▲ 606 ▼ US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China (www.cnn.com) submitted 2 years ago by Rapidcreek@reddthat.com to c/world@lemmy.world 464 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (3 children) They could at least give Iran back their oil. This is like when cops steal your jewelry and claim civil forfeiture. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes. The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Iran is not bound by US law. You do understand that? Right? Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lool read what I just post. Iran is irrelevant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -21 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you tried to transport a kilo of Mexican cocaine through another country and were caught, do you really think Mexico would get its cocaine back? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) So America owns the oceans blue? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No, but they control what happens aboard ships that fly American flags. Do you think the ocean is some sort of lawless no man's land, where captains do as they please with crew and passengers? Well, it isn't. The ship has a flag, and while aboard you follow the laws of that flag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's the same bullshit with the US "pay us taxes no matter where you are" bullshit. It's clear international overreach just like everything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) All countries do that. Then all countries also want you to "pay us taxes where you live". Double taxation is a problem for many people, even between countries with tax agreements like in the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes. The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Iran is not bound by US law. You do understand that? Right? Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lool read what I just post. Iran is irrelevant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -21 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Iran is not bound by US law. You do understand that? Right? Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lool read what I just post. Iran is irrelevant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -21 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deft@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lool read what I just post. Iran is irrelevant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -21 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -21 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deft@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing. Sure kid permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again daughter, Iran is not bound by US law. Recursive logic is still recursive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deft@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay well you're just wrong I can't help you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -17 points 2 years ago If I were wrong, there would be no wars. Why do you think countries fight with each other? It’s because sovereign nations can’t tell other sovereign nations what to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country. I don't know why nobody else pointed that out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If any part from purchase to delivery touched Russia or any other country that is sanctioning the USA, yes. It's kind of how sanctions are enforced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, so the Russian sanctions are hurting the American economy, causing unemployment and starvation. So, the US thinks the sanctions are illegal and decide to smuggle hamburgers to Europe for money. Russia intercepts the ships and confiscates the burgers. America objects, but is overruled by Russia and its financial institutions. Should the United States agree with the legality of the situation, even though they never agreed to the sanctions and their people are starving? Also, is it okay for Russia to do this even though it unduly hurts the people of America? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Well it's not smuggling if the hamburgers go to Europe and there is no sanctions. So yes that would be wrong as the trade never touched Russia. Unless the EU is also sanctioning the USA then no it would be enforcing sanctions of the EU countries. Sanctions are enacted usually in reaction to something so as I don't know why these hypothetical sanctions are in place I can't comment on the ethicality of them. Countries also don't agree to sanctions being imposed on them. That doesn't make sense. Thats like saying a murderer who was sent to prison should agree with the punishment or it's wrong. Just to point out that isn't similar to the original article for the points I made in my previous comment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Great job at avoiding the dilemma. I too can use words to avoid answering questions that place my argument in an uncomfortable position. Better to pretend to be answering the question than have to admit that I don’t have an answer. That’s why this makes perfect sense. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) ...Okay ask plainly then. What is the problem you have with my answers? Are you a free market absolutist who thinks anything that prevents people trading with whoever they like is wrong? I am going to have to disagree with you if you are. Are you mad that it was a ship from the USA enforcing the embargo rather than a Greek one? The USA does the heavy lifting protecting all international trade routes so, in all likelihood it is the USA who is going to enforce sanctions especially when it is in there interest to do so. Do you think a Greek company that resides in a country that is also sanctioning Iran should be allowed to facilitate a trade that breaks the law of the country it is based in? The company should be punished for breaking the law of the nation it resides in. If this was a Chinese company and they used CNY it would have been wrong for the USA to seize the cargo and fine the company but it wasn't so that is irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The sanctions are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? You need to say why you think that. I think I have said more than enough on why I think what they did is legitimate enforcement of two countries (Greece and USA) laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Right. Okay i see what you are saying now. So. Do you want the sanctions completely repealed, or relaxed to allow better flow of medicines and food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for asking a good question. 😉 I’m no expert with human rights and sanctions. I would like to think that they could be relaxed, but that might be difficult. Iran would find loopholes and ways to subvert the regulations. So, I think they need to be removed and let the UN 🇺🇳 take over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you tried to transport a kilo of Mexican cocaine through another country and were caught, do you really think Mexico would get its cocaine back? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) So America owns the oceans blue? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No, but they control what happens aboard ships that fly American flags. Do you think the ocean is some sort of lawless no man's land, where captains do as they please with crew and passengers? Well, it isn't. The ship has a flag, and while aboard you follow the laws of that flag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) So America owns the oceans blue? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No, but they control what happens aboard ships that fly American flags. Do you think the ocean is some sort of lawless no man's land, where captains do as they please with crew and passengers? Well, it isn't. The ship has a flag, and while aboard you follow the laws of that flag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No, but they control what happens aboard ships that fly American flags. Do you think the ocean is some sort of lawless no man's land, where captains do as they please with crew and passengers? Well, it isn't. The ship has a flag, and while aboard you follow the laws of that flag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency. Which is all that these sanctions amount to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Trade embargoes do not violate international law. International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are. And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN. The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) International laws do not exist. Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited. States have an obligation under international human rights law Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless. And on the subject of Ms Douhan... The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago States have an obligation under international human rights law The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's the same bullshit with the US "pay us taxes no matter where you are" bullshit. It's clear international overreach just like everything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) All countries do that. Then all countries also want you to "pay us taxes where you live". Double taxation is a problem for many people, even between countries with tax agreements like in the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) All countries do that. Then all countries also want you to "pay us taxes where you live". Double taxation is a problem for many people, even between countries with tax agreements like in the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work permalink fedilink source parent