Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote: Your statement is typical. He's threatening massive retaliation if the US or it's allies is attacked. That's the same policy as NATO genius.
And your statement is reducing a comment down to the literal.
"If I could be her boyfriend it would be great to have sex with her" is literally the same thing as "If that ho were my girl I would smash that ass so hard". But they mean totally different things, and will be heard totally differently.
Trump's way of describing retaliation was the national equivalent of 'smash dat ho'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then why are they shooting missiles over Japan, and the nonsense about attacking Guam?
Because they want to force a new peace deal, that will allow the leadership access to more trade and thereby make themselves much richer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 02:08:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Voss wrote: They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.
The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.
Except you know, the large amount of people who are attempting to change that very law so that they may start their own military. It is not as unpopular as you think. Abe has been having a lot of issues with pro-military politicians lately.
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.
NK is close to a mafia regime. International law and common morality don't stop them, no doubt about that. But they aren't driven by anything close to self-destructive, irrational lunacy.
This doesn't mean the situation isn't serious and can't escalate to nukes, because brinkmanship can always get out of hand, but a sensible approach to this issue requires first and foremost understanding that the primary aim of the NK leadership is that the NK leadership is secure and wealthy. Everything else, from the kidnappings to the nuclear threats, is just a means to that end.
Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)
The list goes on and on...
Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.
There's nothing irrational about being criminal thugs. Capone wasn't irrational either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You seem okay with them having nukes. That's fine.
Not everyone shares that perspective.
I am not okay with NK having nukes. I am also not okay with engaging with NK on a fundamentally false premise, that they are irrational crazies.
These two things are connected. When we don't understand NK, it becomes impossible to find a solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: However the left freaking out about Trump is typical in ignoring what NK has been doing for the last decade.
Oh, yes, that damned left. Because I'm sure you were posting endlessly about GW Bush's failures when he walked away from the previous deal with NK, despite the fact that it was working and had stopped NK's nuclear program.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Erm... the previous administrations essentially told NK the same thing.
I guess you're objecting to the Trumpian blunt speech yesterday. That's a fair criticism d... but, in practical terms I'm not seeing a big shift in our stance from the last 50ish years.
The big difference is that in the past there have been deals in place, or progress towards deals. Those deals have falled apart, and no doubt most of the failure has been on the NK end.
But now we're in a position where not only is there no deal being worked towards, I don't think anyone can even see our way to a place where work on a deal could begin. Both sides have blundered in to positions that they will find it very difficult to back down from, but must in order for a deal to be struck.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 02:26:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Voss wrote: They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.
The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.
Not true, what their constitution disobeys is having an offensive force. Plus there's been a huge push to amend the constitution slightly, and there's been next to no pushback against Abe's "allowed to come to the defense of an ally" thing.
Now nukes are something where it would be political suicide to push for but that's not about the constitution but about the whole getting nuked twice thing.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not true, what their constitution disobeys is having an offensive force.
Sort of. The constitution originally stated that Japan would never use force to settle international disputes, and no military force would be maintained. There was nothing in there at all about it being okay if they were purely defensive, it is pretty clear cut. But that was always a ridiculous limit on any nation state, and within about a decade Japan had their first work around, they just called them "Peacekeepers".
And of course even with that workaround it is still a very limiting factor, and has shaped the Japanese military in lots of ways. So they're not just ignoring it completely, it has limited the military's size and stopped them getting carriers & ICBMs, the two key things for smacking around another country.
Plus there's been a huge push to amend the constitution slightly, and there's been next to no pushback against Abe's "allowed to come to the defense of an ally" thing.
I think the push to change the constitution has been more difficult than you suggest, it has been stalled more often than not. Abe's put a deadline down for a year or two to make it happen, but it is by no means certain that it will. And the amendment is minor or huge depending on how you look at it. In terms of what Japan is doing already the change is nothing, it just confirms that Japan is allowed to have the military is already has. But in terms of what the constitution says compared to what it will say, the difference is literally between not having an army and having one.
And funnily enough the biggest pushback against Japan's change to come to the defense of an ally came from South Korea. As much as they want solidarity against NK, they've also got some pretty sharp memories of the last time Japan started landing troops in parts of Asia to help them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 06:29:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191), sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code; and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that:
The provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, each of which violated its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six‑Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States.
In order to take further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders, I hereby find, determine, and order:
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 of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea;
(ii) to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry;
(iii) to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology;
(iv) to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea;
(v) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(vi) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.
