Should US sanctions extend compliance to persons/countries beyond its jurisdiction?

[StringJunky]

The ongoing case with Huawei''s chief financial officer allegedly subverting sanctions to Iran is what prompted this question. This also spins off to the EU finding ways to keep Iran supplying oil outside the US financial system and contravening its sanctions.My own opinion on the matter is that I hope the present US administration utterly fails with this policy towards Iran. What's your thoughts on the wider question in my title?

Edited December 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I see these sanctions as simply accelerating the decline of the US dollar as our worlds currency. The more sanctions applied, the more quickly people will find a way around and a Chinese yuan will dominate global trade. 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I see these sanctions as simply accelerating the decline of the US dollar as our worlds currency. The more sanctions applied, the more quickly people will find a way around and a Chinese yuan will dominate global trade. 

Yes, this is the long-term solution necessary to solve this problem of US dominance. It's not been a problem until this administration took over and is abusing that position.  With great power comes great responsibility and it's currently in the hands of idiots. It looks like the trust given to the US as the de facto centre is going to wane.

Edited December 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Crypto currencies may get a boost from all of this, too

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Crypto currencies may get a boost from all of this, too

True.

[DirtyChai]

51 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

Crypto currencies may get a boost from all of this, too

True.

Well, let's make it happen.  If we keep reposting this idea, maybe it'll go viral and scare the shit out of everyone while building confidence in BTC.  I could use some extra Christmas cash. . .

Edit: Looks like crypto is on the up across the board, with the exception of a few.  Huge gains are coming.  All Aboard!

https://www.coinbase.com/price

Edited December 8, 2018 by DirtyChai

[MigL]

Is this thread about the US sticking its nose in other nation's business, Stringy ?

Or is it about the US dollar and the effectiveness of sanctions; or the casual way China appropriates other nation's intellectual property, circumvents agreements and has the gall to claim Canada has violated Weng Manzhou's ( Huawei CFO ) human rights by detaining/extraditing her ?

Like the Chinese government would know human rights if it bit them on the ass !

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is this thread about the US sticking its nose in other nation's business, Stringy ?

Or is it about the US dollar and the effectiveness of sanctions; or the casual way China appropriates other nation's intellectual property, circumvents agreements and has the gall to claim Canada has violated Weng Manzhou's ( Huawei CFO ) human rights by detaining/extraditing her ?

Like the Chinese government would know human rights if it bit them on the ass !

Yes and telling them what they can and cannot do, as though they rule everywhere.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes and telling them what they can and cannot do, as though they rule everywhere.

Why is it that when the US sticks its nose in the business of others everyone cares, but when others stick their noses into US business the US doesn’t?

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why is it that when the US sticks its nose in the business of others everyone cares, but when others stick their noses into US business the US doesn’t?

Like what? The US wants to sit at the top of the hill, so, naturally, it gets the attention. The US should respect others autonomy. Let's not forget: the US has unilaterally reneged on our collective honour in an international agreement.

Edited December 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Quote

Should US sanctions extend compliance to persons/countries beyond its jurisdiction?

I guess I’m not entirely sure what this means or how it could actually even happen in practice. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I guess I’m not entirely sure what this means or how it could actually even happen in practice. 

Take the current situation with Iran. The US is trying to subvert our desire to continue with our agreement. They are trying to force us to comply with their change of mind. This is what I meant by "extending compliance".

[Endy0816]

It bypasses the embargo when companies buy American products and resell them like that...

Has to be some has to be some consequences. Can't both have access and abuse that access.

[iNow]

It’s one man and his cabal doing this, a man likely to be indicted and impeached any day now

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

It bypasses the embargo when companies buy American products and resell them like that...

Has to be some has to be some consequences. Can't both have access and abuse that access.

This is true. If they had been from anywhere else then my position would stand. She was allegedly trying to shift US stuff from within US. I suppose that kills my part of the question on the Korean. 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s one man and his cabal doing this, a man likely to be indicted and impeached any day now

You mean Trump?

Edited December 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

Quote

Should US sanctions extend compliance to persons/countries beyond its jurisdiction?

Isn't what US already doing.. ?!

US jurisdiction is North America + few little islands..

ps. In my opinion Meng Wanzhou should be released..

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Sensei

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

US jurisdiction is North America + few little islands..

It has no jurisdiction over sovereign Canada.

I own mineral uranium properties in BC and although partisan Americans think my inventory is their inventory, it's not.

The accusation by American conservatives and Trump himself over the sale of of Uranium One to Rosatom at the behest of the Clinton Foundation is total bullshit.

[Endy0816]

Warrant was issued, back in August, by NY. Would have likely played out the same no matter who was president.

Canada can always refuse to extradite. If US does formally ask though, I don't see that happening in this case. She's not subject to the death penalty and politically motivated retribution would be a tough sell.

My guess is the countries will wrangle something out. Who knows these days though.

 

Can't help but wonder if Vancouver's vacancy tax played a role in creating this mess. Would be an ironic chain of events.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Endy0816

[jajrussel]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:31 PM, StringJunky said:

The ongoing case with Huawei''s chief financial officer allegedly subverting sanctions to Iran is what prompted this question. This also spins off to the EU finding ways to keep Iran supplying oil outside the US financial system and contravening its sanctions.My own opinion on the matter is that I hope the present US administration utterly fails with this policy towards Iran. What's your thoughts on the wider question in my title?

