[Cthulhu D]

 Phil, on 2012-April-02, 16:54, said:

Who is the mongoose to North Korea's snake? (Don't say South Korea please).

AFAIK, no-one. Their own stupidity? A better answer is probably China. But China has a really awkward game here. The absolute last thing they want is for the North Koreans to fold, because due to an accident of geography most of the North Korean refugees will flee into China, which has it's own problems and doesn't want or need an entire country of people who have been intellectually disabled via starvation and poor education.

Quote

Funding terrorist organizations perhaps is not crazy but maybe you would accept provocative?

They are trying to reshape the local region to suit themselves. They don't see it as different than PBSUCCESS. Except that they also know they can trade the promise of stopping being a dick for actual stuff, so they can play a two way game on the topic they want.

[mike777]

side note


100% or close of north kOrea move to china...


silly and really silly.....


and other options over next ten years might be...what?

in other wordss china has nothing...I mean close to zero to fear.........

compared to current costs?


lets assume really smart movce to china..so plus not minus

[Gerben42]

 luke warm, on 2012-April-03, 04:01, said:

i should have thrown the word "historic" in there somewhere... the fact remains, the world is better served with the u.s.a. supporting those with whom it shares a common political philosophy


it's barely possible that israel is, out of historical and racial necessity, acting in its own best interest... they are doing what they think necessary to survive

No, they are doing what Netanyahu thinks necessary to stay in power. Just not enough bad stuff to cause the European Union to break up relations, but enough to keep the hardliners in Israel happy.

Quote

and the world would have been, and would be, better served if we supported (to the fullest extent possible) those people...

Israel has full rights to exist and to live in peace and I would support military action against any country that attacks Israel, but the same is true for Iran and Palestine.


I would LIKE to support Israel, but I cannot support expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Israel shipping blockades to the Gaza strip. I have friends from Israel and from Palestine, and I hope for a solution that is good for both. Netanyahu politics is bad for all of us.

Look at this link:
http://www.spiegel.d...-470061,00.html

A study encompassing 28,000 persons in 27 countries (probably the 27 EU countries, it seems) has asked about countries good or bad influence to the World.
Negative #1 is now Israel, even ahead of Iran and North Korea. If people in Europe no longer support Israel because of their politics, that makes it weaker, thus making it more likely that some violent conflict will get out of hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Gerben is on the right track.

Israel is if you'll pardon the word hamstrung by its political system, meaning that its leaders can't do the necessary but domestically unpopular things that would calm things down a lot. It would be political suicide to pull the rug from under the illegal settlements for example.

[kenberg]

 Gerben42, on 2012-April-06, 05:56, said:

Look at this link:
http://www.spiegel.d...-470061,00.html

A study encompassing 28,000 persons in 27 countries (probably the 27 EU countries, it seems) has asked about countries good or bad influence to the World.
Negative #1 is now Israel, even ahead of Iran and North Korea. If people in Europe no longer support Israel because of their politics, that makes it weaker, thus making it more likely that some violent conflict will get out of hand.

Ah yes. After careful thought the folks in the EU have realized that they are the good guys and we are the bad guys. I'll take my cyanide later, I'm busy right now.

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-06, 12:42, said:

Ah yes. After careful thought the folks in the EU have realized that they are the good guys and we are the bad guys. I'll take my cyanide later, I'm busy right now.

Actually it appears everybody loves the Canadians.

US is certainly very unpopular in the UK atm due to several "We've never set foot in America, committed no crime in the UK, but are being extradited because apparently we've broken some American law with no evidence shown by the Americans" cases where they are being extradited years before they're going to be tried and will be bankrupt whether they win or lose their cases.

[hrothgar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-06, 14:03, said:

Actually it appears everybody loves the Canadians.

US is certainly very unpopular in the UK atm due to several "We've never set foot in America, committed no crime in the UK, but are being extradited because apparently we've broken some American law with no evidence shown by the Americans" cases where they are being extradited years before they're going to be tried and will be bankrupt whether they win or lose their cases.

I found it amusing that Der Spiegel didn't bother to ask how Germany was viewed...

To me, the most telling difference was between the US and Canada.

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-06, 14:03, said:

Actually it appears everybody loves the Canadians.

