4 ms·

> this would not be the first time Which the laughably biased article illustrates with Iran's "infamous" seizure of a British ship. Not the earlier British sei

> this would not be the first time Which the laughably biased article illustrates with Iran's "infamous" seizure of a British ship. Not the earlier British seizure of an Iranian vessel, which the Iranians were simply responding to, which is barely a footnote. I'm sure if a ship from an ally of a country brazenly attempting to overthrow the US government innocently "drifted" for days off the US coast before innocently "finding its way into" US territorial waters, the US response would be kid gloves and a cheery smile. Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, a few days after this event exposed Venezuelan capability in response to violation of its territorial waters: > US to Deploy Navy Ships near Venezuela > The deployment is one of the largest U.S. military operations in the region since the 1989 invasion of Panama ... It involves assets like Navy warships, AWACS surveillance aircraft and on-ground special forces seldom seen before in the region." https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/04/02/trump-us-deploy-anti-drug-navy-ships-near-venezuela.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/04/02/trump-us-depl...

mhh__ 7y ago
The original British seizure was because it was in violation of international sanctions, no? The Iranian seizure, whether it matters or not, was illegal as far as I'm aware.
- pmachinery 7y ago
  There are no international sanctions against Syria, simply EU sanctions and US sanctions. Countries that aren't the US and in the EU don't have to abide by that any more than the US or EU has to abide by dictats Iran or Russia or China dream up. The British action, made at the behest of the US, was at least as illegal as the response it provoked.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"? Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth?
    - pmachinery 7y ago
      > The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"? For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions". Not that anyone would refer to that as such anyway, of course, because we easily recognize misleading propaganda when its used by the bad guys. > Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth? Nobody said literally every nation on Earth, but it should refer to more than just two political unions which are virtually joined at the hip economically, (geo)politically and even racially, and constitute a mere ~10% of the world. UN sanctions, for example, could justifiably be called international sanctions, though there still seems no point when it's more accurate and simpler to just say "UN sanctions".
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        "For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions"." You are saying that three nations are too few to be "international", and therefore nearly 30 must be too few also? My general rule of thumb is that an order of magnitude often makes a meaningful difference.
        pmachinery 7y ago
        EU law applies to nearly 30 countries. Does that make it "international law"?

mhh__ 7y ago

The original British seizure was because it was in violation of international sanctions, no? The Iranian seizure, whether it matters or not, was illegal as far as I'm aware.

pmachinery 7y ago
There are no international sanctions against Syria, simply EU sanctions and US sanctions. Countries that aren't the US and in the EU don't have to abide by that any more than the US or EU has to abide by dictats Iran or Russia or China dream up. The British action, made at the behest of the US, was at least as illegal as the response it provoked.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"? Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth?
  - pmachinery 7y ago
    > The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"? For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions". Not that anyone would refer to that as such anyway, of course, because we easily recognize misleading propaganda when its used by the bad guys. > Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth? Nobody said literally every nation on Earth, but it should refer to more than just two political unions which are virtually joined at the hip economically, (geo)politically and even racially, and constitute a mere ~10% of the world. UN sanctions, for example, could justifiably be called international sanctions, though there still seems no point when it's more accurate and simpler to just say "UN sanctions".
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions"." You are saying that three nations are too few to be "international", and therefore nearly 30 must be too few also? My general rule of thumb is that an order of magnitude often makes a meaningful difference.
      - pmachinery 7y ago
        EU law applies to nearly 30 countries. Does that make it "international law"?