• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies,

    If the tankers or company is operating in the US, then they are bound by US laws no matter where they are in the world. A company can’t benefit from the protection of the US government and laws at home only to go abroad to commit US crimes.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many countries can use that justification. Why are you defending an act that you’d condemn if it was done to America?

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re really committed to the act, even after multiple people have pointed out your error in reading this situation. Kudos to you I guess?

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not an act. I care about this world I live in. I don’t debate to convince the people that disagree with me. I do it to show that those people don’t use logic and reason to decide their beliefs. They want the illusion of confirmation bias. I try to disrupt that illusion. We need to see the world from different perspectives.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hate that “confirmation bias” have become moo words with people nowadays.

            The logic is pretty sound:

            • A company that does business in the United States must comply with American laws.
            • It is forbidden under American law for a company that operates from the United States to do business with Iran.
            • The company, through its child, shipped oil from Iran.
            • American authorities, enforcing American law, ordered the company to divert the ship and turn over the oil for confiscation because the shipment was illegal.
            • Oil is confiscated.

            I remark that sanctions do not require the approval of the United Nations. Under customary international law, it is an application of sovereign authority. Any country can apply sanctions and can do so in any way you like. What the USA has said is that “if you want to do business here, we forbid you from doing business with Iran”.

            • frunch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I appreciate you going the distance with that guy. I don’t think they changed their mind, nor do I think they have the capacity to. You certainly kept it on level for us in the peanut gallery though. Cheers!

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              You owe me $250 million for using the word “moo.” I sanctioned you 5 hours ago, without your knowledge or approval. You have to do what I want, because I have a bigger stick. I can make up whatever law or sanction I want, and you have to follow it or I’ll destroy your town. Pretzel logic. Call it confirmation bias or sucking your own dick, but that’s what is going on.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I wasn’t aware that you were a sovereign state or that I had any money deposited in your banks or that I do business of any sort with you.

                You can sanction me by putting a permanent embargo on conversing with me by blocking me if you want

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was an analogy. I don’t want to block you. I want to have an intelligent discussion about the merits of this act. But people just want to defend America despite its despotic acts. It makes me sad.

                  • legion02@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The analogy is closer to you getting banned by a lemmy instance for breaking their rules when replying to comments from another instance. Just because you’re abroad doesn’t mean you’re ungoverned.

          • deft@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Logic - US said do not do that.

            Reason - They did it.

            If this has insulin, guns, food. You’d probably not care at all. This article would never be written.