Online petition advocates selling Montana to Canada.

[The Romulan Republic]

By that definition, any nation with treaty obligations is a vassal.

Besides, Canada eventually participated in the Iraq war despite officially saying it will not, so your point is?

We participated in the intervention against Islamic State, I know that (and consider it fully justified, since IS was an expansionist genocidal entity that the Iraqi military was incapable of stopping on its own at the time).

No, I meant flying combat missions in Iraq after 2003 (without informing your Parliament either), which is way before IS came into being. You should read up on that. What can you call a nation that speaks one thing a does another?

A link would be appreciated, but yeah I'm not going to defend that.

And what “treaty obligations” caused you to send forces for “training” or “seasoning” into Iraq? Did Iraq attack Canada? Surely a treaty may only invoke fighting together in self-defense; otherwise the “treaty” is just an imperialistic pact to crush and plunder others toghether.

You are trying to argue theoretical situations. I refer you to a real one.

My comment about treaty obligations was intended more broadly than a reference to a specific mission in Iraq. It was a response to your comment that a nation that can't set its own policy independently is a vassal.

[Tribble]

To call Canada a US vassal is an overstatement. Canada broke with US foreign policy on Iraq and Vietnam,

We were in Iraq even though we didn't officially declare war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Also, while the Canadian government didn't directly go to war with Vietnam, we supplied the US with plenty of weapons and volunteers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_an ... ietnam_War

We've had no problems meddling in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Oh sure the scale may be differnet due to our military's small size post-WW2, but we're right up there with the US either directly or indirectly in terms of invasions "peace keeping missions". When we're not busy arresting and detaining people on dubious charges at US request, for US gain of course.

and Trudeau took a fairly hard line and got a fairly good compromise deal in trade negotiations with the Trump regime.

Moral-wise, it was nice to stick up for Mexico. Practically speaking though Trudeau made a big mistake by throwing his support behind Mexico instead of Trump and we ended up paying for it (especially since Mexico did not return the favour). Had he simply kept his mouth shut and smiled and nodded like all good vassal states do, we wouldn't still have tariffs on our steel and aluminium.

And at any rate, Trump has proven rather conclusively that these negotiations are meaningless anyways, as the US can always declare other Canadian products "security risks" should be stray out of line. Remember that while we can hurt the American economy a lot, at the end of the day we are far more dependant on them than they are on us.

We're more militarily reliant on the US for our defense than I would like, especially with the current PotUS being a fascist and likely Russian asset, but calling us vassals is an overstatement.

Canada is indefensible barring nuclear deterrent; we arefar too big geographically, far too small demographically, and the only forces which could directly threaten us have an overwhelming advantage. That being said, I would at least like to have our military at a state where we don't throw tarps underneath our tanks because of all the leaking fluids, our ships can leave port without risk running out of fuel and/or catching fire, our planes don't have to be maintained by raiding museums for spare parts etc. Not only is it an embarrassment and an insult to those who serve, IMO its negligent and putting their lives at unnecessary risk.

Edit: That said, I also do not feel that nuclear weapons are necessary for our national defense. I have no interest in nukes. At the end of the day, either you're not prepared to use them, and risk someone calling your very expensive (and risky) bluff, or you are prepared to use them, in which case the last act of your nation will be to commit genocide while being burned to ash in return.

Whether you like it or not, MAD has worked so far. There hasn't been a large scale war since WW2, and I highly doubt that would be the case if nuclear weapons left the scene and major powers started thinking along conventional warfare again.

Note that there doesn't have to be equivalency here; most other nuclear countries have far smaller stockpiles than the US, Russia and China, but that's still more than enough to discourage attacks because even a few retaliatory weapons making it through would cause lots of damage.

I'd honestly rather be occupied than use nukes, because a) my nation's last act won't be burning the world, and b) an occupied nation can one day rise up and regain its freedom- an exterminated nation can't.

By that logic even if we had a large conventional army and were capable of defending ourselves we should not resist if we were invaded since resisting only increases the number of casualties and can further escalate things.

Far better IMO to stop any casualties by making you an untenable target in the first place.

I don't really think we are going to change the other's minds on this one, to be honest.

Note that the only nation that can realistically invade Canada is the US- and Canada has so many ways to fuck over the US if the attacked us that its not even funny. Our economies and populations are so closely intertwined that a war between the US and Canada would in some respects be more like a civil war than a conventional war between nations. Oh, Canada would lose in the field, because the US has ten times as many people, but Canada could make it cost America more than it would be worth.

The US doesn't invade because it has no reason to - we are already a vassal state due to economic, military and political dependence, so why bother?

A hypothetical war would be over in a matter of hours and I highly doubt there would be much of a guerilla movement afterwards, save perhaps Quebec. Don't forget that like the US the majority of gun owners in Canada also tend to be Conservatives, and while they may not like a US occupation I don't think they'd dislike it enough to really stir things up. Alberta may even welcome the Americans as liberators.

[The Romulan Republic]

We were in Iraq even though we didn't officially declare war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Also, while the Canadian government didn't directly go to war with Vietnam, we supplied the US with plenty of weapons and volunteers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_an ... ietnam_War

Individual volunteers can go from any country to fight in any country. Some Canadians volunteered to fight for Daesh. Does that make us their vassals?

To the rest, I won't contest it.

We've had no problems meddling in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Oh sure the scale may be differnet due to our military's small size post-WW2, but we're right up there with the US either directly or indirectly in terms of invasions "peace keeping missions". When we're not busy arresting and detaining people on dubious charges at US request, for US gain of course.

Canada engaging in interventions does not automatically make it just a US vassal either.

There's also the question of whether individual interventions are justified, or whether we simply take a knee-jerk isolationist position where any involvement in another country is automatically branded imperialism (unless its Russia or another non-Western autocracy doing the intervening of course, then they are automatically justified in standing up to US Imperialism).