US is certainly very unpopular in the UK atm due to several "We've never set foot in America, committed no crime in the UK, but are being extradited because apparently we've broken some American law with no evidence shown by the Americans" cases where they are being extradited years before they're going to be tried and will be bankrupt whether they win or lose their cases.

I'm certainly up for looking at various specific issues. But on the overall picture if I am really expected to try to alter American behavior so that the Europeans might then rank us as superior to North Korea I'm afraid you have to have the discussion without me.

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-06, 15:47, said:

I'm certainly up for looking at various specific issues. But on the overall picture if I am really expected to try to alter American behavior so that the Europeans might then rank us as superior to North Korea I'm afraid you have to have the discussion without me.

You have an awful lot more effect on our daily lives and culture than North Korea, and for that reason (and ignorance on what goes on in NK) I suspect N Korea didn't get some of the negative votes it deserved.

[mike777]

I am going to guess that North Korea has more effect on Israel than Canada....just my guess.

In any event can we agree:
1) North Korea is a true hell hole in every sense of the word
2) Iran is...you fill in the blank.....

in any event I still think a tiny a-bomb tiny going off in Israel will end the country as almost every one alive will leave..

In effect even a small amount who are elite leave...end of Israel.

you dont need bomb..bomb bomb..... only 7 million people in tiny land.....

[onoway]

It always astonishes me how frantic that people get when they talk about Iran having nuclear capabilities..not that this is a good thing but that there isn't any way to stop it. Teenagers in the States have built nuclear devices..the first one I am aware of was some years ago. His wasn't exactly workable but it most certainly was highly radioactive and he hadn't finished with it when he got caught and everything confiscated. Now there is this one http://www.cnn.com/2...tist/index.html who has had a somewhat more positive reaction ( !! couldn't think of another suitable word ) to his endeavors.

If civilian teenagers can put together such things then I can't understand how anyone could honestly imagine that a nation would be unable to do so. Scale is certainly an issue but as Mike says, it wouldn't need to be a BIG one to do unimaginable damage. There is a whole lot of plutonium missing and some of that may have ended up in the hands of people who would love to see the US, Israel and Iran duke it out..what better way than to toss a small nuclear bomb somewhere in the mix and let the ASSUMPTION that it came from x take things from there.

We really need to start thinking of ways to interact with others which don't rely on threatening to or actually beating them over the head with a stick, possibly encouraging them to stop thinking that having a bigger stick and beating us over the head with it is the only way to deal with us. Can't get anywhere positive long term by playing brinksmanship with war, especially with nuclear capabilities at stake.

Nuclear capability is like genetically modified seed..once it's out there in the real world (or in the case of nuclear stuff, the knowlege of how to make it is out there) it cannot any longer be contained or even really controlled entirely effectively. Not a happy thought, but it's reality. We need to find ways to deal with it that don't rely on posturing that worked when people still fought with swords and clubs.

I once knew a political science prof who for a number of years annually ran a simulation with students acting as the leaders of countries. Time was of course tightly compressed, so that may have had an effect on the results. But. Every single time without exception it ended up in nuclear war, and often the instigator was not one of the expected countries, although if I remember correctly, retaliation strikes were always automatically launched against those countries. He eventually stopped running simulations as it got to be too depressing and scary.

[mike777]

 onoway, on 2012-April-07, 05:52, said:

It always astonishes me how frantic that people get when they talk about Iran having nuclear capabilities..not that this is a good thing but that there isn't any way to stop it. Teenagers in the States have built nuclear devices..the first one I am aware of was some years ago. His wasn't exactly workable but it most certainly was highly radioactive and he hadn't finished with it when he got caught and everything confiscated. Now there is this one http://www.cnn.com/2...tist/index.html who has had a somewhat more positive reaction ( !! couldn't think of another suitable word ) to his endeavors.

If civilian teenagers can put together such things then I can't understand how anyone could honestly imagine that a nation would be unable to do so. Scale is certainly an issue but as Mike says, it wouldn't need to be a BIG one to do unimaginable damage. There is a whole lot of plutonium missing and some of that may have ended up in the hands of people who would love to see the US, Israel and Iran duke it out..what better way than to toss a small nuclear bomb somewhere in the mix and let the ASSUMPTION that it came from x take things from there.

We really need to start thinking of ways to interact with others which don't rely on threatening to or actually beating them over the head with a stick, possibly encouraging them to stop thinking that having a bigger stick and beating us over the head with it is the only way to deal with us. Can't get anywhere positive long term by playing brinksmanship with war, especially with nuclear capabilities at stake.

