It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 


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


Has the PBC (Or China) been responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following?

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine


This doesn't sound warlike, economic or otherwise:

"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...


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




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

snypwsd
China would murder the states if it came to actual war.


Why don't you explain to us all just how they could accomplish that? ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Being that China has come out publicly to support Russia, by being strategic partners with Russia, by being an ally to Russia, yes they are at least indirectly undermining the westernized democratic process of Ukraine.

Oh so China and Obama had talks? How could that be possible if China is not involved.

Especially if Russia dumps US bonds and dollars, you'd better believe China will be dumping them too. So yes, China is very much a part of all of this. And everything is still unfolding. But this executive order absolutely leaves the door wide open to sanctioning both Russia and China, their governments, ECT. and especially siezing any land held within the US by China if the US were to default. You can't deny it, it's all there. Depending on how bad it gets and what it comes down to is yet to be seen.

en.ria.ru...

www.americanthinker.com...

edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Unity_99
Wonder if that had anything to do with the 777 maylaysia aircraft going down with American and Chinese on board;

www.cnn.com...

20 of them worked for Freescale Semiconductor, a Texas company. Semiconductive chipmaking?

Really, weird.


I work in the semiconductor industry. It's not weird. All electronic "chips" (not resistors or capacitors) are semiconductor technology. It's been around for decades and all electronic devices contain many semiconductor parts.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





Oh so China and Obama had talks? How could that be possible if China is not involved.


Good try, but the president has spoken to many countries about this that aren't involved in the conflict, so that doesn't work.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





But this executive order absolutely leaves the door wide open to sanctioning both Russia and China, their governments, ECT.


No it doesn't and you haven't shown anything to prove it does. In fact I am not even sure the so called EO this thread is about actually exists because all sources return to the same two sites.

So since you are so convinced could you please provide a link to this Chinese Executive Order declaring economical war or even anything close to that?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 


Being that China has come out publicly to support Russia, by being strategic partners with Russia, by being an ally to Russia, yes they are at least indirectly undermining the westernized democratic process of Ukraine.
Can you provide an example of China supporting Russia's stance on Ukraine?

Beijing is not exactly fudging it: Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said plainly last Sunday, when the first reports of Russian armed intervention in Crimea were coming in, that “we respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

news.yahoo.com...



Oh so China and Obama had talks? How could that be possible if China is not involved.
Because China does not want to see Russian interference in Ukraine any more than the US does.



But this executive order absolutely leaves the door wide open to sanctioning both Russia and China, their governments, ECT. and especially siezing any land held within the US by China if the US were to default.
If by "seizing" you mean taking, no, this order does not it make it possible to seize land or any other asset. It allows for blocking access to assets held in the US. Persons found to be interfering in Ukraine will have their accounts locked.


All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in
www.whitehouse.gov...


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



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:


Yes exactly. Effectively and legally stopping China from even taking control or engaging in any sort of dealing in any property, or interests in property, within the US in the first place.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





Yes exactly. Effectively and legally stopping China from even taking control or engaging in any sort of dealing in any property, or interests in property, in the first place.


Why is it I cannot find anything on an EO concerning anything that has to do with freezing assets of China except this one...

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Again do you have anything that provides evidence the EO in the OP exists anywhere other than the two original sources?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Wow, you really are confused. Why don't you start from the beginning? This entire thread is about this

The EO is on whitehouse.gov. Do you think they just made it up for fun? Get a grip. www.whitehouse.gov...

THIS executive order DIRECTLY NAMES CHINA AND RUSSIA, because CHINA AND RUSSIAN are governments, and governments happen to be a group, and groups happen to be listed as the meaning of PERSONS described in the executive order that we've been talking about this entire time. It's pretty simple actually.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 




Yes exactly.

I'm glad you now agree that the order does not allow seizure of assets.

Now, how about providing something about China supporting Russian actions in Ukraine?


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



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This is getting redundant. They don't need to the seize assets, because this executive order can stop China from dealing in any of the assets, and acquiring them in the first place. THUS, they don't need to sieze if China can't take ownership in the first place. How many ways do I have to say it? and your argument has changed about 5 different times. We are still talking about individuals, with arms and legs, like you proclaimed the first 3 pages of this thread aren't we? What happened to that argument?

www.ibtimes.co.uk...
news.sky.com...
news.investors.com...
www.wantchinatimes.com...
thediplomat.com...
thinkprogress.org...#

and hell, now India as well

www.zerohedge.com...
ibankcoin.com...

