**Obama declares war with China** through Executive order (economical)

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

It should say this:
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the U.S without the authorization of the citizens of the U.S — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in the U.S.; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Well, corporations can be persons. corporations have been viewed as persons so it would stand that a country / nation could be viewed as a person. I think that is what the video is getting at.

Except that the order specifies what it means and nations are not included.

A senior administration official said the restrictions are aimed at Russians and Ukrainians in the strategic Crimea region. Crimea is a peninsula that hosts a major Russian navy base and is historically and culturally a stronghold of Russia.

www.cnbc.com...

I think Obama is trying to warn countries that have invested in the US that we (the US) will revoke your land claims if you back Russia in this conflict.

Except that that is not what the order says. It says nothing about Russia (or China), it says nothing about "revoking claims", and it says nothing about nations.

Russia has investments in the US. Talks about further investment and trade have been suspended. Tell me, have current has Russian owned real estate been confiscated under the order? Have Russian assets in the US been frozen under the order?

So, we have an EO about blocking assets (denying access to) of those found to be complicit in undermining the Ukrainian government while on the other hand we have Russia beginning to formulate laws (prior to the EO) to actual confiscation of assets (taking ownership) of European or American companies if sanctions were to be imposed on Russia, because...they are European or American companies. Sounds fair. Right?

Meanwhile, Russian lawmakers were working on a draft law to allow the confiscation of property, assets and accounts of European or U.S. companies if sanctions are imposed on Russia, RIA news agency said, according to Reuters.

The news agency quoted Andrei Klishas, head of the constitutional legislation committee in the upper parliament house, as saying the bill "would offer the president and government opportunities to defend our sovereignty from threats."

www.military.com...

So...where does china play into this?
Nobody has declared war on anything, the OP threw in china on the thread title to get people in here, what a rip off.
Congrats, your stunt actually worked in bringing in the folks.
EO was interesting but that's as far as it goes.
No Star, No Flag.

snypwsd
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

Americans cant even understand Americans man. He is absolutely right in saying that Americans cant make up their mind. Seems like all you want to do is go to war.... So you want thousands of people to die... will that make you happy? Americans are mad when Obama does nothing, Americans are mad When Obama does something thats not war relarelatedted, so from an outsiders point of view it looks like all you want is war..

I am extremely happy that Obama is jumping in and attacking, He is using his brains, He is trying everything to settle this all peacefully, which is the right thing to do.

If America goes straight to war then they are no better then Russia and or China.


And to the OP...... I did not see anything pertaining to china there. What you had there seems like its more directed at Russia.

What made Obama say that to China? Last I heard China wasnt attacking anyone, people are attacking them and their interests. China would murder the states if it came to actual war.

It seems you think Americans share some sort of homogenized hive mind. I doubt you're seeing the same people vascillate between opposing viewpoints. The thing is, some Americans have opinions which differ from other Americans.I thought this was typical outside of NK, but maybe not.

Oh, and China beating the US in a war? LMMFAO!! Oh wow, seriously, I think I peed a bit when I read that, and is my wife who's 9 mos pregnant.I could see China winning a war on US soil even, IF, we grounded all of our aircraft and disbanded our Navy, and if China sent 200,000,000 armed personnel here, and the Army and Marines let them spread out into the entire nation, and they had provisions packed with them. Otherwise, by the time 90%+ were destroyed by the Navy & Air Force, the Army & Marines would be hoping the citizens would "save a few for them." I mean c'mon, have you even seen our latest tech? No? Neither have I...and neither have they.

reply to post by Phage


Mr. Barak Obama has essentially flipped the bird at china.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


I dont like executive orders....but; President Bush has a large lead on President Obama. The king is of course Frankilin D. Roosevet.

The meat of them is thw importance though.

reply to post by Phage


Wrong. It is not talking about Individual persons like you continuously spouted nearly every page of this thread, you've still failed to answer any of my questions.

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

It's a simple question, can any of the above be a person, with arms and legs. Yes or No? The only part where it can be that is where it says individual. You continuously fail to realize it says person means ENTITY. Is a country not an entity? That also includes leaders within countries, groups within countries, corporations, not to mention Russia and China are in a partnership, or joint venture, which is clearly stated in the executive order.

Very sensationalist.

hellrex
reply to post by Phage

 

Mr. Barak Obama has essentially flipped the bird at china.

How so?
It seems more like he has done so to Russians who are active in China?
Or are you saying that China is taking an active role in what's happening in Ukraine?

reply to post by Hiasyouwant

The only part where it can be that is where it says individual.

Yes.

That also includes leaders within countries, groups within countries, corporations, not to mention Russia and China are in a partnership, or joint venture, which is clearly stated in the executive order.