Though this is starting to stray off topic, you will also need to back up the claim that the arrest of that Chinese executive (I assume that's what you are referring to) was political, and unjustified by evidence.

Moral-wise, it was nice to stick up for Mexico. Practically speaking though Trudeau made a big mistake by throwing his support behind Mexico instead of Trump and we ended up paying for it (especially since Mexico did not return the favour). Had he simply kept his mouth shut and smiled and nodded like all good vassal states do, we wouldn't still have tariffs on our steel and aluminium.

Mexico was hardly the only point under contention, and I am somehow skeptical, given his belligerance and... well, really his entire personality, that Trump would have given Trudeau everything Canada wanted if he'd just kissed Trump's ass enough.

As it stands, Canada got major economic concessions, and made a point that we are not just a vassal who can be bullied into subservience. Trudeau deserved a great deal of credit for his stand on this issue, credit he has not really received because the Con collaborators are busy spinning the issue as part of their plan to Make Canada Great Again.

And at any rate, Trump has proven rather conclusively that these negotiations are meaningless anyways, as the US can always declare other Canadian products "security risks" should be stray out of line. Remember that while we can hurt the American economy a lot, at the end of the day we are far more dependant on them than they are on us.

The treaty will outlast Trump. Any idiocy branding Canadian products threats to national security won't.

Canada is indefensible barring nuclear deterrent; we arefar too big geographically, far too small demographically, and the only forces which could directly threaten us have an overwhelming advantage. That being said, I would at least like to have our military at a state where we don't throw tarps underneath our tanks because of all the leaking fluids, our ships can leave port without risk running out of fuel and/or catching fire, our planes don't have to be maintained by raiding museums for spare parts etc. Not only is it an embarrassment and an insult to those who serve, IMO its negligent and putting their lives at unnecessary risk.

If Canada is militarily indefensible by any means but a nuclear arsenal, it begs the question of why we should even have an armed forces (nukes aside) at all. Purely for nationalist pride? By your reasoning (Canada is indefensible except with nukes, and all intervention is bad) we should scrap our army, navy, marines, etc. entirely.

Whether you like it or not, MAD has worked so far. There hasn't been a large scale war since WW2, and I highly doubt that would be the case if nuclear weapons left the scene and major powers started thinking along conventional warfare again.

Correlation does not equal causation. It is on you to prove that nukes are the primary reason that no other major war occurred, and that nukes are the only way to maintain that.

Also, define "large scale war". There have been many armed conflicts that killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people since WW2.

Finally, you ignore the multiple times when it was pretty much down to luck, or the judgement of a single individual, that the world did not burn. You're a gambler, who's rolled all sixes so far and assumes that you'll keep winning big indefinitely.

Note that there doesn't have to be equivalency here; most other nuclear countries have far smaller stockpiles than the US, Russia and China, but that's still more than enough to discourage attacks because even a few retaliatory weapons making it through would cause lots of damage.

True, though I still question the overall necessity and morality of nuclear weapons.

By that logic even if we had a large conventional army and were capable of defending ourselves we should not resist if we were invaded since resisting only increases the number of casualties and can further escalate things.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Conventional military resistance without nuclear weapons does not pose the same risk of the total destruction of global civilization that nuclear weapons do. If you fight a conventional war, it won't necessarily lead to the genocide of both sides. With nukes, it pretty much will. By design.

Far better IMO to stop any casualties by making you an untenable target in the first place.

I don't really think we are going to change the other's minds on this one, to be honest.

I can't speak for you, but I see no practical value in nuclear weapons. Either they are a threat you don't ever seriously intend to use, in which case its a very risky bluff, or you are willing to use them, in which case you are effectively saying that you would rather your nation commit genocide, and be exterminated in turn, rather than suffer military defeat. Which strikes me as short-sighted and prideful to the point of evil.

The US doesn't invade because it has no reason to - we are already a vassal state due to economic, military and political dependence, so why bother?

Define "vassal", and the terms that would qualify a nation as such.

A hypothetical war would be over in a matter of hours and I highly doubt there would be much of a guerilla movement afterwards, save perhaps Quebec. Don't forget that like the US the majority of gun owners in Canada also tend to be Conservatives, and while they may not like a US occupation I don't think they'd dislike it enough to really stir things up. Alberta may even welcome the Americans as liberators.

Like Iraq was over in hours? Hell, even the Netherlands held out against Nazi Germany for four days, and we have much more... what's the term? Strategic depth. As well as less of a gap in the quality of our equipment.

Canada is an enormous country, much of it wilderness and sparsely populated. The simple logistics of an occupation, even if there was no armed resistance whatsoever, would be tremendous. Add to that the fact that Canada and America's economies are closely intertwined, as you noted. Then there is the fact that there are literally millions of Americans who live in or have family in Canada, and vice versa. The US would be damaging its own infrastructure, its own factories, bombing its own citizens if it attacked Canada. You really think there'd be no insurgency, in both countries? Hell, even the Conservatives probably have enough nationalism in them to make some of them have qualms about an actual US invasion. Plus the fact that a US that went nuts enough to invade Canada would pretty much be an existential threat to every other nation on the planet, and that an invasion of Canada would trigger NATO Article V on our behalf against the United States...

Canada would lose on the field, oh yes. But America would cripple itself in the process- politically and economically. The US attacking Canada would be like blowing up your neighbor's house and expecting your own property to be undamaged.

Though truth be told, such a situation would be such a What the Fuck moment for everyone that I don't think we really can predict how the US and Canadian populaces, or the rest of the world, would react.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

...would trigger NATO Article V on our behalf against the United States...

As well as the Treaty of Westminster.

[Tribble]

Individual volunteers can go from any country to fight in any country. Some Canadians volunteered to fight for Daesh. Does that make us their vassals?

To the rest, I won't contest it.

