Foreign Tech: National Emergency, says White House

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Retronym, May 15, 2019.

  1. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Countries don't take kindly to being told they'll be sued if they act in their own country's interest. There's a recalibration happening between the US and its EU allies right now over that, with the EU setting up alternative payment routes to bypass the US-based SWIFT international transaction system for trading with Iran and any other country the US decides to place extrajudicial sanctions on the trade of.

    The US has already warned that it could sanction countries that participate in the Nord Stream 2 LNG pipeline project from Russia. EU countries have rejected US threats.

    The more the US threatens foreign countries from making their own decisions that are in their own interests, the more other countries are going to work around the US and isolate the US from their problem-solving processes.


    The source would be those issuing the statements, and not the medium reporting them. But, yes, RT would obviously be the source of the reports, though not the source of the information.

    And I'm not sure what point you intend to be, there because all the most popular news in the West is state-sponsored (BBC, CNN, Washington Post, Euronews, CBC, all of the Radio Liberty outlets, Radio France, France 24, Deutsche Welle, RAI...).

    The US government funds over 1,400 domestic US news outlets through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and funds tons of foreign media through U.S. Agency for Global Media.

    The US, like all other Western countries, is full of state-sponsored news. That includes Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, Voice of America, and, well, close to 1.5 thousand other outlets. Many outlets either used to be or still are managed by the CIA, including New York Times, TIME, Newsweek, Washington Post, and others. And some outlets, like NBC have filled their staff with former CIA persons. Operation Mockingbird never ended in the US and today US MSM is almost entirely an industry of state propaganda pretending that it isn't (as a part of its state propaganda).

    RT is state-sponsored like most major news in the West, but a huge difference that adds to RT's credibility that other Western outlets don't have is that RT is produced, hosted, and staffed by persons from Western countries and their MSM outlets who bring a counter-balance to RT's funding source. In comparison, Western state-funded outlets are also produced, hosted, and staffed by persons from Western countries, and so those outlets end up being more biased and polarized than RT which involves perspectives from all sides to create a more balanced approach to news.

    RT features US government persons, CIA officers and directors, and other US agency persons as guests and critics on their programming. Do CNN, NYT, NBC, or Washington Post invite and feature Russian FSB officers and directors on their shows to serve as critics to their narratives?

    I don't see anything notable about RT receiving funding from the Russian government. What I take as notable is when an outlet, regardless of its funding, perpetually lies or is biased in a headstrong manner - like CNN does and is, for example.


    Well, they are increasingly becoming more independent from the US, but certainly Germany has been a close ally of the US. As for the Five Eyes... being a Canadian, I can tell you that much of Canada's policy is not because Canada believes in the same things as the US on certain matters, but because the US government makes things very uncomfortable if Canada's government doesn't fall in line.

    Look at how much of Canada's trade is done with the US: https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/canada/tradestats

    Our policy decisions have to take that into consideration. Though, we should have been and especially now should be diversifying our trade, dealing with China, dealing with Russia, dealing with the EU, and dealing with other non-traditional potential trade partners. But, we just had US tariffs on steel exports to the US removed, and I think that only happened because EU countries aren't backing US sanctions against Iran, Nord Stream 2, and aren't banning Huawei, and the US recently lost its WTO dispute with Turkey over steel tariffs (which might have set the stage for Canada to also win a WTO dispute against the US on steel tariffs). The US has been playing a losing game on large fronts, and it needs to secure some support somewhere, and I think that cancelling steel tariffs was an effort to do that. Who knows what the Canadian and Mexican governments agreed to in order to get those tariffs dropped. Maybe agreement to oppose Huawei 5g? I hope not, but who knows.

    There is currently a trial in Canada involving the Huawei CFO, which the US wants to be extradited to the US. If the Huawei CFO wins her challenge against extradition, I wonder how that will affect Canada's approach towards Huawei. I think it's absurd and embarrassing for Canada that the Huawei CFO would be arrested in Canada for violating US sanctions China never agreed to follow in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
    Soulstorm brew likes this.
  2. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I said companies, the US will sue companies that use products from vendors who are using stolen IP in said products. I didn't say the US would sue the countries.

