Why isn't Saudi Arabia or Pakistan listed on the exec order travel vetting

[Howard]

I'm all for Trump restricting immigrants from Syria, Somalia , etc.
BUT, the biggest locations for actual terrorists aren't on this list.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt are not included.

15 of 19 terrorists on 9/11 and Bin Ladin himself were Saudis.

[Erik C]

Refugee immigrants aren't coming here, from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, as there are no refugee programs bringing them in from those places.

[Ron Jeremy]

Does he have business interests there?

[Slapper]

Business interests of course.

Kinda like the relationship between US corporations' love of China and our foreign policy/industrial-military complex hostile beef with the Chinese government over a freaking small island in the middle of nowhere.

We wouldn't even dare impose on China the sanctions we have imposed on Russia.

[loco]

Giuliani says Trump asked him how to legally enact ‘Muslim ban’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-says-trump-asked-him-how-to-legally-enact-muslim-ban-174303609.html

[mass243]

Business interests of course.

Kinda like the relationship between US corporations' love of China and our foreign policy/industrial-military complex hostile beef with the Chinese government over a freaking small island in the middle of nowhere.

We wouldn't even dare impose on China the sanctions we have imposed on Russia.

Correct.
But works other way too: China needs to be quite careful with USA. Visible in UN for example where China usually just abstains from voting if it's something serious dividing the international key players.

Russia and USA have basically no business between them, no major debts one way or another.
This makes it possible for USA to go exaggeratedly hard on Russia. But it also allows Russia to pursue the most independent policy making in the world no other major country is able to do, besides Americans.
 
Clearly Putin's long term intention. As soon as he assumed office he started to pay off Russia's government debt accumulated during Yeltsin - which of huge chunk was from USA.




 Since he came to power in 2000, Putin has built up reserves from a mere $13 billion and paid off Russia’s debt, which is now one of the lowest among major economies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/as-russia-s-economy-contracts-putin-s-preferred-indicator-is-up



U.S.-Russian trade relationship? There really isn’t one

http://fortune.com/2014/03/18/u-s-russian-trade-relationship-there-really-isnt-one/




This is not to say Russia and USA should be enemies. As recently said from high levels: there are multiple occasions where they have mutual interests.
Very complex issue which way smarter heads are responsible of working on.

[Slapper]

Correct.
But works other way too: China needs to be quite careful with USA. Visible in UN for example where China usually just abstains from voting if it's something serious dividing the international key players.

Russia and USA have basically no business between them, no major debts one way or another.
This makes it possible for USA to go exaggeratedly hard on Russia. But it also allows Russia to pursue the most independent policy making in the world no other major country is able to do, besides Americans.
 
Clearly Putin's long term intention. As soon as he assumed office he started to pay off Russia's government debt accumulated during Yeltsin - which of huge chunk was from USA.




 Since he came to power in 2000, Putin has built up reserves from a mere $13 billion and paid off Russia’s debt, which is now one of the lowest among major economies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/as-russia-s-economy-contracts-putin-s-preferred-indicator-is-up



U.S.-Russian trade relationship? There really isn’t one

http://fortune.com/2014/03/18/u-s-russian-trade-relationship-there-really-isnt-one/




This is not to say Russia and USA should be enemies. As recently said from high levels: there are multiple occasions where they have mutual interests.
Very complex issue which way smarter heads are responsible of working on.

Yeah, I'm not saying otherwise.

US foreign policy, I mean colonial intentions, are very easy to decipher: Just follow the money trail and the old white men. 

[GigantorX]

Business interests of course.

Kinda like the relationship between US corporations' love of China and our foreign policy/industrial-military complex hostile beef with the Chinese government over a freaking small island in the middle of nowhere.

We wouldn't even dare impose on China the sanctions we have imposed on Russia.

And we won't even if they were/are 100% justified. Russia isn't "plugged in" to the global machine so they are the ones that are made to be pariahs. Although they've earned the scorn in some cases.

[Slapper]

And we won't even if they were/are 100% justified. Russia isn't "plugged in" to the global machine so they are the ones that are made to be pariahs. Although they've earned the scorn in some cases.

Make no mistake though, if something were to break out, China will undoubtedly stand by the side, let the US fight it out with Russia and then take control of the world.

All thanks to an economic expansion greased and financed by US corporations.

[mass243]

China is sneaking into supremacy.
They have different approach than the other superpowers which have come and gone. If we take the last three ones - UK, USA, USSR (which of only USA is left) - they all made themselves heard and felt. They had soft influence and economic influence of course but they didn't hide the rifles either.
Chinese are barely rattling their sabers, haven't fought a single war basically.  

There are early signs of growing military confidence in China though.

Overall it's quite hard to present the Chinese as the ultimate bad guys planning to take over the world because they are not doing so much visible things.

[Irongrip400]

Sean Spicer says it's because those were the countries named by the Obama administration as likely to harbor radical Islamists and that we trade information actively with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The others either won't willingly trade information or are so fucked up they can't really be relied on to be accurate.

[Irongrip400]

That makes some sense.

BUT, despite being the birth place of Islam and the radicalized form known as "Wahhabism" , we don't mess with Saudi Arabia . 