30,000 + volunteers along with $2.5 billion in war materials (including lovely things like napalm and Agent Orange) and $10 billion in food, beverages, berets and boots for forces in Vietnam counts as a little more involvement than the couple of hundred people who went to fight for Daesh, one would think.

Canada engaging in interventions does not automatically make it just a US vassal either.

Except for the fact that we have a habit of following them in their invasions interventions

There's also the question of whether individual interventions are justified, or whether we simply take a knee-jerk isolationist position where any involvement in another country is automatically branded imperialism (unless its Russia or another non-Western autocracy doing the intervening of course, then they are automatically justified in standing up to US Imperialism).

Can't think off the top of my head of a recent "intervention" didn't have some kind of imperialist agenda involved somewhere. Frequently it results in creating our own worst enemies (like the US giving military aid to Al-Quada and Daesh to overthrow their opponents of the day, that sure turned out well didn't it?)

Though this is starting to stray off topic, you will also need to back up the claim that the arrest of that Chinese executive (I assume that's what you are referring to) was political, and unjustified by evidence.

IIRC the Huawei executive was arrested in Canada for offences which occurred out of the country and were not considered crimes in Canada (they are in the US). At US "request" of course. Not only that, as far as I know she hasn't been charged for any crimes by Canada. And it's not like Trump is even bothering to pretend this isn't political, as he is openly admitting to using her as a bargaining chip in his trade negotiations with China.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/u ... -in-trade/

Mexico was hardly the only point under contention, and I am somehow skeptical, given his belligerance and... well, really his entire personality, that Trump would have given Trudeau everything Canada wanted if he'd just kissed Trump's ass enough.

He didn't need to kiss ass, as a good client/vassal he just needed to keep his mouth shut. We weren't even on the radar until Trudeau started insisting that NAFTA stays as is with Meixco in it.

[quote=The Romulan Republic}
As it stands, Canada got major economic concessions, and made a point that we are not just a vassal who can be bullied into subservience. Trudeau deserved a great deal of credit for his stand on this issue, credit he has not really received because the Con collaborators are busy spinning the issue as part of their plan to Make Canada Great Again.[/quote]

What concessions? By every measure the revised version is worse for Canada than the previous one and all evidence points to further concessions having to be made in the future. Plus, now POTUS has the Trump precedent of decalring our products a national security risk if we ever threaten to fall out of ine.

The treaty will outlast Trump. Any idiocy branding Canadian products threats to national security won't.

Its a precedent though, and I have no doubt future presdients will threaten to do so again whenever they want Canada to do something and we're acting rather reluctant. It might not be as bltatant as the way Trump did it but I'm sure that option is now an available tool that will be used, even if only behind clsoed doors.

If Canada is militarily indefensible by any means but a nuclear arsenal, it begs the question of why we should even have an armed forces (nukes aside) at all. Purely for nationalist pride? By your reasoning (Canada is indefensible except with nukes, and all intervention is bad) we should scrap our army, navy, marines, etc. entirely.

First off I didn't say that all interventions are bad. I said that Canada is a vassal to the US and when they go off on some intervention we almost always get involved as well whether that's a good thing or not (and alas the US track record of "good" inventions is very poor IMO).

Are we indefensible if it came to a war? Yes. That doesn't mean we can't intercept say, a few Russian bombers flying over Canadian airspace. Or intercepting a warship or two. Knowing those assets can be intercepted can be a deterrence as well, though to a much lesser degree. Provided our troops have the equipment to do their jobs properly of course.

And actually, I did have a thread awhile back on whether or not Canada needs a military, and IMO if we are not willing to adequately fund it we may as well disband it and use the funding elsewhere (perhaps we could smooth over the Americans by committing the funding to anti-terrorism and border patrols). Better that than being negligent to those who serve.

Correlation does not equal causation. It is on you to prove that nukes are the primary reason that no other major war occurred, and that nukes are the only way to maintain that.

The on-going crisis between India and Pakistan should be a good test of that. I'm pretty convinced were it not for the fact that both sides know their can destroy each other with WMDs, and if one side felt they could win conventionally (probably India) this would much more escalate into a full scale war. If on the other hand MAD still holds, while they may grumble and have a skirmish or two things will eventually settle down, as both sides know they cannot win.

Also, define "large scale war". There have been many armed conflicts that killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people since WW2.

None of which have been remotely the same scale as WW1 and WW2, or for that matter, many other world wars in history. As horrible as events in places like the Congo, Iraq and Syria are, in a global context they are pretty minor.

Finally, you ignore the multiple times when it was pretty much down to luck, or the judgement of a single individual, that the world did not burn. You're a gambler, who's rolled all sixes so far and assumes that you'll keep winning big indefinitely.

Same goes to a conventional conflict, really. And modern conventional weapons can be just as destructive as nukes btw, we just need to drop more of them.

I'm quite convinced that if there no WMDs, WW3, WW4 etc would have happened a long time ago, especially given Russia massive superiority in convectional arms in Europe (though this is also sidetracking into another thread).

That is a ridiculous comparison. Conventional military resistance without nuclear weapons does not pose the same risk of the total destruction of global civilization that nuclear weapons do. If you fight a conventional war, it won't necessarily lead to the genocide of both sides. With nukes, it pretty much will. By design.

It may, or it may not. We've seen both. Though it seems that from your prospective so long as the genocide only consumes the losing country, that's still better than risking a total nuclear war by having a nuclear deterrent.

I can't speak for you, but I see no practical value in nuclear weapons. Either they are a threat you don't ever seriously intend to use, in which case its a very risky bluff, or you are willing to use them, in which case you are effectively saying that you would rather your nation commit genocide, and be exterminated in turn, rather than suffer military defeat. Which strikes me as short-sighted and prideful to the point of evil.

