Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

gcomeau wrote:

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.

I know explosive experts who were having to defuse IEDs that Incorporated chemical projectiles. The only factor that prevented them from being effective was that they were sophisticated binary weapons. There were many thousands of rounds stockpile d with conventional rounds to conceal them.

The Uranium was under Iraqi control after Iraq expelled the inspectors.

Your intransigence on this issue is astonishing but it confirms my point that the US needs to abandon efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. America should simply stand aside and allow the more unstable dictators acquire nuclear weapons while adopting a neo-isolationist policy that will ensure that they are someone else's problem. America should also encourage South Korea (my bad), Japan and Taiwan to aquire nukes so that they can be a threat to Russia and China. Withdrawing from NATO will force Europe to fend for itself. Let Russia cope with a nuclear armed Germany and Sweden. Now that Greece and Turkey are almost shooting at each other, that is another potential nuclear stand off. A Franco-German nuclear war would be the ultimate irony.

I normally agree with much of what you say, but not on this occasion.
The US can pass laws making it an offence to have US classified information regardless of where your are. However I really fail to see how those laws should have any power outside US territory, on citizens of other countries. If any other country was to pass laws that they claimed to still hold elsewhere, I doubt that the US would accept them being prosecuted in the US.
Exceptions are covered by international treaties in things like paedophilia and drug smuggling, but the prosecutions are done under those treaties.

My opinion on this is probably coloured by personal experience. Now retired, I was reasonably senior in our Defence Department, and at times I had to determine classification levels for information.
A common discussion was along the lines of "The Minister wants this to be classified". "OK, how embarrassing is it for the government if it comes out?" "Quite embarrassing, but not enough to topple the government". "OK, then Secret should be high enough".
Many classifications were to cover up bungles, not because of risks to the national security, and much of what Wikileaks did expose was in that category. Newspaper editors have done the same and not been prosecuted.

n7axw wrote: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

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Your intransigence on this issue is astonishing but it confirms my point that the US needs to abandon efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. America should simply stand aside and allow the more unstable dictators acquire nuclear weapons while adopting a neo-isolationist policy that will ensure that they are someone else's problem. America should also encourage South Korea (my bad), Japan and Taiwan to aquire nukes so that they can be a threat to Russia and China. Withdrawing from NATO will force Europe to fend for itself. Let Russia cope with a nuclear armed Germany and Sweden. Now that Greece and Turkey are almost shooting at each other, that is another potential nuclear stand off. A Franco-German nuclear war would be the ultimate irony.

If one nuke goes off somewhere in the world killing thousands of people, do you really think USA will sit idly by regardless what the current foreign policy happens to be?

Also, the whole neo-isolationist movement is mostly something a minority wants (mostly conservative) - did you somehow forgot that a majority of people in the USA don't adhere to those beliefs?

About 9% of people in the USA wants a foreign policy akin to the isolationist stance of the 30's. A majority of those 9% are Republican or right leaning people.

69% of people want the USA to have a leading role (as opposed to isolationism), this almost neuters neo-isolationism totally. The opinion on military spending is essentially split in equal 3rds: More (neo-conservatives), current (liberal internationalists), less (diplomacy realists).

Another 18% <are the pacifists, they essentially want to defund the military and isolate themselves from the world.

The remaining 4% had varying different opinions differing from the above.

-Source: Gallup

Daryl wrote:I normally agree with much of what you say, but not on this occasion.
The US can pass laws making it an offence to have US classified information regardless of where your are. However I really fail to see how those laws should have any power outside US territory, on citizens of other countries. If any other country was to pass laws that they claimed to still hold elsewhere, I doubt that the US would accept them being prosecuted in the US.
Exceptions are covered by international treaties in things like paedophilia and drug smuggling, but the prosecutions are done under those treaties.

My opinion on this is probably coloured by personal experience. Now retired, I was reasonably senior in our Defence Department, and at times I had to determine classification levels for information.
A common discussion was along the lines of "The Minister wants this to be classified". "OK, how embarrassing is it for the government if it comes out?" "Quite embarrassing, but not enough to topple the government". "OK, then Secret should be high enough".
Many classifications were to cover up bungles, not because of risks to the national security, and much of what Wikileaks did expose was in that category. Newspaper editors have done the same and not been prosecuted.

-

[/quote]

It's a different world out there than the one you and I grew up with, Daryl. Cyberspace -- and cyber crime-- knows no borders. Some enterprising soul who is clever enough with a laptop can sit in his flat in Paris and rob banks in Montana.

