a blind eye to Iraq to contain Iran.

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was very active prior to the first Gulf War. They had not only gas centrifuge technology but a Calutron. Saddam was months away from having nukes when Schwartzkopf kicked his ass out of Kuwait. The US destroyed as much of the Iraq WMD program as possible, but it simply was not possible to destroy the knowledge to build the WMD unless we were willing to kill all of the scientists and technicians.

I will concede that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Bush "misoverestimated" the status of Iraq's WMD. Saddam was eager to encourage the error to deter Iran. Bush had correctly identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil that were likely to go nuclear. South Korea and Japan were unwilling to enable the US to take out North Korea. An invasion of Iran is not feasible except from Iraq. Saddam violated enough UN sanctions to justify the invasion.

While Iraq's WMD was still dormant, Saddam was obviously prepared to reconstitute the program once sanctions were lifted. Iraq had retained hundreds of tons of Uranium, high detonation velocity explosives, and prototypes of gas centrifuges. He still had the people with the knowledge.

After Saddam was found hiding in a latrine pit, Daffy Gaddafi surrendered Libyan WMD. This included gas centrifuges that exposed the A Q Kahn nuclear weapons bizarre. Kahn had been selling to Iraq as well as Libya and Iran. We now know that Turkey was supplying electronic controls for Irans gas centrifuges. This is how the Israelis learned how to hack the system with the SEXTANT virus.

Of course everyone was changing "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED," when South Korea detonated nukes. Iran probably already has nukes. Turkey is working on nukes. Brazil is building a nuclear submarine which requires high grade Uranium enrichment which enables nukes.

Time for the US to fold up it's nuclear umbrella and come home.

On another issue, Obama was stupid to kill Bin Laden. Pakistan already has nukes. Reforming a theocracy without having a military dictatorship was the only plausible strategy to minimize the threat. Killing Bin Laden humiliated and discredited a moderate government. It would have been better to allow Bin Laden to continue watching his porn collection. Now the Islamic nut cases have Pakistan s nukes.

Killing the Iranian General was the right thing to do. There had just been an Iranian incited attack on the US embassy. The Shiit Iraqi government then invites this asshole for a visit. Killing him was the perfect response

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I'm going to take issue with the WMD claims.

The US along with other countries is guilty of selling Iraq the dual use technology for chemical weapons. A pesticide plant can make Sarin. A machine shop that can manufacture artillery explosive projectile s can manufacture projectiles for chemical weapons. Many countries were willing to turn a blind eye to Iraq to contain Iran.

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was very active prior to the first Gulf War. They had not only gas centrifuge technology but a Calutron. Saddam was months away from having nukes when Schwartzkopf kicked his ass out of Kuwait. The US destroyed as much of the Iraq WMD program as possible, but it simply was not possible to destroy the knowledge to build the WMD unless we were willing to kill all of the scientists and technicians.

I will concede that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Bush "misoverestimated" the status of Iraq's WMD. Saddam was eager to encourage the error to deter Iran. Bush had correctly identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil that were likely to go nuclear. South Korea and Japan were unwilling to enable the US to take out North Korea. An invasion of Iran is not feasible except from Iraq. Saddam violated enough UN sanctions to justify the invasion.

While Iraq's WMD was still dormant, Saddam was obviously prepared to reconstitute the program once sanctions were lifted. Iraq had retained hundreds of tons of Uranium, high detonation velocity explosives, and prototypes of gas centrifuges. He still had the people with the knowledge.

After Saddam was found hiding in a latrine pit, Daffy Gaddafi surrendered Libyan WMD. This included gas centrifuges that exposed the A Q Kahn nuclear weapons bizarre. Kahn had been selling to Iraq as well as Libya and Iran. We now know that Turkey was supplying electronic controls for Irans gas centrifuges. This is how the Israelis learned how to hack the system with the SEXTANT virus.

Of course everyone was changing "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED," when South Korea detonated nukes. Iran probably already has nukes. Turkey is working on nukes. Brazil is building a nuclear submarine which requires high grade Uranium enrichment which enables nukes.

Time for the US to fold up it's nuclear umbrella and come home.

On another issue, Obama was stupid to kill Bin Laden. Pakistan already has nukes. Reforming a theocracy without having a military dictatorship was the only plausible strategy to minimize the threat. Killing Bin Laden humiliated and discredited a moderate government. It would have been better to allow Bin Laden to continue watching his porn collection. Now the Islamic nut cases have Pakistan s nukes.

Killing the Iranian General was the right thing to do. There had just been an Iranian incited attack on the US embassy. The Shiit Iraqi government then invites this asshole for a visit. Killing him was the perfect response

"Of course everybody was changing 'BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED' when South Korea detonated nukes. NORTH, NORTH, NORTH, not South.
India has been a nuclear power for half a century, now it has a home built nuclear ballistic missile sub of its own. This is in addition to a nuclear attack boat leased from Russia.

doug941 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I'm going to take issue with the WMD claims.

The US along with other countries is guilty of selling Iraq the dual use technology for chemical weapons. A pesticide plant can make Sarin. A machine shop that can manufacture artillery explosive projectile s can manufacture projectiles for chemical weapons. Many countries were willing to turn a blind eye to Iraq to contain Iran.

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was very active prior to the first Gulf War. They had not only gas centrifuge technology but a Calutron. Saddam was months away from having nukes when Schwartzkopf kicked his ass out of Kuwait. The US destroyed as much of the Iraq WMD program as possible, but it simply was not possible to destroy the knowledge to build the WMD unless we were willing to kill all of the scientists and technicians.

I will concede that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Bush "misoverestimated" the status of Iraq's WMD. Saddam was eager to encourage the error to deter Iran. Bush had correctly identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil that were likely to go nuclear. South Korea and Japan were unwilling to enable the US to take out North Korea. An invasion of Iran is not feasible except from Iraq. Saddam violated enough UN sanctions to justify the invasion.