If the choice is between risking a total take over and potential genocide, or having a nuclear deterrent which reduces to the odds of that, I'd pick the ladder. We're lucky in that we don't have to make that decision, as one of the benefits of being a puppet state to the US is that they do it for us. Something that Canadians tend to forget.

And since everyone who disagrees with you on this board seems to be immediately condemned as being a collaborator / arrogant / evil, etc., I'll take the final bit with a grain of salt

Define "vassal", and the terms that would qualify a nation as such.

Perhaps "utterly dependant US client state" would be better description:

Definition of client state
: a country that is economically, politically, or militarily dependent on another country

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... nt%20state

I would say that overall, we are heavily dependant on the US economically, politically, and militarily, so much so that we could not exist as a separate nation without them. The really funny part is that in one respect we are a client state due to our anti-Americanism - the mere threat of a US takeover is probably one of the most important factors preventing a breakup. Which makes sense in a way, given that Canada was founded largely on anti-Americanism after all.

Like Iraq was over in hours? Hell, even the Netherlands held out against Nazi Germany for four days, and we have much more... what's the term? Strategic depth. As well as less of a gap in the quality of our equipment.

Canada is an enormous country, much of it wilderness and sparsely populated. The simple logistics of an occupation, even if there was no armed resistance whatsoever, would be tremendous. Add to that the fact that Canada and America's economies are closely intertwined, as you noted. Then there is the fact that there are literally millions of Americans who live in or have family in Canada, and vice versa. The US would be damaging its own infrastructure, its own factories, bombing its own citizens if it attacked Canada. You really think there'd be no insurgency, in both countries? Hell, even the Conservatives probably have enough nationalism in them to make some of them have qualms about an actual US invasion. Plus the fact that a US that went nuts enough to invade Canada would pretty much be an existential threat to every other nation on the planet, and that an invasion of Canada would trigger NATO Article V on our behalf against the United States...

Canada would lose on the field, oh yes. But America would cripple itself in the process- politically and economically. The US attacking Canada would be like blowing up your neighbor's house and expecting your own property to be undamaged.

Though truth be told, such a situation would be such a What the Fuck moment for everyone that I don't think we really can predict how the US and Canadian populaces, or the rest of the world, would react.

Again, we are talking a purely hypothetical invasion, which the US has absolutely no need to do. They would curb-stomp us in a couple of hours but depending on how they did it they may not need to leave much of an occupation force, especially if there were no armed resistance and sabotage. After the military assets are wiped out and parliament is seized just have the US president declare that an illegitimate socialist government had illegally seized control of the country (and thus required an immediate military intervention) then call it a day. Apart from some protesting I doubt much would change, especially once its clear that day-to-day life would more or less continue on as normal. Hell, given present circumstances the Ontario government would probably give the US a standing ovation for rescuing our country from those evil liberals.

Your also kind of proving my the point though, if our infrastructure and resources can already be considered more or less US assets.

[Coop D'etat]

IIRC the Huawei executive was arrested in Canada for offences which occurred out of the country and were not considered crimes in Canada (they are in the US). At US "request" of course. Not only that, as far as I know she hasn't been charged for any crimes by Canada. And it's not like Trump is even bothering to pretend this isn't political, as he is openly admitting to using her as a bargaining chip in his trade negotiations with China.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/u ... -in-trade/

Your recollection isn't entirely accurate. Meng Wangzhou was arrested on a warrant for bank fraud, which is very much an offense in Canada. The legal issues that would be put in her extradition hearing would be more of the matter of whether American extraterritoriality in this case extends to far to be compatible with Canadian law. When it comes to Criminal provisions pertaining to defrauding the public, Canadian law doesn't follow a strictly limited territorial jurisdiction to the application of the prohibition against the fraud to the public, the public is defined to extend beyond merely the Canadian public to include acts with a "real and substantial connection" to Canada (see Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178 as a guiding case authority on the extraterritorial enforcement of fraud offenses). Canadian extradition law would extend to the United States the validity of an arrest warrant for a fraud crime with "a real and substantial connection" to the United States as being sufficiently similar to Canadian criminal law to honour the warrant.

So the criminal acts not being alleged to have occurred in the United States isn't prima facie reason to deny a properly issued arrest warrant by a state with a valid extradition treaty with Canada. A sufficient connection between the offense and the United States might not exist to grant extradition, but that is properly an issue for a judge to consider in an extradition hearing rather than for the Crown prosecutors to not execute the warrant.

Trump's comments cast a shadow on the whole affair after the fact, but it can be recognized that both American prosecutors and judges act independently of the President, so the President's comments are not necessarily indicative that Ms. Wangzhou is being prosecuted for a political purpose.

Lets not give too much credence to how Beijing and their pet media outlets are framing this issue. There was nothing wrong with enforcing what appears to be a valid American arrest warrant at the time, and if their are issues with it, Ms. Wangzhou has every opportunity to make her case against it in an extradition hearing. This is in marked contrast with the lawlessness the Chinese run their own legal system with when they want to make a point to a foriegn government. It likewise is not a sign of kowtowing to our supposed American masters to execute an extradition request from them, they do much the same for our extradition requests as a matter of reciprocity, not subordination.

[The Romulan Republic]

Unfortunately, some people seem so caught up in attacking America as to regard cooperating with the US or not being actively hostile to it on any issue as proof of vassalhood.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, the whole matter of “bank fraud” is entirely a concoction of the US linking Huawei to a company trading with Iran, that might not have even been aware of breaching sanctions. Even if the “crime” was actually committed, Meng was arrested for defying US sanctions on Iran, which are nothing bullshit that hurts the common people of Iran and solidifies the reactionary clergy power in the Islamic Republic.

It is just another case of the US trying to pressure China and is obviously politically motivated.