    As for this idea that the EU can go it's own way. The US is actually fine with that. If the EU countries want to crawl into bed with the Russian Federation, it's their choice. But when thy wake up one day and they all look a whole lot like the USSR, don't come crying to us.

    You misunderstand the relationship between Canada and the US regarding Intelligence efforts. Canada is an Intelligence Service partner with the US, as in a trusted partner.

    This quote is an example of what I am talking about from a UK perspective;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_Kingdom

    What I am trying to say here is that the information that has prompted the US to be so harsh with China has almost certainly been shared with these partners. Germany and other EU countries do not enjoy such a close level of trust and therefore may not have been shown this information.

    So the US may "warn" the EU, but you should think of it as the friendly kind of warning "Be careful friend, these guys are bad for you" Not the, "I'm warning you" threatening kind of warning.

    That being said, it's not bullying or being meddlesome to tell these countries that the US is going to cut off China, meaning no US tech going to China, and warning them that if they don't outright ban their businesses from purchasing from China, that they will be doing their own businesses a great disservice.

    Therefore, as long as I see these five countries all going along together, because they all have access to the same information, I see that as confirmation of my suspicions. Now if say, the UK or Canada doesn't follow suite then it probably means that the proof someone else mentioned was never there to begin with.

    So I'm just saying, what you see as the US bullying it's little brothers to keep them in line, might just be these countries all making well informed decisions.

    You think the US drags Canada along by the ear, but maybe it's just that Canada can see things that are not being shown to Germany and others, and is deciding for themselves that the US is being smart about the issue.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  3. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Being separate by oceans and continents, and not having direct practical relations with Russia, the US has created for itself a cartoon image of Russia and relations with Russia, and also many other countries. Those cartoon / conspiracy images of Russia, China, Iran, and a plethora of other countries are deliberate propaganda constructs. In reality, the US is at least every bit as bad as those countries are.

    Here's Obama's "chief propagandist" / former editor of TIME Magazine:



    Mike Pompeo, recently:




    EU countries would know Russia more than the US does and be in a better position to judge what is appropriate for their relations and partnerships with Russia.

    A huge amount of US policy towards China and Russia isn't about anything China and Russia do, but about the US wanting to keep itself the most powerful and wealthy country for the sake of benefiting itself. Same reason why the US invades every country that drops the US dollar in its international trade.

     
  4. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Man, you need to find better sources of information to believe.

    I'll start with this comment;
    Name how many countries the US has invaded in the last 50 years, that would be since 1980.

    I'll give you a hint at where this is going, you'll name five or six, which I will refute as not all will have been invaded, and we'll look at your claim that it had to do with their dropping the US Dollar. Then we'll look at instances accrossed the globe with countries that have dropped the US Dollar and see just how many of those we have not invaded.

    Is this the road that you want to go down?

    BTW, my work day is almost over, they'll be closing the doors soon and I'll be off until tomorrow.

    EDITED: Actually, I'm going to short this and just call it;

    http://www.currencytrading.net/feat...g-abandoning-the-us-dollar-and-what-it-means/
    The US has not invaded any country that has dropped the US Dollar for foreign trade purposes. Aside from the fact that no country has completely dropped the US Dollar, the ones threatening the most, we haven't invaded.

    Now I'm outa here. If you want to continue this I'll catch up tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  5. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Better sources than the US government speaking about the US government?


    I said that the US invades every country that drops the US dollar in its trades. So, the question is, how many countries have dropped the US dollar, and what has the US done towards those countries?

    Iraq dropped the US dollar in 2000, the US invaded.
    Syria dropped the US dollar in 2006, the US fostered a coup attempt and invaded.
    Libya dropped the US dollar in 2011 and planned to stop using the French Franc and to create a pan-African gold-backed currency, the US together with NATO invaded.
    Iran dropped the US dollar in 2018, Trump wants to invade, despite having previously said this and this.
    Pakistan dropped the dollar in trade with China, the US put Pakistan on notice by adding them to a list of countries violating religious freedom - a move that facilitates further action in the future.
    Venezuela dropped the US dollar in 2018, the US is moving troops to Venezuela's border and Trump is pushing for military intervention.