It’s a good question. I’m sure that when the answer is revealed we will find out why the US even cares about Hauwei in the first place. Are there any EU executives avoiding Canada at the moment?

[iNow]

Millions of people in the US care. What we’ll find out is whether or not our ridiculous president does. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Millions of people in the US care. What we’ll find out is whether or not our ridiculous president does. 

It seems even more ridiculous  a country allows a president to continue with such vast control, when he's under such suspicion that the probability of him going to prison is so high,. that I'll put money on it. He's a man that going to have nothing to lose and it looks like to me he'll be a wrecking ball all the way. What's he got to lose, he'll probably spend the rest of his life in prison.

Edited December 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

On 12/7/2018 at 11:17 PM, StringJunky said:

Take the current situation with Iran. The US is trying to subvert our desire to continue with our agreement. They are trying to force us to comply with their change of mind. This is what I meant by "extending compliance".

I wouldn't really say force.

If the U.S. really wanted to force something, it could just launch some nukes.

What the U.S. is doing in relation to trying to get the UK and the EU to join it against Iran is more like diplomacy.

And yes, diplomacy matter of factually does include threatening sanctions.

 

If the UK and the EU don't like it, then they can take the sanctions. If they don't like the US wielding so much power over them, then they can start cutting ties. Etc, etc, etc.

Additionally, this isn't something the US does and nobody elses does. Most countries in the EU have done similar things to countries ranging from areas in Asia, to the Middle East, and to Africa. 

 

 

On 12/7/2018 at 8:31 PM, StringJunky said:

The ongoing case with Huawei''s chief financial officer allegedly subverting sanctions to Iran is what prompted this question.

He was allegedly selling US technology to a dictatorship.

If he was selling British technology, then fine. That's Britian's choice.

But if he is selling US technology, then I feel like we have a right to say that he shouldn't be allowed to do that.

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I’m sure that when the answer is revealed we will find out why the US even cares about Hauwei in the first place.

Because he is allegedly selling US technology to Iran, which is against the sanctions which we put against Iran. 

On 12/8/2018 at 1:18 AM, rangerx said:

I own mineral uranium properties in BC and although partisan Americans think my inventory is their inventory, it's not.

Who thinks your inventory is their inventory?

Edited December 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I wouldn't really say force.

If the U.S. really wanted to force something, it could just launch some nukes.

What the U.S. is doing in relation to trying to get the UK and the EU to join it against Iran is more like diplomacy.

And yes, diplomacy matter of factually does include threatening sanctions.

 

If the UK and the EU don't like it, then they can take the sanctions. If they don't like the US wielding so much power over them, then they can start cutting ties. Etc, etc, etc.

Additionally, this isn't something the US does and nobody elses does. Most countries in the EU have done similar things to countries ranging from areas in Asia, to the Middle East, and to Africa. 

 

 

He was allegedly selling US technology to a dictatorship.

If he was selling British technology, then fine. That's Britian's choice.

But if he is selling US technology, then I feel like we have a right to say that he shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Because he is allegedly selling US technology to Iran, which is against the sanctions which we put against Iran. 

Who thinks your inventory is their inventory?

Hmm, what technology? I heard it was their technology being used to spy on Americans that was the problem. Initially. Now I’m hearing different? If they are selling American tech to the enemy, why isn’t that espionage? Why would stringjunky think we should be okay with it? Actually, I would like to ask  stringjunky why we should be okay with our friends doing and end around on sanctions?   

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Hmm, what technology? I heard it was their technology being used to spy on Americans that was the problem. Initially. Now I’m hearing different? If they are selling American tech to the enemy, why isn’t that espionage?

I'm not sure about what technology. 

https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/huawei-cfo-arrest-sanctions-iran.html

This is the link where I heard about what he was alleged of doing. Specifically, this paragraph:

 

That's what I heard.

Additionally, it isn't espionage because they can't prove that the intent is to hurt America, only that they were knowingly selling technology to a company which they knew would sell it to Iran. That is, if they prove it. 

 

Ultimately I'll simply wait to see what the court decides. I don't see why people are getting so upset about the U.S. ordering his arrest. If he's guilty, then he's guilty. If he's not,  then he's not. I fail to see how the person currently in office affects how we can enforce laws. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a sanction that Trump put in place against Iran, it was put there by Obama. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not sure about what technology. 

https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/huawei-cfo-arrest-sanctions-iran.html

This is the link where I heard about what he was alleged of doing. Specifically, this paragraph:

 

That's what I heard.

Additionally, it isn't espionage because they can't prove that the intent is to hurt America, only that they were knowingly selling technology to a company which they knew would sell it to Iran. That is, if they prove it. 

 

Ultimately I'll simply wait to see what the court decides. I don't see why people are getting so upset about the U.S. ordering his arrest. If he's guilty, then he's guilty. If he's not,  then he's not. I fail to see how the person currently in office affects how we can enforce laws. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a sanction that Trump put in place against Iran, it was put there by Obama. 

Endy clarified the situation. The question is moot.