(c) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
(b) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship‑to‑ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. (a) All funds 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 and that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account that has been determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person, or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) No United States person, wherever located, may approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by subsection (a) of this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:
(i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or this order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea‑related activities; or
(ii) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea.
(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:
(i) prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States; or
(ii) block 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 of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
(d) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (b)(ii) of this section.
(e) The prohibitions in subsection (b)(ii) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 5. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is therefore hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(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;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "North Korean person" means any North Korean citizen, North Korean permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of North Korea or any jurisdiction within North Korea (including foreign branches). For the purposes of section 1 of this order, the term "North Korean person" shall not include any United States citizen, any permanent resident alien of the United States, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States, or any alien holding a valid United States visa;
(e) the term "foreign financial institution" means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes, among other entities, depository institutions; banks; savings banks; money service businesses; trust companies; securities brokers and dealers; commodity futures and options brokers and dealers; forward contract and foreign exchange merchants; securities and commodities exchanges; clearing corporations; investment companies; employee benefit plans; dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels; and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
(f) the term "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, September 21, 2017.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 20, 2017.
###
This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191), sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code; and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that:
The provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, each of which violated its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six‑Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States.
In order to take further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders, I hereby find, determine, and order:
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 of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea;
(ii) to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry;
(iii) to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology;
(iv) to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea;
(v) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(vi) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.
(c) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
(b) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship‑to‑ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. (a) All funds 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 and that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account that has been determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person, or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) No United States person, wherever located, may approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by subsection (a) of this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:
(i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or this order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea‑related activities; or
(ii) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea.
(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:
(i) prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States; or
(ii) block 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 of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
(d) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (b)(ii) of this section.
(e) The prohibitions in subsection (b)(ii) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 5. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is therefore hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(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;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "North Korean person" means any North Korean citizen, North Korean permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of North Korea or any jurisdiction within North Korea (including foreign branches). For the purposes of section 1 of this order, the term "North Korean person" shall not include any United States citizen, any permanent resident alien of the United States, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States, or any alien holding a valid United States visa;
(e) the term "foreign financial institution" means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes, among other entities, depository institutions; banks; savings banks; money service businesses; trust companies; securities brokers and dealers; commodity futures and options brokers and dealers; forward contract and foreign exchange merchants; securities and commodities exchanges; clearing corporations; investment companies; employee benefit plans; dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels; and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
(f) the term "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, September 21, 2017.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 20, 2017.
###
This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
China still deal under the table... Let's be honest. Back channels never close.
But damn. I did not expect China to comply with that so easily... Somthing went on in the background for sure.
China Don, t just agree with Trump so easily... Somthing hidden here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 20:53:39
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
Are we underestimating Trump and his cabinet?
His speech was... Well intresting to day thr least but he did state a few things clearly like he was a firming US interests come before the UN.
This seems to be if there has been deals etc a well thought out plan...
Is the bluster and such more than it seems on the surface?
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
whembly wrote: This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
This is the US following the sanctions set out in the UN resolution, which China agreed to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: China still deal under the table... Let's be honest. Back channels never close.
But damn. I did not expect China to comply with that so easily... Somthing went on in the background for sure.
China Don, t just agree with Trump so easily... Somthing hidden here.
China has been on board with sanctions punishing NK's nuke program for a long time now.
People have some really weird ideas about this whole thing. It's like the ceasefire was signed, and then not one diplomatic position or relationship changed in the next seven decades.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
Are we underestimating Trump and his cabinet?
His speech was... Well intresting to day thr least but he did state a few things clearly like he was a firming US interests come before the UN.
This seems to be if there has been deals etc a well thought out plan...
Is the bluster and such more than it seems on the surface?
The speech was Trump just throwing some red meat to his base, in the wake of his backdown on DACA. In terms of actual international deals it meant nothing. Speaches rarely do, except when they're used as a means to change culture, as groundwork for doing different deals in the future.
In terms of these sanctions, there's really nothing much to say about them. They're good, and necessary, and were inevitable after the ridiculous provocations that came from North Korea. In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/22 04:44:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/22 06:58:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
sebster wrote: In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
Not to sway into domestic but has maybe the scandals and fact State Department has a few contraversal events managed to damage the image of that department short term under Hillary Clinton.?