    I think this is going just like everything else has, so far.

    If a country is weak enough to be invaded, then guess what happens? The US isn't going to invade Russia or China for dropping the US dollar because it can't.


    Meet on the playground after school?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  6. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Those videos were all from the Russian News Network were they not?


    Wait, we invaded Libya and I never knew it?
    Iran is still using the US Dollar for foreign trade but is talking about dropping it.
    Pakistan Dropped it with China because China is dropping it.
    And you think the US troops have moved to the Venezuelan border? We don't have any land bordering Venezuela so who has invited us in?

    I think you are believing a Russian propaganda source.
     
    thebufenator, GoldenTiger and Wade88 like this.
  7. Wade88

    Wade88 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    204
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2015
    He either doesn't understand what invasion means or is a plant. A bombing party does not an invasion make, an invasion starts with the bombing party and is followed up by hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines, and their cool toys.
     
  8. JayteeBates

    JayteeBates [H]ard|Poof

    Messages:
    4,667
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    HuaWei is government owned - they try and spin it as being owned by the employee labor union but ... come on this is China. The country of China (PRC actually) is effectively masquerading as various companies in various marketplaces. In telecom they want everyone using their hardware so they can view everything going on at their leisure.

    China is a big threat.
     
    honegod likes this.
  9. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Uh, no. What about any of those videos looked like Russian news, to you? That the things coming out of US government persons' own mouths are highly unflattering of US government practices? Were they were taken over by Russian mind-control hacking for the moments they said those things?

    And what significance would there be if all those videos were real, as they are, but published in Russian news? As if RT has identical body doubles of US government persons and has them act out scenes where they say unflattering things about the US just so they can air them as propaganda... and the real versions of those people and US government don't say anything about it.

    And since you clearly didn't watch the videos, why assert things about them?

    Then you haven't been following global affairs for close to a decade.

    What did you think created the war in Libya? How do you think that US troops can be retreating from Libya if they aren't first in Libya?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...-withdraws-from-libya-as-fighting-intensifies

    Iran announced it will drop the US dollar in 2018, in favour of the Euro.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...in-favor-of-euro-as-standoff-deepens-with-u-s

    Irrelevant.

    I guess that would be Colombia.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...estions-about-military-role-venezuela-crisis/

    And who knows what's in Eliot Abrams' military planes of 'humanitarian aid' that are going to the Colombian border. Could he be using military deliveries of 'humanitarian aid' as a cover to smuggle weapons again, like he did with Iran-Contra?

    No. You were just wrong, about everything.


    That's one of the dumbest false dichotomies I've seen in a while.

    Any uninvited and hostile foreign military incursion into another territory is an invasion of that territory. Your personal shifting the meaning of word to make yourself feel better about certain actions only shows you seek to excuse those actions.

    And your personal semantics over the word "invasion" in an attempt to create a sleight of hand diversion do absolutely nothing to affect the topic of countries dropping the US dollar also happening to shortly-thereafter, come under the reticle of the US - which, itself, is a major tangent from the previous topic.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  10. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Google was created through research grants on mass-surveillance from the NSA and CIA.


    https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true...nd-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

    And Google participated in the PRISM program.

    Thousands of other companies share their services data with the US government, and the US government hacks and backdoors everything it can for the purpose of monitoring everything.

    Doesn't that indicate that Google, and its Android OS and phones, not to mention tons of other large US tech companies, are big threats?
     
  11. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I've been on a support call with a vendor's techs, I'll get back with you soon if I can, tomorrow if I can't.
     
  12. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,494
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Delish loves russian sources. RT is where the radicals on the left and the right go for coffee.
     
