American Embargoes, Why not china?

CIA TOTALITARIANISM

CIA TOTALITARIANISM

Verified User
People who want slavery worldwide tell us we cannot influence china to abandon slavery. Often they attack the very notion of government enforced trade restrictions. Yet we are using these tools worldwide, re: other issues.

The real truth is the illuminati loves slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargoes
American embargoes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from United States embargoes)
Jump to: navigation, search
As of 2006, there are several United States embargoes and sanctions in force by the United States against several countries and activities, the most notable of which is the US sanctions and embargoes against the countries the federal government of the United States considers state sponsors of terrorism.

Some sanctions imposed by the United States government are:

No arms-related exports
Controls over dual-use exports
Restrictions on economic assistance
Financial restrictions
Reasons without proper reasoning (Sudan)[citation needed]
US opposes loans by the World Bank and similar institutions
Diplomatic immunity waived to allow families of terrorist victims to file for civil damages in US courts
Tax credits denied for income earned in listed countries
Duty-free goods exemption suspended for imports from those countries
Authority to prohibit a US citizen from engaging in financial transactions with the government on the list without a license from the US government.
Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by countries on the list.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, Tibet actually was a humongous travesty. Can't the Chinese see that the Tinetians AREN'T Chinese and simply have no desire to be part of the state?
 
Slavery ? not quite but lower standards of living here and in many of the top nations. It is inevitable with open world trade, they come up in their standards and we go down. And yes for those who whould say it is not a zero sum game, I agree, but it is not too awfully far from zero sum.
 
uscitizen said:
Slavery ? not quite but lower standards of living here and in many of the top nations. It is inevitable with open world trade, they come up in their standards and we go down. And yes for those who whould say it is not a zero sum game, I agree, but it is not too awfully far from zero sum.
Click to expand...

It's not even close to a zero sum game. The truth is jews hate white christians, and they simultaneously convince us to destroy our own nations, while dying to institute their Jewish Supremacist homeland. They're laughing they're asses off.
 
Watermark said:
Ah, Tibet actually was a humongous travesty. Can't the Chinese see that the Tinetians AREN'T Chinese and simply have no desire to be part of the state?
Click to expand...
True. Most Tibetans, however, are less interested in being an independent nation than they are in preserving their culture and religion.

The Dalai Lama now prefers "Save Tibet" to "Free Tibet" as a slogan. It's a subtle difference but an important one.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not even close to a zero sum game. The truth is jews hate white christians, and they simultaneously convince us to destroy our own nations, while dying to institute their Jewish Supremacist homeland. They're laughing they're asses off.
Click to expand...

The nation of Israel is in big turmoil and scandal lately......sort of like the USA...
I don't think they are doing much laughing lately, their Neos have screwed the pooch just like our Neos.
 
1. China is our Daddy

2. AHZ I knew was funny, and that's gotta be a jew joke
Nobody's that fucking stupid
 
uscitizen said:
AHZ your concers seem to be about Rampant Capitalism....Not necessarailly about an secret group.
Click to expand...
Let me straighten you out. I belive in capitalism, but I think capitalism must be conducted within the same moral parameters as the rest of our lives. I believe the small group is taking capitalism out of context, and is failing to consider other factors when planning policy. In the case of china, for instance, they're only looking at the benefits of low pricing, and failing to consider the longer term security implications of empowering and becoming dependant upon a military enemy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Let me straighten you out. I belive in capitalism, but I think capitalism must be conducted within the same moral parameters as the rest of our lives. I believe the small group is taking capitalism out of context, and is failing to consider other factors when planning policy. In the case of china, for instance, they're only looking at the benefits of low pricing, and failing to consider the longer term security implications of empowering and becoming dependant upon a military enemy.
Click to expand...

Continuing to call any nation that's anywhere near as powerful as the US an "enemy" isn't a wise foreign policy. China has no intentions of attacking us... they are as dependent on us as we are on them. Free trade also prevents war.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
True. Most Tibetans, however, are less interested in being an independent nation than they are in preserving their culture and religion.

The Dalai Lama now prefers "Save Tibet" to "Free Tibet" as a slogan. It's a subtle difference but an important one.
Click to expand...

There's little hope for Tibet at all until China becomes a democracy. It is eventually going to happen, but I have no idea how long it's going to take. As the world becomes more liberal and democratic the Communist party of China can't help but take in liberal democratic members, at least the more socialist amongst them. That's basically what lead to the downfall of Russia, although, ironically, it took a revolt by the ultra-right hardline communists to bring the liberal democratic people to the forefront. Then the government will at least have to answer to Tibet on a humanitarian level.
 
uscitizen said:
Slavery ? not quite but lower standards of living here and in many of the top nations. It is inevitable with open world trade, they come up in their standards and we go down. And yes for those who whould say it is not a zero sum game, I agree, but it is not too awfully far from zero sum.
Click to expand...

I don't think free trade with China would bring us down. It's not like us being able to trade with them is going to destroy the goods we already have and are producing.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not even close to a zero sum game. The truth is jews hate white christians, and they simultaneously convince us to destroy our own nations, while dying to institute their Jewish Supremacist homeland. They're laughing they're asses off.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

If it were not a zero sum game us trading with China could only improve our economic status. If it were a zero sum game not trading with China would keep them permanently in the hole and us permanently on top... something that has obviously never happened in history.

The whole thing about Jews? WTF? What Jews?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Let me straighten you out. I belive in capitalism, but I think capitalism must be conducted within the same moral parameters as the rest of our lives. I believe the small group is taking capitalism out of context, and is failing to consider other factors when planning policy. In the case of china, for instance, they're only looking at the benefits of low pricing, and failing to consider the longer term security implications of empowering and becoming dependant upon a military enemy.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement except for the small group part. It is broad scale greed, not a small group of conspirators.
.
 
Watermark said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

If it were not a zero sum game us trading with China could only improve our economic status. If it were a zero sum game not trading with China would keep them permanently in the hole and us permanently on top... something that has obviously never happened in history.

The whole thing about Jews? WTF? What Jews?
Click to expand...

Just "the jews". There is no "what jews" or "which jews." It's "the jews".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top