While Iraq's WMD was still dormant, Saddam was obviously prepared to reconstitute the program once sanctions were lifted. Iraq had retained hundreds of tons of Uranium, high detonation velocity explosives, and prototypes of gas centrifuges. He still had the people with the knowledge.

After Saddam was found hiding in a latrine pit, Daffy Gaddafi surrendered Libyan WMD. This included gas centrifuges that exposed the A Q Kahn nuclear weapons bizarre. Kahn had been selling to Iraq as well as Libya and Iran. We now know that Turkey was supplying electronic controls for Irans gas centrifuges. This is how the Israelis learned how to hack the system with the SEXTANT virus.

Of course everyone was changing "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED," when South Korea detonated nukes. Iran probably already has nukes. Turkey is working on nukes. Brazil is building a nuclear submarine which requires high grade Uranium enrichment which enables nukes.

Time for the US to fold up it's nuclear umbrella and come home.

On another issue, Obama was stupid to kill Bin Laden. Pakistan already has nukes. Reforming a theocracy without having a military dictatorship was the only plausible strategy to minimize the threat. Killing Bin Laden humiliated and discredited a moderate government. It would have been better to allow Bin Laden to continue watching his porn collection. Now the Islamic nut cases have Pakistan s nukes.

Killing the Iranian General was the right thing to do. There had just been an Iranian incited attack on the US embassy. The Shiit Iraqi government then invites this asshole for a visit. Killing him was the perfect response

"Of course everybody was changing 'BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED' when South Korea detonated nukes. NORTH, NORTH, NORTH, not South.
India has been a nuclear power for half a century, now it has a home built nuclear ballistic missile sub of its own. This is in addition to a nuclear attack boat leased from Russia.

The US Grand Strategy to deter nuclear war during the Cold War was predicated on bipolar, nuclear deterrence. Great Britain, France and China created extreme complications that were manageable only because those countries were deferential to the US or USSR. Israel having a limited nuclear arsenal presented even more instability that didn't result in nuclear war only because no Islamic rival has nukes. The rivalry between India and Pakistan has an extreme risk of going nuclear. North Korea is the final nail in the coffin in the coffin of nuclear deterrence strategy. Iran brandishing nukes will toss the coffin into the grave.

The only grand strategy that remains viable is neo-isolationism combined with deterence and defense. The US needs to stay out of regional conflicts to ensure that they stay regional.

I'm afraid we don't have that option, Fly. The worlds is too small for those two oceans to wrap their comforting blanket around us...

Right now we have that business in the South China Sea brewing. Somebody has to stand off China's aggressive behavior toward its smaller neighbors. I'm afraid we're it. Japan and the Philippines are at direct risk and Australia is too close to the situation for comfort.

We will always need to defend our own interests. And, I, for one, see not only a treaty but a moral commitment to defend our allies.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I'm afraid we don't have that option, Fly. The worlds is too small for those two oceans to wrap their comforting blanket around us...

Right now we have that business in the South China Sea brewing. Somebody has to stand off China's aggressive behavior toward its smaller neighbors. I'm afraid we're it. Japan and the Philippines are at direct risk and Australia is too close to the situation for comfort.

We will always need to defend our own interests. And, I, for one, see not only a treaty but a moral commitment to defend our allies.

Don

-

The Philippines are our Ally?

https://countercurrents.org/2020/02/the ... s-watching

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

n7axw wrote:I'm afraid we don't have that option, Fly. The worlds is too small for those two oceans to wrap their comforting blanket around us...

Right now we have that business in the South China Sea brewing. Somebody has to stand off China's aggressive behavior toward its smaller neighbors. I'm afraid we're it. Japan and the Philippines are at direct risk and Australia is too close to the situation for comfort.

We will always need to defend our own interests. And, I, for one, see not only a treaty but a moral commitment to defend our allies.

Don

-

The Philippines are our Ally?

https://countercurrents.org/2020/02/the ... s-watching

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me... Just reading the article makes the whole situation look pretty complicated. Probably best to just wait and see.

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I will concede that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Bush "misoverestimated" the status of Iraq's WMD.

As in, he didn't have them. The only thing they found which the US right wing tried to later use to justify it was decades old inoperable and degraded leftovers from the Iraq/Iran war, long degraded. Not any kind of current active program or stockpiles.

Saddam was eager to encourage the error to deter Iran. Bush had correctly identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil that were likely to go nuclear. South Korea and Japan were unwilling to enable the US to take out North Korea. An invasion of Iran is not feasible except from Iraq. Saddam violated enough UN sanctions to justify the invasion.

Not according to the UN they didn't.

While Iraq's WMD was still dormant, Saddam was obviously prepared to reconstitute the program once sanctions were lifted. Iraq had retained hundreds of tons of Uranium,

No they had not "retained" hundreds of tons of uranium. That uranium was there from after the 1991 Gulf war, under guard by UN inspectors the entire time. It wasn't in Iraqi control or possession. It just happened to still be geographically located inside their borders.

high detonation velocity explosives, and prototypes of gas centrifuges. He still had the people with the knowledge.

After Saddam was found hiding in a latrine pit, Daffy Gaddafi surrendered Libyan WMD. This included gas centrifuges that exposed the A Q Kahn nuclear weapons bizarre. Kahn had been selling to Iraq as well as Libya and Iran. We now know that Turkey was supplying electronic controls for Irans gas centrifuges. This is how the Israelis learned how to hack the system with the SEXTANT virus.

Of course everyone was changing "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED,"

Because he did. And they did. He presented false evidence of an active WMD program that did not exist to justify an invasion that destabilized the entire region to this day.