  13. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    OK, so I have a little time to get back to this discussion;

    I must confess some ignorance regarding the US Dollar and it's effect on trade. You posted claims I knew little about. I looked up information and found some that suggests your claims are weak. instead of attacking you personally I suggested your sources are suspect, and I do maintain that they are. There are several ways to make statements sound like things they are not meant to be. But I found an article that has helped me a little, although I have problems with it as well.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/the...s-story-about-the-end-of-the-us-dollar-2012-4

    This author is saying that things could be changing for the US, referencing how some countries are avoiding US Sanctions on Iran in order to buy Iranian oil. The problem is, it's not just US Sanctions, it's EU Sanctions too, but the author of articles like these conveniently leave out little details like this. They make statements about how Russia and China have both begun to trade in other currencies dropping the Dollar, but when the other shoe drops and you think about it....
    But not when it comes to trading with the rest of the world huh?

    This author makes it sound like the strength of the US Dollar has everything to do with it's use in foreign trade. I think that completely ignores the fact that the value of the US Dollar has to be rooted in something more, notably what is being traded and it's value to the world. Take US Tech for instance, if companies acrossed the world stop paying for it then I think that will have a real effect on the strength of our currency. Iran is hurting from decades of US. EU and UN sanctions. They need trade, they have cheap oil. Some countries are going to want that cheap oil, and they'll do what they can to get it if they like. China I am sure is one, and because of the sanctions, of course they wouldn't be able to use the US Dollar in trade. It doesn't herald a world shift and the imminent collapse of the United States.

    I have to wonder, you claim the US has some distant view of Russia and no contact, but Russian troops were with us in Iraq, they were part of the coalition and hell, I almost had to take a ride in a Russian chopper to get off FOB Delta but a US bird finally stopped in and we caught a ride out with them instead. I don't think our view of Russia is as remote, colored, or inaccurate as you seem to think. I have to say though, those Russian Helicopter troops were really quiet in the mess hall and didn't seem to mingle at all with the Ukrainian Infantry that were there as well. Just saying.

    But whatever. Believe what you want, time will tell.
     
    GoldenTiger and Delicieuxz like this.
  14. zehoo

    zehoo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    260
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    From a purely defence perspective it makes quite a bit of sense to not want to have a potential enemy being the producer of large portions of your communications network.

    The European countries that will be buying the Huawei gear though generally have to choose who they will let spy on them (if they don't create their own equipment) when it comes to the communications gear they buy.
     
  15. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    IC, too each his own. I suppose I can't judge.
     
  16. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,449
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    It's a pretty bad spot to be in; realistically, getting their equipment from a European source would be preferable, but that's not even a choice for most of it. Getting it from Korea would be second best I'd think, if that were affordable.

    I really do think that this is one of those 'investments' that the US can make in foreign countries, no different than military technology, and perhaps similar to how the F-35 was done where the US sponsors indigenous manufacturing to a point that nations in Europe that are still recovering from the lack of advancement of Soviet rule could work to reasonably secure their infrastructure.
     
  17. YeuEmMaiMai

    YeuEmMaiMai [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,572
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    China has been trying to undermine the West for many years and one of their biggest leverages is price to produce... They are also notorious for STEALING IP from companies that do production there. The company I work for will not enter their marketplace because of this...

    as for their HuaWei, good luck surviving without the west's tech that you have been using...
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  18. Wade88

    Wade88 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    204
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2015
    whoo boy, we got a live one here. I didn't invent the jargon but it is what it is, it's not an invasion until you get some major combined arms going on and not just flinging bombs and missiles at folks without using it as a prelude to invading a country so that you can knock out it's Integrated Air Defense System in places with stealthy jets, Wild Weasels, and standoff munitions fired from stealthy jets and larger missiles fired from ships or land, then you send in your unstealthy jets to prosecute further targets and the pointier special operations communities go to work while paratroopers take air fields and the armored columns and their associated mechanized infantry invade overland or amphibiously. This is an invasion, look it up and bow to the fact that we in the industry know what the words mean and you had to be on the Internet to bungle the word "invasion" you could have googled it ffs. When America invades a place we do it as described not like low rent Russians flailing for a warm water port at the edge of their ability to deploy persistently or being an Indian giver regarding lands given to The Ukraine back in the day and their activities like shooting down air liners in eastern Ukraine. At least we got our missiles to quit shooting airliners back in the 80s.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  19. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    982
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    No.