Question: Why didn't we invade Russia for invading Crimea and taking their oil?
We did that in 1991 when Iraq attacked Kuwait and took their oil field.

Come on dude, really? They're bigger.

Also, I'd say that Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950's so wasn't it theirs anyway?

[SaintAnger]

Why?  Maybe this has something to do with it...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956

[mass243]

So were some of the Baltic states that joined NATO when the USSR collapsed in 1991.

My whole premise is that the rational for the USA doing something never seems to add up?
For example, invading a country and taking their oil was why we went to war with Iraq over Kuwait.
Now we see Russia, essentially doing the same thing with Crimea and do next to nothing?

I'm a patriotic former US Marine, but I'd prefer that we just be honest about WHY we do something.

Russia is quite close to my place and I'm willing to let you stay in quest room overnight after you have landed here if you want to have a little rest before storming over the border to Russia  


PS.
Russia "invaded" Crimea without killing a single person.
USA could learn a thing or two.

[mass243]

^
LOL, even Ukrainian admiral joined Russia as soon as the brutal "invasion" begun.

The newly appointed head of Ukraine's navy has sworn allegiance to the Crimea region, in the presence of its unrecognised pro-Russian leader.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26410431

[Yamcha]

I wonder what the USA would do if Syria had major oil reserves like Saudi Arabia?

*face palm*

[mass243]

Sounds a lot like when Hitler "invaded" Austria in 1938-39?

Thing is ,Russia now controls that oil rich territory and their ports.

I wonder what the USA would do if Syria had major oil reserves like Saudi Arabia?

Oil rich territory? Crimea? Care to elaborate.

Russia controlled their ports even when it was part of Ukraine. Russia has had naval base there since forever.

Crimea practically declared independence from Ukraine as early as 1992.
It didn't bear fruit at the time due to American lackey Yeltsin responsible of genocide of Russians failed to support it.
Referendum on greater autonomy was held in 1994 and huge majority favored having more autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_1994


PS.
Putin was not around in 1994 so he didn't rig the referendum back then. No matter what CNN says.

[Primemuscle]

I'm all for Trump restricting immigrants from Syria, Somalia , etc.
BUT, the biggest locations for actual terrorists aren't on this list.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt are not included.

15 of 19 terrorists on 9/11 and Bin Ladin himself were Saudis.

The shooter(s) in San Bernardino , CA  were Pakistani.

This is like a traffic cop, stopping drivers going 80 in a 65, while ignoring
those driving 100 mph drunk on the sidewalk.

The main rational for this exec order is  restricting entry to potential terrorists. I'm 100% for that.
BUT you'd think Saudi Arabia and Paki would be tops on the new exec order. Maybe I'm missing something?

The executive order he signed Friday bars all entry for the next 90 days by travelers from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Excluded from the lists are several majority-Muslim nations where the Trump Organization is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

But without divesting from his company, as bipartisan ethics ­experts had advised, Trump is now facing questions about whether he designed the new rules with his own business at least partly in mind.

[Yamcha]

The executive order he signed Friday bars all entry for the next 90 days by travelers from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Excluded from the lists are several majority-Muslim nations where the Trump Organization is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

But without divesting from his company, as bipartisan ethics ­experts had advised, Trump is now facing questions about whether he designed the new rules with his own business at least partly in mind.

Just post the link next time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.36eaa96bbf37






These countries were singled out by the Obama administration last year.

[Straw Man]

Just post the link next time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.36eaa96bbf37






These countries were singled out by the Obama administration last year.

just to help you sort out the "alternative facts" given to you by Trumps spokesliar

Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[Coach is Back!]

1. It's not unconstitutional like the libs think.

2. Since Strawman lost what little credibility he had. Out the 300k Muslims that came though that day 109 were detained and released.

3. It's not a "Muslim ban" if that were the case other Muslims that came through from the other countries that were not on the list would have been detained as well. They weren't.

4. More bullshit lies from the media that the leftists have obviously fallen for which is why they should disband because being gullible and stupid at the same time doesn't work.

[Pray_4_War]

There is absolutely no way to vet these people.

[Yamcha]

There is absolutely no way to vet these people.

make them eat bacon

[goku]

Might because of legal issues, the 7 countries that the Obama administration listed as part of the visa waiver program changes and terrorism travel prevention act had already passed through the courts legally.
Maybe it was easier for Trump to broaden this act to a 6 month ban, rather than add more countries to the list because it may have needed more time to get it passed through legally.

He doesn't have any investments in Pakistan or Afghanistan apparently, and this is what the Saudi's said of Trump after his inauguration -
“We are very optimistic about the Trump Administration,” Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Al Arabiya after Mr Trump’s inauguration.

“The positions that President Trump has articulated are ones that we are completely in accordance with,” Mr Jubeir said. “Restoring America’s presence in the world is something we – and all of the American – welcome because the lack of an American engagement leads to a vacuum.”

[FanBoi]

Non-immigrant visas, yes.  Immigrant visas and lprs?  Much shakier legal ground.

Bingo!

This is one issue where the liberal left puzzles me.

Nobody seemed it wrong to restrict access to the USSR and commie back nations during the cold war.
I see the same basic threat now from the Islamic jihadist.