No. A partnership is a company or corporation with more than one owner, so any owner can fall under the order. A joint venture is when two or more companies are involved in the same business venture, so any one or more of those companies can fall under the order. If a Russian "entity" (or Chinese, or American, or Lithuanian) is found to be involved with working against the Ukraine government the order says that any US assets of those "entities" may be blocked.

China is not a company, it is a nation. Russia is not a company, it is a nation.

Now, if China does get involved with interfering with the Ukraine government, the US may well take action. However the EO does not allow that, nor is it required in order to do so.

Phage
reply to post by buster2010

 

Silly.
Because the video tells you what the order really says.

Phage, when are you going to start acting like an intelligent man? I'm getting awfully tired of seeing you come in and pretending to be the authority about something you have no knowledge about, trolling people with non-answer posts claiming you "debunked" the claims, when what you say has nothing to do with the claims.

Now, lets be clear, I'm going to ask you a very sincere question.

*IF* the person in question is a person in the position of power that backs the interest of China, is it not an attack on the nation by way of the person in power?

Another example; say the tables were turned, and Obama was the one meddling, and the order was written about the person who is Obama, would that NOT be an attack on the US?

The only answer is, of course it is.

You're argument is facetious, it's also fallacious, it's also not even a position. Go to bed.

Phage
reply to post by Hiasyouwant

 

The only part where it can be that is where it says individual.

Yes.

That also includes leaders within countries, groups within countries, corporations, not to mention Russia and China are in a partnership, or joint venture, which is clearly stated in the executive order.

No. A partnership is a company or corporation with more than one owner, so any owner can fall under the order. A joint venture is when two or more companies are involved in the same business venture, so any one or more of those companies can fall under the order. If a Russian "entity" (or Chinese, or American, or Lithuanian) is found to be involved with working against the Ukraine government the order says that any US assets of those "entities" may be blocked.

China is not a company, it is a nation. Russia is not a company, it is a nation.

Now, if China does get involved with interfering with the Ukraine government, the US may well take action. However the EO does not allow that, nor is it required in order to do so.

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The EO does allow that. If the person in question holds US treasury bonds, otherwise read as "US Assets." Just like American politicians who gain their wealth and power from their side ventures, you don't think those side ventures are important to government policy? Putting an end or freezing these ventures would have NO affect on the country as a whole?

You're just wrong -- all day, every which way, like you almost always are.

You better stay in the realm of Sciences, because your grasp on economics is terrible, as is your grasp on politics and policy in general.

It also says

persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region...

So that means the persons are government. Your argument is dead on arrival.

reply to post by Phage


You don't get to make up meanings to fit your agenda, sorry.

A partnership is an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.[1] Since humans are social beings, partnerships between individuals, businesses, interest-based organizations, schools, governments, and varied combinations thereof, have always been and remain commonplace.

en.wikipedia.org...
The EO is NOT referring to two business individuals who are partners . It is referring to groups, organizations, subs groups, governments, entitys, ect that could be engaged in a partnership.

Also China and Russia are engaged in many many joint ventures.
Here are a few JOINT VENTURES between Russia and China.
www.nationaljournal.com...
www.ainonline.com...
rt.com...
www.ruaviation.com...

but wait, how can that be if they aren't individuals or business owners?


You are also saying that it is impossible for this executive order to have any affect on an entity such as the China's central/government bank, the Peoples Bank of China, which also owns all of the us real estate bonds mentioned in said video? Also that this central bank could not possibly be a trust, corporation, group, or other organization? Are you also saying a person can be an organization?

Get a grip man. This EO is not for the Russian business corner store owner down the street who may disagree with Obama. This EO pertains to current events in Ukraine, and sorry to tell you but if Russia is involved, SO IS CHINA. Do you know why?

Because they are partners. They said so themselves.

www.rense.com...
www.upi.com...

This pretty much explains that partnership, and uses the word about a dozen times.

carnegieendowment.org...

reply to post by Phage


Why did you post an article titled "Russia May Confiscate US Assets if Sanctioned" if this EO has nothing to do with sanctioning Russia? Plus, that article you listed is clearly stating it would confiscate the accounts of US/european companies, in their country, not that it would sieze any land within US borders. Anyway you've said so yourself this order can only apply to individuals and business owners, so why are you even talking about Russia..?

I hope you realize when the term "China" or "Russia" is used, it means "Chinese, Russian government", and not the geographical location and land mass of China or Russia. Now answer this, can the Chinese or Russian government fit into any of those that are listed as to what persons means in this EO. Here, ill connect the 2 simple dots for you.

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

www.whitehouse.gov...

gov·ern·ment noun, often attributive : the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Phage

Russia has investments in the US. Talks about further investment and trade have been suspended. Tell me, have current has Russian owned real estate been confiscated under the order? Have Russian assets in the US been frozen under the order?

Wrong again. It says nothing about "investments" or Russian investments. Unless you deem real estate as an investment.

