• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The company is Greek.

      The ship was owned by a US company:

      "But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "

      source

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        46
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great. You got me on a technicality. So it’s okay for any country to steal oil from another if that tanker, or it’s propeller, was once owned by the thieving country?

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not piracy. Being held accountable to the laws in which there is proper jurisdiction.

              You’re making a strange nonsensical argument. Lets plug your argument into a similar theoretical situation:

              Lets say a US company owns a truck and is transporting cocaine in the United States from a South American drug cartel to their drug distribution networks in Vancouver, British Columbia. The police pull over the truck and find the drugs. Being illegal they seize the truck and the drugs. You’re arguing the South American drug cartel should be given their cocaine back because the cartel and the drug distribution network in Vancouver is outside of the United States. That makes your logic laughably naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.

              • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What gives the US proper jurisdiction? Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally. My argument is sound. Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law. This isn’t difficult.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What gives the US proper jurisdiction?

                  The company that chose to operate within the US jurisdiction, in these cases, by owning the vehicles to doing the transport.

                  Iran did not agree to be sanctioned.

                  What kind of schoolyard logic are you working with here? Do you really have no idea how geopolitics works? No country has to have permission to sanction another. It is a choice one country makes to no buy from another. There is nothing preventing Iran from selling its oil to China. They’re just not allowed to do it with anything that is owned by the US government, US companies and those countries that choose to follow the same sanctions.

                  Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally.

                  They absolutely do if they’re using something owned by the USA, in this case the tanker itself.

                  My argument is sound.

                  Your argument is naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.

                  Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law.

                  Indirectly Iran agreed to it with the use of a US owned tanker. Why did they think they could do that when it breaks US law?

                  This isn’t difficult.

                  I agree it isn’t difficult. Don’t want to be bound by US rules and law? Don’t use US owned property, operating in US waters, use US banking systems, or any of the other countries that choose to follow US sanctions against a country. See how easy it is?

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    15
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Therefore, any “laws” the United States implements is illegal. The owner of the ship is ancillary. It’s justification for an internationally illegal act. I wonder if you would defend China so vociferously if they played the same game with America? I don’t think you would. You are defending a crime. But, muh freedom…

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          you got me on a technicality

          “I can declassify anything I want just by thinking about it”

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your justifying piracy. It’s okay when we do it. But not when they do. How magnanimous.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is the opposite of what magnanimous means.

          mag·nan·i·mous

          /maɡˈnanəməs/

          adjective

          generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person.