• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      68
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. And were fined. But that’s perfunctory so that they can make more money smuggling oil. The sanctions are solely enforced by the U.S., without consent of the UN.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        80
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes.

        Your own link argues against you:

        "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. "

        At the time the ship was being used for moving US sanctioned oil, it was own by a US company. That supports @NateNate60@lemmy.ml 's statements.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          66
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is correct and why they could prosecute this case. But they have been seizing oil since 2019. And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies, it still doesn’t change the fact that this amounts to piracy. Defending international injustice with legalese doesn’t absolve what this is. When China seizes our tankers because the parts were made in China, will you defend them?

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

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

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

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              50
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    The logic is pretty sound:

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

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

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

                    Logic - US said do not do that.

                    Reason - They did it.

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