Nuclear capability is like genetically modified seed..once it's out there in the real world (or in the case of nuclear stuff, the knowlege of how to make it is out there) it cannot any longer be contained or even really controlled entirely effectively. Not a happy thought, but it's reality. We need to find ways to deal with it that don't rely on posturing that worked when people still fought with swords and clubs.

I once knew a political science prof who for a number of years annually ran a simulation with students acting as the leaders of countries. Time was of course tightly compressed, so that may have had an effect on the results. But. Every single time without exception it ended up in nuclear war, and often the instigator was not one of the expected countries, although if I remember correctly, retaliation strikes were always automatically launched against those countries. He eventually stopped running simulations as it got to be too depressing and scary.

so what the hell your point is what?

you rant and rant and say nothing


you seem to have no idea what it is to be a leader and make a point.....take a position and say it clear~!


any idiot can say on the one hand but on the other hand.......

any idiot can ask for another study

[luke warm]

 Gerben42, on 2012-April-06, 05:56, said:

Israel has full rights to exist and to live in peace and I would support military action against any country that attacks Israel, but the same is true for Iran and Palestine.

do you not see any difference whatsoever between an attack, and the motive for such an attack, on israel as opposed to, say, iran?

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-06, 16:43, said:

You have an awful lot more effect on our daily lives and culture than North Korea, and for that reason (and ignorance on what goes on in NK) I suspect N Korea didn't get some of the negative votes it deserved.

Sure. Mostly I would hate to see that poll taken seriously. If ever we had a poll in the US that showed that my fellow citizens ranked North Korea and Europe side by side in anything, I would be embarrassed for my country, hope no one ever brought it up, and disavow it if they did.

On the issue of extradition I know little. I might well agree, depending on the details, although I don't buy into the idea that never setting foot in the US is the whole issue. One could easily imagine someone in another country controlling criminal interests in tyhe US, or the UK, or wherever. Say that this person orders a hit in the US on some witness. I imagine he could be extradited to stand trial, and similarly of we reverse it so that someone in the US orders a hit on someone in the UK. But the secretive nature of it all, and the possibility of long term detention without a trial, that's something we can agree on as being not acceptable however useful it might be.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-07, 07:09, said:

Sure. Mostly I would hate to see that poll taken seriously. If ever we had a poll in the US that showed that my fellow citizens ranked North Korea and Europe side by side in anything, I would be embarrassed for my country, hope no one ever brought it up, and disavow it if they did.

For what its worth, I think that the North Korean regime is horrific

It starves and oppresses its own citizens, kidnaps foreign nationals, contributes to nuclear proliferation, counterfitting, any number of horrific crimes

With this said and done, its a small poor country and its limited wrt the degree of harm it inflicts on the rest of the world.

Within the last decade, the United States invaded the wrong country and directly / indirectly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent civilians
The same group of yahoos who made the case for war against Iraq are now trying to justify a military attack against Iran...

I don't find it surprising that the USA reputation in the world has suffered as a result.

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-07, 07:09, said:

On the issue of extradition I know little. I might well agree, depending on the details, although I don't buy into the idea that never setting foot in the US is the whole issue. One could easily imagine someone in another country controlling criminal interests in tyhe US, or the UK, or wherever. Say that this person orders a hit in the US on some witness. I imagine he could be extradited to stand trial, and similarly of we reverse it so that someone in the US orders a hit on someone in the UK. But the secretive nature of it all, and the possibility of long term detention without a trial, that's something we can agree on as being not acceptable however useful it might be.

Some of the cases in point:

Christopher Tappin: http://friends-extra...istopher_tappin

Gary McKinnon: http://www.friends-e...s/gary_mckinnon

Natwest 3: http://www.friends-e...e_natwest_three

Richard O'Dwyer: http://www.friends-e.../richard_odwyer

The point of all these (and another one involving internet gambling) is that all these cases could have been tried in Britain and most were investigated and it was decided there was no case to answer. The case of ordering a hit abroad, might well be extradited, or if the legal system of the foreign country wasn't trusted, be tried here.

The point was that Tony Blair passed this extradition treaty only avoiding a revolt in our parliament by saying this would only be used for terrorism stuff. It has then been used for everything else.