    You mention Google in your post, yet, you didn't use it to verify whether your personal idea had any merit to it. I'm guessing that a lot of what else you think you understand is also merely assumption.

    https://thelawdictionary.org/invasion/
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invasion

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invade
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade

    You didn't invent the English language, but you can still learn it.

    Combatants that enter another territory as a hostile force are invaders of that territory. Whether a combination of forces are used or not is of no relevance to whether an invasion occurred.

    And the US and NATO failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have certainly been characterized by lots of clueless flailing. 1 2 3 4 5

    Also, I would categorize what happened in Crimea as a branch of the US' flailing around in Ukraine, which ended up being another failure for the US. It ended up working out for Russia, though.

    Now there's a comment that didn't age well. And by not age well, I mean from the very moment it was made.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  20. next-Jin

    next-Jin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,204
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    This is one of the things I’m not going to bash Trump on. He is playing a waiting game and that game will hurt us in the short/mid term no doubt.

    I’m all about legit free trade, but China not opening their markets while dealing in ours, outright IP/Tech infringement, tech espionage, etc. damages the US while giving them a huge advantage.

    They have 4x the amount of people we do and from what I understand they want 4x the economy we do. That’s why they are doing what they are doing with government help.

    They don’t need to do that in order to grow. They are effectively leaching off US companies and investing in them at the same time while preventing them entirely from entering their markets. If that keeps up they could kill us in a number of ways while not securing their own economy.

    It’s a mutual relationship and I don’t believe we will ever have a legit war with them but Trumps right on this.
     
    GoldenTiger and YeuEmMaiMai like this.
  21. Jinto

    Jinto [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,634
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    China's export value add is generally very low. Take an iPhone for example, a common estimate is that they take less than $10 out of nearly $1k in sticker price. The trade number only takes into account the total export not value add. Out of that $400 Billion deficit, a huge portion of it is actually from components made in other countries. On the other hand, we derive a much much higher % benefit from our export to China because we either export commodities or high tech components. We do not do much of importing from other countries, manufacture and then re-export to China. This is purely from comparing benefit and not looking at 1) there are few Chinese brands in the U.S., very little brand equity that they risk and 2) how most of this trade is denominated in dollars (it is arguably a cost of maintaining the dollar as the world reserve currency). The fixation on trade balance is not warranted.

    What we should be focusing on is market access as well as intellectual property. National security is also a concern, but security and trade should be different conversations with different approaches. On the market access and intellectual property front we should find common ground with other trade partners to present a united front against China. On national security, we should be more transparent about our findings and use a fact-based approach convince other countries. The worst thing we can do is restrict our export, like in this case with Huawei. It will likely speed up the creation of new competition and the rest of the world will be quite happy to be less dependent on the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Google.

    Anyway I wouldn't be too confident that in the long run it is beneficial to us. Trade wars has a history of unintended consequences. Worst case scenario is Trump succeeds in isolating China. With a tanking economy and rising nationalism, they may feel that there is nothing to lose from finally taking back Taiwan. Taiwan has plenty of know how to address some key deficiencies in China's tech stack. All hell will break loose if that happens.
     
    Uvaman2 likes this.
  22. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,494
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    I don't follow. Huawei not withstanding, most telecom comes from Alcatel or Ericsson (both EU companies)...maybe Nokia makes switches too, though I've never seen one. there's also companies like Airwide (which I believe is from Israel), but I think they mostly do SMS and MMS (but I could be wrong...that's what we used their equipment for). Either way, for the main wireless activities, they can easily use products made by EU companies. The USA use to have Lucent, but they were bought out by Lucent years ago.

    Bottom line is EU countries can do it if they choose. The reason many dont' (and the same applies to rural US carriers) is because Huawei is very inexpensive. Where i worke,d we used an MMS appliance from them, because they literally gave it to us for free....but we dumped it years ago (probably 10 years ago).