[mr friendly guy]

Remember folks, if China enforces its own laws, a law I might add was introduced two years ago and published even in English language media, that's just "lawlessness." If Canada breaks its own laws and arrest someone on a politically motivated charge, why we can see the apologism come out. Seriously, TRR in that thread reversed the burden of proof and asked me to prove Meng Wangzhou's innocence. Doesn't that just kind of prove the point China is alleged to hold? That people will hypocritically break their own principles when its convenient? I mean if China or Putin arrested a Canadian and outright said they wanted to exchange them for some concessions, we know people are going to scream that its politically motivated.

[Coop D'etat]

I'm well aware of the charges KAP. For one thing, not so much "linked" to a company, but accused of being one and the same as it due to Huawei itself controlling the company it purportedly sold Skycom too. And apparently not so much a concoction of the US, but something turned up by the bank's own due diligence indicating that they were passing along fraudulent information to them.


And Mr. Friendly Guy, China literally arrested two Canadians and had their press organs and ambassador imply that they wanted to exchange them for concessions. They literally did that to interfere with the normal operations or a foreign governments legal system. That's what we're all pissed about. This isn't new behaviour for them either, they've done the same damn thing when one of their spies got caught, they arrested a Canadian missionary couple on trumped up espinoge charges. This is how the Chinese government operates its own kind of imperialism.

And please, explain to me how you think Canada has broken its own laws in the process. Keep in mind in your answer I didn't learn how to practice Canadian criminal defense law from the university of google. If you're referring to s.44 of the Extradition Act, keep in mind that it probably doesn't work the way you've decided it works.

[mr friendly guy]

And Mr. Friendly Guy, China literally arrested two Canadians and had their press organs and ambassador imply that they wanted to exchange them for concessions. They literally did that to interfere with the normal operations or a foreign governments legal system. That's what we're all pissed about. This isn't new behaviour for them either, they've done the same damn thing when one of their spies got caught, they arrested a Canadian missionary couple on trumped up espinoge charges. This is how the Chinese government operates its own kind of imperialism.

Link please for the part where their own press said they will exchange the detained Canadians. And I don't mean some tabloid, I mean the actual mouthpieces.

And please, explain to me how you think Canada has broken its own laws in the process. Keep in mind in your answer I didn't learn how to practice Canadian criminal defense law from the university of google. If you're referring to s.44 of the Extradition Act, keep in mind that it probably doesn't work the way you've decided it works.

I didn't realise Canada extradites for political reasons.

[The Romulan Republic]

And Mr. Friendly Guy, China literally arrested two Canadians and had their press organs and ambassador imply that they wanted to exchange them for concessions. They literally did that to interfere with the normal operations or a foreign governments legal system. That's what we're all pissed about. This isn't new behaviour for them either, they've done the same damn thing when one of their spies got caught, they arrested a Canadian missionary couple on trumped up espinoge charges. This is how the Chinese government operates its own kind of imperialism.

Link please for the part where their own press said they will exchange the detained Canadians. And I don't mean some tabloid, I mean the actual mouthpieces.

And please, explain to me how you think Canada has broken its own laws in the process. Keep in mind in your answer I didn't learn how to practice Canadian criminal defense law from the university of google. If you're referring to s.44 of the Extradition Act, keep in mind that it probably doesn't work the way you've decided it works.

I didn't realise Canada extradites for political reasons.

"The extradition is political and Canada broke its own laws."

"How is it politically motivated or illegal?"

"Because Canada is extraditing for political reasons."

This discussion in a nutshell.

When did making circular assertions that fit your ideology qualify as debating on this board?

Remember folks, if China enforces its own laws, a law I might add was introduced two years ago and published even in English language media, that's just "lawlessness." If Canada breaks its own laws and arrest someone on a politically motivated charge, why we can see the apologism come out. Seriously, TRR in that thread reversed the burden of proof and asked me to prove Meng Wangzhou's innocence. Doesn't that just kind of prove the point China is alleged to hold? That people will hypocritically break their own principles when its convenient? I mean if China or Putin arrested a Canadian and outright said they wanted to exchange them for some concessions, we know people are going to scream that its politically motivated.

Singling me out for attack over an argument raised in an unrelated thread? Not a mod here, but I'd say that's treading a little close to vendetta.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, what it really boils down to for people like this is:

"The West did bad things. Therefore the West is always evil. Therefore anyone against the West is automatically justified, even when its the same damn shit they hate the West for doing, and any arguments to the contrary are apologism for imperialism/racism." (conveniently absolving them of the need to defend their positions with anything but ad hominems).

That is the summary of all their arguments and world view. Simple, comforting tribalism, at the end of the day.

[mr friendly guy]

"The extradition is political and Canada broke its own laws."

"How is it politically motivated or illegal?"

"Because Canada is extraditing for political reasons."

This discussion in a nutshell.

When did making circular assertions that fit your ideology qualify as debating on this board?

You kind of forgotten the part where people quote Trump's statement to show its political. I am sure that was a totally honest mistake on your part.

Singling me out for attack over an argument raised in an unrelated thread? Not a mod here, but I'd say that's treading a little close to vendetta.

It does raise a point though. If this was a sci fi debate you would never expect other people to reverse the burden of proof right? But if its a political debate, that standard flies out the window.

Of course, what it really boils down to for people like this is:

"The West did bad things. Therefore the West is always evil. Therefore anyone against the West is automatically justified, even when its the same damn shit they hate the West for doing, and any arguments to the contrary are apologism for imperialism/racism." (conveniently absolving them of the need to defend their positions with anything but ad hominems).

That is the summary of all their arguments and world view. Simple, comforting tribalism, at the end of the day.

So this is what projection looks like.

[The Romulan Republic]

You kind of forgotten the part where people quote Trump's statement to show its political. I am sure that was a totally honest mistake on your part.

If you're going to call me a liar, a) have the balls to come out and say it outright, and b) put your money where your mouth is and report me for dishonest debating, and let the mods sort it out. Or else retract the claim and apologize for defaming me.