Also because these people have the temerity to legally contest their extradition, they are automatically held in custody and not bailed in the US as "flight risks". Tappin was so much of a flight risk he actually drove himself to Heathrow unescorted. Frequently they are held in solitary for months->years before trial. Also they get no help with legal costs and tend to be bankrupted whether they win or lose. In the UK, unlike the US, you lose everything including your house if you go bankrupt. Hence what normally happens is they plead guilty at a very early stage to something they didn't do, get a sentence lower than the time already served and the US sends them home saying it's a triumph for American justice.

[onoway]

 mike777, on 2012-April-07, 06:06, said:

so what the hell your point is what?

you rant and rant and say nothing


you seem to have no idea what it is to be a leader and make a point.....take a position and say it clear~!


any idiot can say on the one hand but on the other hand.......

any idiot can ask for another study

It'd be nice if you actually read something before complaining about it. Nothing was said even remotely about the one hand or the other hand, and a simulation is hardly a study though you seem to be confused about that. They are called simulations ie not the real thing because they involve pretense, studies hopefully do not but deal in fact. In any case no suggestion was made about another one of either.

I suppose if you know before you start you are going to whine it saves time to just get on with it, even if without actually having a clue what you are whining about.

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-07, 09:02, said:

Some of the cases in point:

Christopher Tappin: http://friends-extra...istopher_tappin

Gary McKinnon: http://www.friends-e...s/gary_mckinnon

Natwest 3: http://www.friends-e...e_natwest_three

Richard O'Dwyer: http://www.friends-e.../richard_odwyer

The point of all these (and another one involving internet gambling) is that all these cases could have been tried in Britain and most were investigated and it was decided there was no case to answer. The case of ordering a hit abroad, might well be extradited, or if the legal system of the foreign country wasn't trusted, be tried here.

The point was that Tony Blair passed this extradition treaty only avoiding a revolt in our parliament by saying this would only be used for terrorism stuff. It has then been used for everything else.

Also because these people have the temerity to legally contest their extradition, they are automatically held in custody and not bailed in the US as "flight risks". Tappin was so much of a flight risk he actually drove himself to Heathrow unescorted. Frequently they are held in solitary for months->years before trial. Also they get no help with legal costs and tend to be bankrupted whether they win or lose. In the UK, unlike the US, you lose everything including your house if you go bankrupt. Hence what normally happens is they plead guilty at a very early stage to something they didn't do, get a sentence lower than the time already served and the US sends them home saying it's a triumph for American justice.

I read the first case, the one about Tappin, and I guess my reaction is one of uncertainty. A couple of preliminary points. While not being any sort of legal expert, I believe that , contrary to what was said/implied, there are restrictions on entrapment in the US. Details might differ. I am pretty sure a law officer cannot suggest stealing something and then arrest the thief. Otoh, there are stings where, for example, a used auto parts store is opened up and perhaps there is some chat about how they don't much care where then parts came from. Not being in either the law business or the thieving business I am not clear about where the line is. Approximately this maybe: If there already are shops out there buying stolen auto parts, law enforcement is allowed to pose as one of them. Or batteries, I suppose.

There are a number of irrelevancies in the article. He is retired (although wasn't at the time of the charge). He is a big shot in the golf association. Great. When I have served on cheating cases at the U we would usually hear from a minister that the alleged cheater had been in church every Sunday. That's nice.

I suppose that these batteries, for which an export license would not be granted, are not exactly the sort of batteries I put in my flashlight.

The case might well be bogus. It's possible. It would seem like a terrible squandering of resources and of international goodwill to pursue a bogus case such as this, but yes I acknowledge it could be. But if so, the UK can deal with it. Tell the US to shape up if we want to preserve the current extradition arrangement. My guess is that the case is not nearly as bogus as Tappin's supporters make out, but I don't know. How could I? I observe that usually people, when accused of a crime, say that they did nothing wrong. Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it isn't.

This issue of inadvertently breaking a law is a serious issue. We invite foreign scientists to come to the University. In math it is not too much pf a problem but the phyicists have to be careful. Inviting a nuclear physicist from Iran to visit for a semester would probably be a serious blunder. I haven't had the need to learn about such things but if I were a nuclear physicist planning on inviting folks from Iran, I would carefully check (and get the answer in writing) before going forward.


