It would be one thing if we had willingly decided to get involved but this is us being forced to get involved.
Whoosh! Now the only rule is Darwinism.
China has retailated against South Korea, Japan and Sweden, Canada is just waiting in the line, it's just a matter of when, they will find the cause.
The problem here is not China acted now, is that they can and will act like this successfully and without consequences. CCP just love to stoke and ride this hatred, they need moments like this to cement themselves.
You don't see China and Chinese threatening to retaliate agaisnt and boycott America (they just did and basically failed), coz they know they can't yet, but any other country? it's really just when.
If China can't handle us following and enforcing our laws, we should stop trading with them, not stop enforcing the law.
Like when Julian Assange was charged with rape, they just needed an excuse to try and have him extradited to America, it's not the real reason they were out to get him.
We generally take our sanctions against Iran pretty seriously, and from what I've read it sounds like she was pretty blatantly involved in working around them.
That warrant was out for a long time, which isn't something I'd really expect out of something for this trade war.
I'd generally like to think that most of the US government is still above actions like that.
I could be wrong of course, in which case I'd probably agree that we shouldn't be doing this, I just think the evidence weighs in the other direction. (And yes, I'm aware of what the madman in charge has said).
With the Huawei witch hunt it's all highly suspect, and I'm still waiting to see some evidence of these secret spy chips supposedly implanted in all this Huawei equipment.
Just looking at how the Chinese government has reacted, I think it's clear that this is a pretty big fish.
So it is just natural and intuitive conclusion that Trump administration is trying pretty hard to find evidence they can to indicate Huawei to drive them out of business, which is obvious.
Typically US carried those tactics pretty well, all under seemingly unrelated charges, like bank fraud, it is just sad that Trump can't control his big mouth, or he can't help but being honest.
Are you trying to say the US didn't start this? lol
Canada should've jumped on it and used it as an excuse to let her go as she would not be receiving a fair trial in the US. In general the extradition treaty that Canada has with the US needs revision badly as it forces Canada to turn over anyone to the US without much process. There should be a lot more process involved before Canada turns over anyone to the US.
Even the point of contention is ridiculous. Don't export anything to Iran while we continue to export weapons used to kill thousands and starve millions to Saudi Arabia.
I am not saying that your parent post is correct, only possible.
And millions aren’t starving in Saudi Arabia. Saudi’s Arabia is also ostensibly an ally that doesn’t point potential nuclear weapons at its neighbors. Saudi does have plenty of problems, but the Iran situation is one of a hostile regime threatening the region with nuclear weapons. A regime that actually promotes “death to America” and promotes the total destruction of Israel. The Saudis and the Israelis don’t publicly get along, but they tend to leave each other alone and cooperate under the radar, while Iran is a state sponsor of Hezbollah and pursuing nuclear weapons. A state sponsor of terrorism mixed with nuclear weapons? A pretty dangerous combination. There is no comparison with Saudi Arabia.
It doesn't seem fair to the accused to send them to a country with different (in some cases lesser) protection than our own for various rights for their trial. In fact, doing so seems like a direct violation of human rights and thus (in Canada's case) the charter of rights and freedoms.
It's also not necessary. If we want to save on legal costs, we should simply run a single trial in the extraditing country which complies with both countries standards of human rights, proof, evidence, law, and so on.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/president-trump-prose...
What is "walking away" in this context? Releasing Meng, and in the process, reneging on the extradition treaty?
Presumably retribution drags them in on the side of the US, but abstaining pins them between two superpowers.
No, Canada has to do whatever the US-Canada extradition treaty says, not whatever the current US administration tells it to do.
>I had hard time to believe that is the actual situation here.
How so?