As to Trump, he will latch on to anything and everything and use it for his ends. That does not necessarily mean that the charges themselves are false, or that Canada broke the law by making the arrest. As to whether extradition is warranted, that will be decided in the courts, as it should be. Because unlike China, we have due process in Canada.

It does raise a point though. If this was a sci fi debate you would never expect other people to reverse the burden of proof right? But if its a political debate, that standard flies out the window.

Going to keep trying to use this thread to attack me over a prior thread?

Okay, reported for vendetta.

So this is what projection looks like.

Whataboutism and Both Sides. Exactly what I would expect from your ideological ilk.

[mr friendly guy]

You kind of forgotten the part where people quote Trump's statement to show its political. I am sure that was a totally honest mistake on your part.

If you're going to call me a liar, a) have the balls to come out and say it outright, and b) put your money where your mouth is and report me for dishonest debating, and let the mods sort it out. Or else retract the claim and apologize for defaming me.

Its actually more a strawman than a bald face lie, but whatever..

As to Trump, he will latch on to anything and everything and use it for his ends. That does not necessarily mean that the charges themselves are false, or that Canada broke the law by making the arrest. As to whether extradition is warranted, that will be decided in the courts, as it should be. Because unlike China, we have due process in Canada.

But it does change it to being political. It could have been apolitical BEFORE. I wasn't sure until a few articles came out and Trump's blatant tweet. That's when I decided, shit this is political NOW.

Going to keep trying to use this thread to attack me over a prior thread?

Okay, reported for vendetta.

This might seem strange to you, but if I had a list of people who I really hate, you wouldn't even make it on the list.

As such, I used your debating tactics as an example of what happens with Western apologism. You can interpret that how you wish, but I can easily quote you saying the same thing in this very thread.

"Though this is starting to stray off topic, you will also need to back up the claim that the arrest of that Chinese executive (I assume that's what you are referring to) was political, and unjustified by evidence."

You're kind of asking him to reverse the burden of proof. Does it really matter whether I quoted the example from this thread or the other thread? Maybe the other thread was more blatant from memory, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the crux of the argument much.

Whataboutism and Both Sides. Exactly what I would expect from your ideological ilk.

Ideological ilk. You mean a cynic?

[Coop D'etat]

And Mr. Friendly Guy, China literally arrested two Canadians and had their press organs and ambassador imply that they wanted to exchange them for concessions. They literally did that to interfere with the normal operations or a foreign governments legal system. That's what we're all pissed about. This isn't new behaviour for them either, they've done the same damn thing when one of their spies got caught, they arrested a Canadian missionary couple on trumped up espinoge charges. This is how the Chinese government operates its own kind of imperialism.

Link please for the part where their own press said they will exchange the detained Canadians. And I don't mean some tabloid, I mean the actual mouthpieces.

And please, explain to me how you think Canada has broken its own laws in the process. Keep in mind in your answer I didn't learn how to practice Canadian criminal defense law from the university of google. If you're referring to s.44 of the Extradition Act, keep in mind that it probably doesn't work the way you've decided it works.

I didn't realise Canada extradites for political reasons.

The Chinese ambassador to Canada implicitly linked the two matters in his own op ed to the Hill Times in January, while the Chinese press usually mention the two subjects together. A message was sent by these arrests, and if that wasn't Beijing's intention by doing so, they've done a heck of a job at convincing everyone else in the world otherwise. They aren't so inartful to flat out say that this is what they are doing, but the impression has been given, and it jives with Chinese standard practice, hence how the Garatts got held for by the Chinese state in retaliation for the arrest of Su Bin for extradition.

Canada doesn't extradite for political reasons. It extradites upon the requesting state providing sufficient grounds to extradite. Trumps commits might suggest to you that there is political motivation, but the prosecution is also the clear result of a chain of evidence given by the bank she is accused of committing fraud against and presented to an independent judge to issue the warrant for arrest. It has the regular form and substance for a request for extradition for fraud and Donald Trump, a man well known for making off the cuff remarks not reflective of American government policy, making what appears to be off the cuff remarks on the subject is not the sort of thing that is so convincing proof of a political prosecution that the Minister would be necessarily convinced that it was the case, contrary to their experience with the practices of the American legal system.


Frankly, I think your position is bullshit apologia for a brutal dictatorship. You condemn Western countries for following standard legal practice in an open system of due process, while being silent or even cheering on an autocracy that arrests people arbitrarily, without informing them of the charges against them, for use as leverage in international geopolitics.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree that after Trump mentioned it is political, Canada would not be able to claim the extradition is not political. It could have maintained the appearance before.

Regardless of what the actual situation is, the US government has exposed its own motives and made them clear. Following through with this would not make anyone unconvinced that it was a US plan from the start. Following through would demonstrate that Canada works together with the US even when the other side exposes its own motives for prosecution.

After all, what about both the current and former Canada ambassadors to China admitting the case is about politics? And then being told by their own government to shut up, in case of McCallum?

[Coop D'etat]

I agree that after Trump mentioned it is political, Canada would not be able to claim the extradition is not political. It could have maintained the appearance before.

Regardless of what the actual situation is, the US government has exposed its own motives and made them clear. Following through with this would not make anyone unconvinced that it was a US plan from the start. Following through would demonstrate that Canada works together with the US even when the other side exposes its own motives for prosecution.

After all, what about both the current and former Canada ambassadors to China admitting the case is about politics? And then being told by their own government to shut up, in case of McCallum?

Please don't bullshit me on the details, its tiresome and beneath you.

The ambassador didn't admit that the case is about politics. He stated that Meng had significant defenses which would be taken seriously in a Canadian court one of which may be that Trumps comments create the impression of political purpose and that she could make her case in a court of law that would take her case seriously and independently of state control. This is entirely accurate, but impolitic to speak to the weaknesses of the government prosecutorial position and he was rightly fired for speaking out of step with the government line. He was explaining Canadian extradition law and about how the accussed had every expectation of a fair hearing where these issues would be considered, and then later extemporized that Canada would be better off if the United States dropped the request.