Somehow I think a businessman who is sophisticated enough to arrange, from his home in the UK, for military use batteries in the US to be shipped to a third country, probably knows something about the licensing procedures involved. Just a guess.

I will read the other examples, just not right now.

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-07, 12:52, said:

I read the first case, the one about Tappin, and I guess my reaction is one of uncertainty. A couple of preliminary points. While not being any sort of legal expert, I believe that , contrary to what was said/implied, there are restrictions on entrapment in the US. Details might differ. I am pretty sure a law officer cannot suggest stealing something and then arrest the thief. Otoh, there are stings where, for example, a used auto parts store is opened up and perhaps there is some chat about how they don't much care where then parts came from. Not being in either the law business or the thieving business I am not clear about where the line is. Approximately this maybe: If there already are shops out there buying stolen auto parts, law enforcement is allowed to pose as one of them. Or batteries, I suppose.

There are a number of irrelevancies in the article. He is retired (although wasn't at the time of the charge). He is a big shot in the golf association. Great. When I have served on cheating cases at the U we would usually hear from a minister that the alleged cheater had been in church every Sunday. That's nice.

I suppose that these batteries, for which an export license would not be granted, are not exactly the sort of batteries I put in my flashlight.

The case might well be bogus. It's possible. It would seem like a terrible squandering of resources and of international goodwill to pursue a bogus case such as this, but yes I acknowledge it could be. But if so, the UK can deal with it. Tell the US to shape up if we want to preserve the current extradition arrangement. My guess is that the case is not nearly as bogus as Tappin's supporters make out, but I don't know. How could I? I observe that usually people, when accused of a crime, say that they did nothing wrong. Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it isn't.

This issue of inadvertently breaking a law is a serious issue. We invite foreign scientists to come to the University. In math it is not too much pf a problem but the phyicists have to be careful. Inviting a nuclear physicist from Iran to visit for a semester would probably be a serious blunder. I haven't had the need to learn about such things but if I were a nuclear physicist planning on inviting folks from Iran, I would carefully check (and get the answer in writing) before going forward.


Somehow I think a businessman who is sophisticated enough to arrange, from his home in the UK, for military use batteries in the US to be shipped to a third country, probably knows something about the licensing procedures involved. Just a guess.

I will read the other examples, just not right now.

It requires an export license if anything, the crime surely is exporting them from the US without a license not importing them into the EU. As far as he was concerned, they were civilian batteries for use in the automotive industry in Holland. He is a businessman that gets stuff from A to B in my understanding of the case, and he may not know at a technical level exactly what he's importing, he was assured by the US fake company that no export license was required. Unfortunately the extradition treaty we have with the US allows the US to request extradition without a shred of evidence, so we can't test this case at all before extraditing. He's already been cleared of any wrongdoing in the UK (I believe the police looked at it and determined there was no case to answer).

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-07, 15:42, said:

It requires an export license if anything, the crime surely is exporting them from the US without a license not importing them into the EU. As far as he was concerned, they were civilian batteries for use in the automotive industry in Holland. He is a businessman that gets stuff from A to B in my understanding of the case, and he may not know at a technical level exactly what he's importing, he was assured by the US fake company that no export license was required. Unfortunately the extradition treaty we have with the US allows the US to request extradition without a shred of evidence, so we can't test this case at all before extraditing. He's already been cleared of any wrongdoing in the UK (I believe the police looked at it and determined there was no case to answer).

Does the government in the UK defend this course of action? If so, what is their defense? You say that the US can request extradition. I can request a million dollars but I doubt that you would give it to me. If the case is really as outrageous as you make it out to be then it seems that you have a quarrel to make with your own government.

I truly don't wish to judge the case. Lawyers, judges and juries will do that. But if the UK government has reviewed the case and has come to the conclusion that there is no case, why would they go along with this?

We actually do not need more prisoners over here. It seems implausible that the FBI, or whoever, decided to invest resources in tricking a law abiding Brit so that they could pull him over here, give him room and board in our crowded prison system and create international strife. What would be the pay-off? The prosecution has to prove its case, of course I am not sating otherwise. But to believe the stated scenario, I have to believe that the US invented a pointless trap, an experienced businessman behaved very carelessly, and the British government went along with the gag. That's a lot of believing.

The story, as stated, is a presentation as someone wishes us to see it. There is a Minnesota saying "Wuz you there, Charlie?". I wuzn't, and I have trouble taking it as the straight stuff.