Thursday, September 21, 2017
Trump Targets North Korea in New Executive Order
President Trump signed an executive order allowing the United States to sanction private companies and institutions. I think that what the E.O. does is good, but I don't think it should have been an executive order. I do expect in the future that there will be situations with North Korea that will make an executive order acceptable, but not right now.
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=45885178&title=the-latest-trump-targets-north-korea-in-new-executive-order
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't exactly agree with what this E.O. does. I feel that the national government shouldn't be able to target individuals or private companies. It is the companies choice to deal with North Korea if they want, and if the national government intervenes, I feel that it will be overstepping it's bounds.
ReplyDeleteLet me further explain. If the government can ruin your company for dealing with a certain nation, what's to stop them from ruining your company whenever they feel like it? What North Korea is doing is not good, but opening the door to the possibility of oppressing private companies is not, in my mind, a good way to deal with it.
DeletePrivate companies are one of the reasons that people come from all over the world to work here. If that right is taken away then they can push us further and take more rights. Not only that, but private companies are a huge part of the economy. If they are taken away, even for the "Greater Good" we get closer to an economical crisis.
This is a delicate and fine line. The government has to be able to have the people follow what they say. North Korea has threatened us, we are trying to make it hard for them to harm us, but an E.O. isn't the way to go. What it's proposing is on the line. Dealing with other countries is a private companies right, but the government has some power to place sanctions. My question is where is the line? When does one or the other party have the right to place sanctions or deal with other countries? I know that the idea behind this E.O. has some good intentions, but I will fully oppose anything that is past the line of the governments ability to govern, especially when it comes to private citizens and companies.
DeleteLooking at the quotes that Ezra Taft Benson and the Founding fathers said I have found out that the proper way to deal with any foreign country, including North Korea... Is to walk away. Let them do their own thing. Almost all of the quotes I saw said things along the lines of "Stick together as a nation, and stay out of foreign wars and conflicts, unless it is a defensive move."
Here's what I say. Bring our soldiers home. Yes, people are going to kill each other, Yes they're going to act like nasty buggers. We can't stop that, no matter how hard we try. America was made to be a beacon of freedom and liberty, not a force to fight other's wars and die for other countries. Yeah, I know I'm being a little strong in words. Sorry, but I'm not really sorry. This is how I feel. If I make you feel like I'm attacking you, I apologize. I'm not writing this to hurt people, I'm writing this to say how I feel.
My final word here is this, the way to deal with foreign wars is to not join them. Let's not join the Roulette table, let's not fight others. Let's just show them that peace is possible.
What I have taken away from what you have said is that you think that private companies have a right to not be regulated with dealing with specific countries, and that as long as a war stays foreign we would should not join it. Tell me if i'm wrong :)
DeleteSo, I'm not sure about how I feel about this one. Trade with enemy nations is certainly something that would arguably fall within the perview of the federal government. NK's nuclear program does seem to be escalating, and using economic sanctions to pressure them into negotiating on that is probably reasonable, and if reasonable, falls within the role of the President at least for the short term, I think. Caden, in an ideal world, I agree with you about not getting involved in conflicts in the world, but it's certainly easier said than done to pull out in any sudden way at this point. The combination of the fact that we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and the fact that we're already involved in some situations around the world does seem to give us a responsibility to at least make changes gradually so that we don't destabilize things. We have certain commitments to Germany and Japan based on WWII era treaties that preclude them from holding large standing militaries and guarantee our help to protect them instead. And just to really play devil's advocate: do you think we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII?
ReplyDeleteI think that we were justified to retaliate against JAPAN. They bombed Pearl Harbor, not Germany. To answer your question, It's a mixed bag. Japan attacked us and we used it to get into the entirety of WW2. Now I'm gonna play Devils advocate against myself. If we only retaliated against Japan, would Germany have won WW2? On a further note, what would happen if we waited for each individual country to attack us before declaring war on each one separately? I can't change the past, but even if I could, I'm not sure I would have kept America out of WW2. The only thing I can do now is be happy that I'm not speaking German as a primary language today.
DeleteSo do you think that the U.S. should have gotten into WW2 like we did or no?
DeleteBefore everyone gets too far into the WWII question, I should point out to Caden that we did NOT actually go to war with Germany over Pearl Harbor. In fact, Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. So, the question is, I guess, should we have ever gotten involved without a direct attack on American soil or a declaration of war against us? With the knowledge we have now of what Germany was doing, can we look back and say it would have been worth fighting that war even if Japan had not attacked? Or was it only worth it because of the direct attack?
ReplyDelete