"But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "
Great. You got me on a technicality. So it’s okay for any country to steal oil from another if that tanker, or it’s propeller, was once owned by the thieving country?
was once owned by the thieving country?
Once owned? You mean during the time the crime was committed?
Why is piracy okay?
Not piracy. Being held accountable to the laws in which there is proper jurisdiction.
You're making a strange nonsensical argument. Lets plug your argument into a similar theoretical situation:
Lets say a US company owns a truck and is transporting cocaine in the United States from a South American drug cartel to their drug distribution networks in Vancouver, British Columbia. The police pull over the truck and find the drugs. Being illegal they seize the truck and the drugs. You're arguing the South American drug cartel should be given their cocaine back because the cartel and the drug distribution network in Vancouver is outside of the United States. That makes your logic laughably naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
What gives the US proper jurisdiction? Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally. My argument is sound. Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law. This isn’t difficult.
What gives the US proper jurisdiction?
The company that chose to operate within the US jurisdiction, in these cases, by owning the vehicles to doing the transport.
Iran did not agree to be sanctioned.
What kind of schoolyard logic are you working with here? Do you really have no idea how geopolitics works? No country has to have permission to sanction another. It is a choice one country makes to no buy from another. There is nothing preventing Iran from selling its oil to China. They're just not allowed to do it with anything that is owned by the US government, US companies and those countries that choose to follow the same sanctions.
Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally.
They absolutely do if they're using something owned by the USA, in this case the tanker itself.
My argument is sound.
Your argument is naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law.
Indirectly Iran agreed to it with the use of a US owned tanker. Why did they think they could do that when it breaks US law?
This isn’t difficult.
I agree it isn't difficult. Don't want to be bound by US rules and law? Don't use US owned property, operating in US waters, use US banking systems, or any of the other countries that choose to follow US sanctions against a country. See how easy it is?
Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Therefore, any “laws” the United States implements is illegal. The owner of the ship is ancillary. It’s justification for an internationally illegal act. I wonder if you would defend China so vociferously if they played the same game with America? I don’t think you would. You are defending a crime. But, muh freedom…
Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Iran did not agree to be sanctioned.
You should take your own advice with this statement.
Therefore, any “laws” the United States implements is illegal.
Factually false. You operate in the US or with US companies you're agreeing to be bound by our laws. Don't like it? Use non-US or non-US-allies companies.
The owner of the ship is ancillary.
Here's where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
I wonder if you would defend China so vociferously if they played the same game with America? I don’t think you would.
I weep for the people of Hong Kong. China is systematically stripping them of their representation. However, Hong Kong is part of China. Its Chinese laws, inside of China. I have no say in what they do in Hong Kong. China is fully within their rights to do so even if I believe it will harm the Chinese people with regard to their long term prosperity.
I didn't even bring up China here, but curiously you did. 你是 中国人吗？
You are defending a crime. But, muh freedom…
Here's another place where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
This is exhausting. The sanctions are illegal and condemned internationally. Any law approved and applied after that fact is immaterial. Get it. It doesn’t matter if the boat is American. It doesn’t matter if it was US dollars and an American company. The overarching sanctions are illegal, so any adjudication after is illegal. Capiche?
This is exhausting. The sanctions are illegal and condemned internationally. Any law approved and applied after that fact is immaterial. Get it. It doesn’t matter if the boat is American. It doesn’t matter if it was US dollars and an American company. The overarching sanctions are illegal, so any adjudication after is illegal. Capiche?
Those are the same three flawed ideas you've stated over and over again.
You are disconnected from reality if you're trying to pass that off as truth.
The. world. just. doesn't. work. that. way.
Capiche?
The. world. just. doesn't. work. that. way.
Then maybe we should change it. Or do you want to conserve the status quo and not progress into the future?
The company is Greek.
The ship was owned by a US company:
"But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "
source
Great. You got me on a technicality. So it’s okay for any country to steal oil from another if that tanker, or it’s propeller, was once owned by the thieving country?
Once owned? You mean during the time the crime was committed?
Why is piracy okay?
Not piracy. Being held accountable to the laws in which there is proper jurisdiction.
You're making a strange nonsensical argument. Lets plug your argument into a similar theoretical situation:
Lets say a US company owns a truck and is transporting cocaine in the United States from a South American drug cartel to their drug distribution networks in Vancouver, British Columbia. The police pull over the truck and find the drugs. Being illegal they seize the truck and the drugs. You're arguing the South American drug cartel should be given their cocaine back because the cartel and the drug distribution network in Vancouver is outside of the United States. That makes your logic laughably naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
What gives the US proper jurisdiction? Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally. My argument is sound. Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law. This isn’t difficult.
The company that chose to operate within the US jurisdiction, in these cases, by owning the vehicles to doing the transport.
What kind of schoolyard logic are you working with here? Do you really have no idea how geopolitics works? No country has to have permission to sanction another. It is a choice one country makes to no buy from another. There is nothing preventing Iran from selling its oil to China. They're just not allowed to do it with anything that is owned by the US government, US companies and those countries that choose to follow the same sanctions.
They absolutely do if they're using something owned by the USA, in this case the tanker itself.
Your argument is naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
Indirectly Iran agreed to it with the use of a US owned tanker. Why did they think they could do that when it breaks US law?
I agree it isn't difficult. Don't want to be bound by US rules and law? Don't use US owned property, operating in US waters, use US banking systems, or any of the other countries that choose to follow US sanctions against a country. See how easy it is?
Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Therefore, any “laws” the United States implements is illegal. The owner of the ship is ancillary. It’s justification for an internationally illegal act. I wonder if you would defend China so vociferously if they played the same game with America? I don’t think you would. You are defending a crime. But, muh freedom…
You should take your own advice with this statement.
Factually false. You operate in the US or with US companies you're agreeing to be bound by our laws. Don't like it? Use non-US or non-US-allies companies.
Here's where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
I weep for the people of Hong Kong. China is systematically stripping them of their representation. However, Hong Kong is part of China. Its Chinese laws, inside of China. I have no say in what they do in Hong Kong. China is fully within their rights to do so even if I believe it will harm the Chinese people with regard to their long term prosperity.
I didn't even bring up China here, but curiously you did. 你是 中国人吗？
Here's another place where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
This is exhausting. The sanctions are illegal and condemned internationally. Any law approved and applied after that fact is immaterial. Get it. It doesn’t matter if the boat is American. It doesn’t matter if it was US dollars and an American company. The overarching sanctions are illegal, so any adjudication after is illegal. Capiche?
Those are the same three flawed ideas you've stated over and over again.
You are disconnected from reality if you're trying to pass that off as truth.
The. world. just. doesn't. work. that. way.
Capiche?
Then maybe we should change it. Or do you want to conserve the status quo and not progress into the future?
Id pay so much money to work on HR at a company where you have to take sanctions compliance training.
Your emails about "colonialism" would be fucking framed on my desk.
This is hilarious.
Glad you enjoyed it.
"I can declassify anything I want just by thinking about it"
Oaktree Capital Management doesn't sound very Greek to me. Maybe it's because the company is based in Los Angeles....
Your justifying piracy. It’s okay when we do it. But not when they do. How magnanimous.
This is the opposite of what magnanimous means.
mag·nan·i·mous
/maɡˈnanəməs/
adjective
generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person.
I know. /s
If it does business in the US, its a US company.
??? There are thousands of companies that do business in the US that aren't american.
Source?