How many more links do you need to comprehend this?
edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





The EO is on whitehouse.gov. Do you think they just made it up for fun? Get a grip. www.whitehouse.gov...


Really, because if I remember correctly this thread is about...



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


No they didn't make it up for fun, and they didn't include China in there, in fact do you really think Obama would have met with China if he thought they were in any way involved with Crimea?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





They don't need to the seize assets, because this executive order can stop China from dealing in any of the assets, and acquiring them in the first place.


Your right they don't need to seize any of China's assets because they aren't involved in the Crimean conflict, although Russia is and that is why this EO was drawn up.

This wouldn't seem so redundant if you would just provide any information that shows China is part of this EO, so are you ready to move things along?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


This is getting boring. Are you saying China is not a government, and that a government is not a group, and that the term group is not the meaning of persons in the executive order we're describing? The title of this thread directly pertains to the executive order. Not that hard is it?

By your logic Russia cannot be included in this executive order because it is not named specifically, is that right?
edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 


They don't need to the seize assets, because this executive order can stop China from dealing in any of the assets, and acquiring them in the first place.

I see. I must have misunderstood when you said this:

But this executive order absolutely leaves the door wide open to sanctioning both Russia and China, their governments, ECT. and especially siezing any land held within the US by China if the US were to default
www.abovetopsecret.com...
 



We are still talking about individuals, with arms and legs, like you proclaimed the first 3 pages of this thread aren't we? What happened to that argument?
I saw that the term persons as used in the order also applies to other entities. We are now talking about those types of entities.


Can you show me where China has supported Russia's stance on Ukraine? I don't mean what the Kremlin says about what China says, I mean what China says. I haven't seen any statement of support for Russian actions from China.

Don't exactly see support of India for Russian actions either. Just a sort of vague statement about "legitimate interests." Does that mean the US can "seize" all Indian assets in the US now? Probably not. Since the order doesn't really seem to about moral support, more about material action against Ukraine.
edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





By your logic Russia cannot be included in this executive order because it is not named specifically, is that right?


If your talking about the EO this thread is about then what does Russia have to do with it?

And the EO concerning the Crimean conflict has nothing to do with China, so why do you keep insisting it is?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hiasyouwant
 





How many more links do you need to comprehend this?


Well you must not have read your first link real well did you, because they have an update from China about there stance...


[UPDATE 12:17 GMT] China's Foreign Ministry has issued a statement to clarify its stance over

"China upholds its own diplomatic principles and the basic codes for international relations, which have also been implied on the Ukraine issue," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.


www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Doesn't sound like they are backing Russia to me.

And here are those principles...


China says its decisions on foreign policy questions derive from the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. The Chinese leadership originally enumerated these principles in 1954 when China, with a communist government, was trying to reach out to the non-communist countries of Asia.


afe.easia.columbia.edu...

Lastly the only reason China would be involved is because they have fairly good relations with Russia and can try to mediate between the two countries other than that they aren't going to get involved.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

That leaves a pretty broad spectrum for a reason. The US wants flexibility where it benefits from it in the EO.
Wouldn't the strategic partnership, alliance, be enough to be included as an indirect action undermining democratic process, from the United States point of view?

The executive order is also applicable in the future, not just the moment it was written. They don't write it, sign it, see if any persons are guilty and then just trash it. The executive order is opened for business basically. Directly stating that if any government buts in further in the ukraine, that the land it owns or will ever own, will be blocked and may not be dealt in.

At the very least, this executive order prevented China from butting in further and caused a little crap in their pants, would you admit that?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Weren't you saying Russia wasn't involved or included in this EO either?

And I did see it where China modified its quiet supportive stance to a slightly more independent one. It only proves the executive order was pertaining to China, just look at how they're being affected. Just because China is not loudly supporting Russia does not take away from the fact that quietly they are. There is no way you can honestly say China cannot possibly be included, or ever included in this EO. As long as an entity has interests in property(which China DOES) AND were deemed as directly or indirectly undermining the westenized diplomacy(which is subject opinion of the US gov). China may not have done so yet, but were at least on the verge of doing. And while this executive order was not meant for China only, it's fact that China was affected by it. How can they be affected from an executive order if it in no way shape or form pertained to them?
edit on 10-3-2014 by Hiasyouwant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join