An ambassador shouldn't be saying what he said. But he sure as heck didn't say what you are saying he said.

[mr friendly guy]

The Chinese ambassador to Canada implicitly linked the two matters in his own op ed to the Hill Times in January, while the Chinese press usually mention the two subjects together. A message was sent by these arrests, and if that wasn't Beijing's intention by doing so, they've done a heck of a job at convincing everyone else in the world otherwise. They aren't so inartful to flat out say that this is what they are doing, but the impression has been given, and it jives with Chinese standard practice, hence how the Garatts got held for by the Chinese state in retaliation for the arrest of Su Bin for extradition.

The Hill Times has a subscription
https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/01/09/do ... ese/182367

I can't see the full article and I am not paying $35 CAD just to read this article. So show me the Chinese news articles where they actually say they will exchange the prisoners. Not ones mentioning the two subjects together (which is frankly moving the goalposts), actually articles where they show they want to exchange the Canadians. China publishes in all the six official UN languages including English so there should be one you can read. I am not going to do your homework for you.

Canada doesn't extradite for political reasons. It extradites upon the requesting state providing sufficient grounds to extradite. Trumps commits might suggest to you that there is political motivation, but the prosecution is also the clear result of a chain of evidence given by the bank she is accused of committing fraud against and presented to an independent judge to issue the warrant for arrest. It has the regular form and substance for a request for extradition for fraud and Donald Trump, a man well known for making off the cuff remarks not reflective of American government policy, making what appears to be off the cuff remarks on the subject is not the sort of thing that is so convincing proof of a political prosecution that the Minister would be necessarily convinced that it was the case, contrary to their experience with the practices of the American legal system.

As I said earlier, it could have been apolitical BEFORE, but NOW its kind of different.

Frankly, I think your position is bullshit apologia for a brutal dictatorship. You condemn Western countries for following standard legal practice in an open system of due process, while being silent or even cheering on an autocracy that arrests people arbitrarily, without informing them of the charges against them, for use as leverage in international geopolitics.

When you can't actually provide a link, just accuse them of being apologia for brutal dictatorships. That seems like ad hominem there.

Donald Trump says outright its for a described political purpose. You say its still not political.
Chinese press mention the two subjects together, and even though its not as blatant, its clearly political to you. Hmm. No double standard there with what constitutes evidence. If I applied your same standard of proof, the fact that the US has previously targeted Huawei, allowed Meng to travel to Canada several times without requesting an extradition, and is engaged in tough trade negotiations with China at the time, we would have said it was political even before Trump made those statements. But I didn't. I suspected, but it wasn't proof. However, by your own standards, just mentioning the two together is enough to indicate its political. Or at least if Chinese press mentioned two subjects together.

BTW I find your position bullshit apologia for a country which supports 70% of the world's dictatorships, falsely invaded a country which didn't attack them looking for imaginary WMDs and still waging wars, in like what 8 countries at the moment. You condemn a country which hasn't fought any conflict since the 1980s for defending the rights of its citizen, while cheering the legal system of a country which disproportionately jails black people and lets off police for murdering its own citizens.

See how this ad hominem game works? Now either we could test our rhetoric and sling all these ad hominems at each other, or you could actually provide the links which support what you say. The fact you couldn't provide a link is mighty suspicious.

[Coop D'etat]

Oh wow, the Chinese haven't invaded anyone without cause since 1980. What a wonderful bunch of guys. Too bad neither that or American invasions have anything to do with the matter at hand. Neither does the Iraq war by the way. Suggesting that I'm carrying the American's water on this matter really isn't doing you any favours.

The Chinese habit of arresting foreigners for leverage against other governments enforcing their own laws directly relevant to these issues. Which is why its worth bringing up the autocracy bit. The Chinese legal system doesn't have any meaningful separation between the judiciary, the prosecution, the state in total and the ruling party and that is directly relevant to the matter at hand when the arrest foreign citizens as retaliation without meaningful due process, access to counsel or consular officials or protections from abuse by their jailors. The retaliatory arrest tactic is so well established at this point, that observers were able to predict that something of the sort would happen as soon as Meng was arrested. Low and behold, the threat materialized.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/ ... china.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/business ... index.html

As I said before, this affair is essentially a rerun of the crap Beijing pulled to try and pressure Canada to not extradite Su Bin for espionage (of which he was pretty clearly guilty) by detaining a married couple of missionaries for two years on trumped up spying charges. How these fucks operate is well known.

I assumed you were already familiar with the ambassador's statements on the matter. They were a pretty widely reported and important part of the progression of this affair, you can look it over here if you want to familarize yourself with it:
http://ca.china-embassy.org/eng/sgxw/t1628298.htm
As it stands, the Chinese have not seen the need to lay out their threats explicitly. Their actions made their stance very clear to observers what they were doing and they haven't done much of anything to dissuade outsider observers that the two arrests were not explicitly in retaliation for Meng's arrest. The threat has been explicit to their actions, they didn't need to bother sending a ransom note, while their messaging has generally treated the matter as one global issue and they have not done anything to delink the issues if that wasn't their intention.

Lets be appallingly clear what they are doing in the name of "defending the rights of their citizens." In retaliation for one of their oligarchs being placed on house arrest while their legal issues are sorted out in a transparent process by an independent judiciary, the Chinese state elects to imprison (effectively kidnap) unrelated parties and hold then without meaningfully informing them of what they are being charged with or effective access to counsel, in a system where no one is effectively independent from the dictates of an unaccountable one party state. This is not equivalent tit for tat actions, its brutality in the name of impunity for the Chinese oligarchs.