Assange had no right to what he did. His release of classified info endangered national security by risking the lives of intelligence operatives in places that were hostile to America. Then he took the info hacked from the DNCC and released in ways injurious to that organization, which may have brought about the election of Mr. Trump.

Regardless of what might think of Trump, Assange had no right to that. And regardless of where he was located when he acted, his crimes were committed here. I would hope that should someone in California do something similar toward Australia and his extradition were sought, we would do so promptly.

In acknowledgement of your point about how the classified system can be abused for political purposes, yeah, that happens. There need to be a system of review set up for dealing with that. But the point is that Assange usurped this role for himself either with malicious intent or no thought of the consequences. He needs to be held to account.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:Regardless of what might think of Trump, Assange had no right to that. And regardless of where he was located when he acted, his crimes were committed here. I would hope that should someone in California do something similar toward Australia and his extradition were sought, we would do so promptly.

AFAIK, even though the USA have treaties with other countries they almost never extradite their own citizens.

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:Regardless of what might think of Trump, Assange had no right to that. And regardless of where he was located when he acted, his crimes were committed here. I would hope that should someone in California do something similar toward Australia and his extradition were sought, we would do so promptly.

AFAIK, even though the USA have treaties with other countries they almost never extradite their own citizens.

Can't comment to that. I am not really familiar with the subject. Maybe Sweden should have first dubs on Ansange. IIRC, he was facing sexual assault charges there. He seems to be a quite a piece of work.

Don

-

Russia is Number 2!!!!
Russia is number 5!!!!

Second highest number of new infections.
Fifth highest number of total infections.
How is that socialized medicine working out for you?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:Regardless of what might think of Trump, Assange had no right to that. And regardless of where he was located when he acted, his crimes were committed here. I would hope that should someone in California do something similar toward Australia and his extradition were sought, we would do so promptly.

AFAIK, even though the USA have treaties with other countries they almost never extradite their own citizens.

n7axw wrote:Can't comment to that. I am not really familiar with the subject. Maybe Sweden should have first dubs on Ansange. IIRC, he was facing sexual assault charges there. He seems to be a quite a piece of work.

Don

-

The whole "sexual assault" charge is bogus. He was a douchebag and slept around which went just fine until 2 of the women he slept with met and compared notes at a party. One of the women had a blog where she prior to this gave advice on how to falsely charge men with sexual assault/rape and funnily enough, the day before they filed the charges it was erased.

On top of that, we had a prosecutor that wanted to make a name for herself which made the whole thing into such an unholy mess.

I'm not a fan of Assange, but in this instance that self-important prick is innocent.

Joat42 wrote:
The whole "sexual assault" charge is bogus. He was a douchebag and slept around which went just fine until 2 of the women he slept with met and compared notes at a party. One of the women had a blog where she prior to this gave advice on how to falsely charge men with sexual assault/rape and funnily enough, the day before they filed the charges it was erased.

On top of that, we had a prosecutor that wanted to make a name for herself which made the whole thing into such an unholy mess.

I'm not a fan of Assange, but in this instance that self-important prick is innocent.

Interesting. This whole business of sexual harassment can be a loose cannon on the deck. In the church I have seen it utilized by a congregation to get rid of an unpopular pastor. And, of course, in politics, it plays its part in discrediting a rival. I don't think that any decent person would want someone who was actually guilty of the deed to get off, but can be really hard to tell who did what to whom.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

Joat42 wrote:
The whole "sexual assault" charge is bogus. He was a douchebag and slept around which went just fine until 2 of the women he slept with met and compared notes at a party. One of the women had a blog where she prior to this gave advice on how to falsely charge men with sexual assault/rape and funnily enough, the day before they filed the charges it was erased.

On top of that, we had a prosecutor that wanted to make a name for herself which made the whole thing into such an unholy mess.

I'm not a fan of Assange, but in this instance that self-important prick is innocent.

Interesting. This whole business of sexual harassment can be a loose cannon on the deck. In the church I have seen it utilized by a congregation to get rid of an unpopular pastor. And, of course, in politics, it plays its part in discrediting a rival. I don't think that any decent person would want someone who was actually guilty of the deed to get off, but can be really hard to tell who did what to whom.

Don

-

I should mention that the charges where dismissed by the first prosecutor who looked at the case, but it was later re-opened by another prosecutor (Marianne Ny) who basically rubber-stamped the charges levied by the women. Prosecutor Marianne Ny then went out of her way to make the case as difficult as possible for Assange.