And at this point means it's harder to fill state positions and also damaged its internal prestige against others like defense.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Ouze wrote: As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
There's seems to be a way of working around Trump on international issues. Tillerson doesn't have it, he clashed directly with Trump, got sidelined to the point where he doesn't even know Trump's positions on major issues or even what he's publicly stated. So he has just reduced his role down to the bare minimum press work and meet and greets, while going about destaffing the State Dept. Meanwhile Haley has found a way of maintaining a pretty straight, conventional policy set largely independent of Trump.
All the rumours seem to be beating for Haley to replace Tillerson, and as you say this will be a really good thing. However, there's two caveats. The first is that there's been jungle drums suggesting firings in the past, and they're probably more right than wrong, but there's been some noticeable survivors, like Sessions. The second is that Haley might be doing better just because her role, away from so much public and Trump attention is an easier place to get real work done. In SoS she might also get stuck with the same circumstances that Tillerson has struggled with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Not to sway into domestic but has maybe the scandals and fact State Department has a few contraversal events managed to damage the image of that department short term under Hillary Clinton.?
And at this point means it's harder to fill state positions and also damaged its internal prestige against others like defense.
No, no-one with a passion for international affairs is going to decide against the State Department because the previous SoS had an issue with email security.
The lack of hires in the State Dept comes from Tillerson choosing not to fill positions. Most alarming are the lack of political appointees, these are staff connected to the Whitehouse, who guide career diplomats in the Whitehouse's preferred career direction. 24 out of 148 of these roles are filled. Tillerson isn't struggling to find Republicans to fill those roles because of Clinton's emails. They are unfilled because many of Tillerson's suggestions are shot down by Trump, and because he is making suggestions at a glacial rate, largely because Tillerson barely even communicates with his own department.
I'm not sure if this is getting in too far in to politics? I'll hold off until we get an okay or a stop from the mods.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/22 08:19:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
They have shot missiles over allies, detonated nukes underground (which has affected countries negatively already), threatened to detonate atomic devices in the atmosphere, then there is the whole dictatorial regime that abuses it population all the time.
This is what happens when the can gets kicked down the road for all of bushs and obamas 16 years.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
They have shot missiles over allies, detonated nukes underground (which has affected countries negatively already), threatened to detonate atomic devices in the atmosphere, then there is the whole dictatorial regime that abuses it population all the time.
This is what happens when the can gets kicked down the road for all of bushs and obamas 16 years.
Forget atomic devices. NK has had first strike capability against a massive civilian populace for 60 years and it has only improved with every passing decade. Thankfully the rulers have seemed content with their little hellhole until now.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
djones520 wrote: This is a can that has been kicked for 60 years.
Pretty much, unfortunate really... there were better solutions that were easier to implement, with much less risk, but they are gone now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
India has nukes. They are not firing missiles all over the place and threatening their neighbors. The world does a collective meh.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: India has nukes. They are not firing missiles all over the place and threatening their neighbors. The world does a collective meh.
Well, India doesn't really need to. The NK knows they can't win in any scenario and they also know last time there was a war the UN forces (or pretty much the US Air Force) bombed anything where they still had two bricks on top of each other. Most northern cities were like 90% destroyed after the Korea war and that's the stuff they are brought up on. The reasons and so on are shortened a bit I'm sure, so basically (in their history books) the evil UN and it's American stooges bombed the place back to the stone age for no sensible reason at all. Or possibly to stop the Great Wisdom of the Great Leader from being distributed to other nations in need of it.
They know you're just waiting for an excuse to unleash the bombers and squadrons of rabid wiener dogs on them again. They need nukes in order to deter an attack.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
Nah, this is what you get when you constantly violate international laws and sovereignty to happily invade every country in the world that you do not like. Now all those countries that you do not like are looking for a way to stop you. Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack the US is what every sensible country would do if the US was constantly threatening to wipe them out. They want to protect themselves by making it clear to the US that the cost of acting on those threats would be crazily high. The only insane thing here is Trump and his idiotic warmongering. If he had left North Korea alone and ignored it like all sensible people do, then nothing of this would have happened.
I do find it a little silly that the Kim regime is essentially saying:
"North Koreans! Your People's Democratic Republic is the last bastion of freedom and the world hates you for what you are!"
And the world is like "Yeah we hate you!" off in the distance.
By constantly sabre-rattling we're just reinforcing the North Korean propaganda. The regime would be more likely to collapse under it's own weight if the rest of the world went 'meh' and kept on trading with them without any embargoes or anything, I suspect.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
but we are not itching to invade them. That statement lacks lucidity.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