Whatever the flaws of American foreign or domestic policy, you'll see no apologia from me on it here. So quit the whataboutism and red herrings and engage with the actual matter up for discussion. Their due process rights for people like Meng who can afford effective counsel is pretty much as good as it gets by international standards. Same as the due process she is demonstrably getting in Canada.

[K. A. Pital]

But China never claimed to have an independent judiciary?

Other than that, I agree the ambassador did not explicitly state the case was political (indeed having no access to the case, unlikely that he could).

Nonetheless, if charges turn out too weak to prosecute- something that has happened before- Canada would probably still extradite as it largely relies on the prosecution to present the facts.

I think the perception of actual impartiality of the judiciary is largely harmed by even the slightest suggestion of political bargaining (and I am not even considering the parallel SNC-Lavalin story)... As for China, such perception never existed in the first place, China suffers less reputational damage.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh wow, the Chinese haven't invaded anyone without cause since 1980. What a wonderful bunch of guys. Too bad neither that or American invasions have anything to do with the matter at hand. Neither does the Iraq war by the way. Suggesting that I'm carrying the American's water on this matter really isn't doing you any favours.

No shit Sherlock it doesn't have anything to do with the matter. That's one of the characteristics of an ad hominem attack dumbass. Apparently when you do it its totally ok and when I use it to DEMONSTRATE that very point, you suddenly get that its doesn't have anything to do with the matter. Good grief, will wonders never cease.

The Chinese habit of arresting foreigners for leverage against other governments enforcing their own laws directly relevant to these issues. Which is why its worth bringing up the autocracy bit. The Chinese legal system doesn't have any meaningful separation between the judiciary, the prosecution, the state in total and the ruling party and that is directly relevant to the matter at hand when the arrest foreign citizens as retaliation without meaningful due process, access to counsel or consular officials or protections from abuse by their jailors. The retaliatory arrest tactic is so well established at this point, that observers were able to predict that something of the sort would happen as soon as Meng was arrested. Low and behold, the threat materialized.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/ ... china.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/business ... index.html

As I said before, this affair is essentially a rerun of the crap Beijing pulled to try and pressure Canada to not extradite Su Bin for espionage (of which he was pretty clearly guilty) by detaining a married couple of missionaries for two years on trumped up spying charges. How these fucks operate is well known.

What's to do with your claim was that "China literally arrested two Canadians and had their press organs and ambassador imply that they wanted to exchange them for concessions."

Where in your two links does it show their ambassador and their press say they want to exchange the two Canadians for concessions? Hint it doesn't. So when you can't provide proof, change the topic. Did they teach Johnny Cochrane style of argument.

I assumed you were already familiar with the ambassador's statements on the matter. They were a pretty widely reported and important part of the progression of this affair, you can look it over here if you want to familarize yourself with it:
http://ca.china-embassy.org/eng/sgxw/t1628298.htm

So which part did the ambassador imply they will exchange the Canadians? He stated that they were arrested because China considered them a national security risk. You can disagree with that assessment, but that's totally different from your claim, and I repeat "their press organs and ambassador imply they wanted to exchange them for concessions."

You haven't even provided one link from a Chinese press organ. Can you even name a Chinese press organ? Seriously.

As it stands, the Chinese have not seen the need to lay out their threats explicitly. Their actions made their stance very clear to observers what they were doing and they haven't done much of anything to dissuade outsider observers that the two arrests were not explicitly in retaliation for Meng's arrest. The threat has been explicit to their actions, they didn't need to bother sending a ransom note, while their messaging has generally treated the matter as one global issue and they have not done anything to delink the issues if that wasn't their intention.

So China doesn't "delink" the two issues thus they are related. Trump actively links the two issues, but totally totally not related. Ok, sounds like a legit argument to me. I mean if one applied the same standards of proof as you, even if Xi Jinping came out and said.. "yeah we want to exchange those Canadians," the Chinese equivalent of you would still be saying, nope doesn't count.

You can't actually back up your claim that China wants to exchange the Canadians for Meng. All you got is, well they aren't delinking the issue, even though the ambassador links the issues as examples of double standards rather than, we want to exchange them.

So either put up a statement where their press organs imply they will exchange the Canadians for Meng, or you have no fucking case.

Lets be appallingly clear what they are doing in the name of "defending the rights of their citizens." In retaliation for one of their oligarchs being placed on house arrest while their legal issues are sorted out in a transparent process by an independent judiciary, the Chinese state elects to imprison (effectively kidnap) unrelated parties and hold then without meaningfully informing them of what they are being charged with or effective access to counsel, in a system where no one is effectively independent from the dictates of an unaccountable one party state. This is not equivalent tit for tat actions, its brutality in the name of impunity for the Chinese oligarchs.

What's that argument again... oh wait.. whataboutism.

You don't have to like the Chinese legal system. However as far as we can tell, there does exist laws on NGO registration which these Canadians are suspected of breaching. They are in effect following their own laws. Canada also has laws about extradition for political purposes. In continuing this farce they are breaking their own laws.

Whatever the flaws of American foreign or domestic policy, you'll see no apologia from me on it here. So quit the whataboutism and red herrings and engage with the actual matter up for discussion.

You're the one who brought the red herrings up genius. Remember, your ad hominem? Jesus fucking christ. What is with these whiners who complain about people using the same tactic right back at them. Here is a clue, if you whine about people using the same tactic right back at you, it just makes you look stupid. Moreover, I made it clear I was using it as an example to demonstrate how stupid it is to play with ad hominems, where you seem to consider it an effective argument.

Their due process rights for people like Meng who can afford effective counsel is pretty much as good as it gets by international standards. Same as the due process she is demonstrably getting in Canada.

Nice speech. Did your mother help you write down those talking points? What has the fact that she can get good lawyers got to do with the point that the case its political in nature? Oh wait, its a red herring.