It is specifically talking about land within the united states that a person, which like I've told you 20 times, means entity, group ECT, which Chinese government perfectly categorizes into, amongst other things such as the other terms listed(joint venture, partnership ect). So not only does it fit the bill once, but multiple.

All property and interests in property that are in the United States

www.whitehouse.gov...

The Chinese government/Chinese Central Bank, A GROUP, ENTITY, WHATEVER. are the one's who have huge interests in property in the US, not Russia. However CHINA and RUSSIA are still engaged in PARTNERSHIP, and many JOINT VENTURES. How many different ways do you want to say CHINA AND RUSSIA?

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by Hiasyouwant

We are not talking about the articles but the executive order.

Except you posted links that had nothing to do with the OP and again those have nothing to do with China which is what this thread is about is it not?

Are you also saying that the peoples bank of china, could not be referenced as a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization???

Now do you have any evidence it is or are you just making assumptions?

Let me get this perfectly straight, because this executive order did not name Russia, they cannot possibly be talking about Russia. and Because they did not name China, they can not possibly be talking about China. LOL YEA OK.

First thing is the source for this thread is a known hoax site and your trying to tie other stories into this with your links.

Now there have been many other EO, so does that mean they all are interchangeable because by your logic they have to be.

Also could you provide any link that doesn't go back to BIN or GMN that is credible, because that is where this story originates.

I also find this interesting...

President Obama spoke to the leader of China on Sunday night as part of his outreach over Russia's military incursion into Ukraine.

Obama and President Xi Jinping "affirmed their shared interest in reducing tensions and identifying a peaceful resolution to the dispute between Russia and Ukraine," said a White House statement on the call.

"The two leaders agreed on the importance of upholding principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, both in the context of Ukraine and also for the broader functioning of the international system," the statement said.

Obama stressed his "overriding objective of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," and he and Xi agreed "to stay in touch as events unfold," the White House said.

www.usatoday.com...

So we have a country that agrees with Obama about the situation in Crimea and he goes and sets an EO that casts sanctions against them before this discussion they had on Sunday. Do you think China would be so gracious as to have this talk if they knew Obama was setting hard sanctions against them?

Your right China is just that dumb as to help the country that is setting sanctions against them and there banks, what was I thinking.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h



Like I already said, I posted other new articles relating to the executive order because you said the story wasn't true.
What are you disputing about the Chinese central/government bank? Or rather that its a group, entity, or organization? Okay I'll spoon feed you.

The People's Bank of China (PBC or PBOC) is the central bank of the People's Republic of China.
en.wikipedia.org...

Central Bank: A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages a state's currency, money supply, and interest rates.

en.wikipedia.org...

Institution: an organization
dictionary.reference.com...

SO yes, it is fact that The people bank of China is an organization



Are you telling me only way you will believe this to be so is if you read it in a mainstream news article? How about use some common sense, read the executive order, it clearly does not need to state China's government by name. Because it states PERSONS MEANS ENTITY. ENTITY is group, organization ect. I'm tired of listing it. The goverment is a group is it not? The central bank of china is an organization.

It is right there in the EO where it says property.The EO does say group. China's government/central bank is factually a group. China definitely has interests in property within the US. It is their collateral if the US defaults. THIS IS FACT. Which part about this are you disputing? Do you even know?

reply to post by Hiasyouwant

As of January 2013, $5 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People's Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.

en.wikipedia.org...

This debt is held in REAL ESTATE bonds and other US government bonds, meaning if the US defaults, guess who legally owns that land now? CHINA. 1.1 trillion dollars worth. I cannot spell it out any further.

reply to post by markosity1973


Hey. You're going to get some here in the US that will sway one way or the other on anything. One guy will be against something and turn around and be for it the next minute. That's just One Person, and not the whole country.
Now here at ATS you will see people on both sides of the line on stuff.

You will see posts from DIFFERENT People who say they are on one side of an issue or the other side of the line on it.
That does not mean the Whole country of the USA is flip flopping on issues. EveryOne has their stance on issues, and OBVIOUSLY there will be a group on one side and another group on the other side of those issues. The Whole Country will probably NEVER be in ONE Group that will be either for or against something.
Hope I'm making sense here and don't think I'm trying to jump Your Ass on this.
I'm just tryin' you help you see what I mean.
Later, Syx.

reply to post by Hiasyouwant

What are you disputing about the Chinese central/government bank? Or rather that its a group, entity, or organization? Okay I'll spoon feed you.

Well then let's do this..

Provide a copy of said EO that shows it is going after China, and please try and do it without using the only two very questionable sources for this, and don't just post links that are not even relevant to the EO we are discussing can you do that?

And again I will say it...

BIN and GMN are two sites that have less credibility than my shoe, in fact I would believe my shoe over those two sites.