3 ms·

1. goes a bit deeper than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association 2. Trying t

1. goes a bit deeper than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association 2. Trying to get around the sanctions and then entering a place the US could nab it, yeah. 3. What should they have done with it? The point's not to eliminate the oil, but to discourage evading sanctions, and the seizure already accomplishes that.

ithkuil 3y ago
They should have allowed a non-us ship to transfer the oil and send it to Iran or whatever. After all it wasn't Iran's fault that the company that moved the oil around was not abiding by the laws of the country they were incorporated in. If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism you don't go around and seize assets by your enemies. If you do that then all what people conclude is that you're just doing what the fuck you want and benefit your friends and crush your enemies and so they are morally free to do the same. It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke, which sadly is what is increasingly happening to the US despite the best intentions of many (and thanks to the worst intentions of many others)
- floxy 3y ago
  I don't think we are using the same meaning for the word "sanctions".
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    I don't think we are using the same meaning for the word "jurisdiction". Or has the US declared war on Iran?
    - floxy 3y ago
      I guess the US is not engaged in a hot war with Iran. Sort of lukewarm though. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223906769/yemens-houthis-red-sea-attack-missiles-drones-us-navy-un-resolution https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223906769/yemens-houthis-red...
- wharvle 3y ago
  > They should have allowed a non-us ship to transfer the oil and send it to Iran or whatever. After all it wasn't Iran's fault that the company that moved the oil around was not abiding by the laws of the country they were incorporated in. Did Iran already get paid for the oil? If so, they certainly don't need it back. If not, they should do better due diligence in the future, when handing their goods to others without cash-in-hand. Weird to trust something so valuable to some company without better awareness of how they operate. Cough. > If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism I disagree with much of what follows, in part because I don't think this describes something we are actually trying to do, now or historically, so the rest is built on a premise that I believe to be shaky. I'm not aware of "all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism" being either an explicit or implicit message of US foreign policy, ever (though I'm open to evidence to the contrary!) Pro-capitalism and pro-free-market (especially for foreign capital investment) policies are things we have pursued and advanced, yes, but there's always been a lot more going on, too, and I don't think those other parts have been covert or otherwise something that anyone on the international stage could have failed to appreciate. > It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke Giving countries a do-over when they "accidentally" (wink, touch nose) get involved in evading sanctions takes you to "international joke" territory real quick, too, though. Is this particular action a betrayal of principle, or following through on plainly-stated intentions, pragmatically and consistently?

ithkuil 3y ago

They should have allowed a non-us ship to transfer the oil and send it to Iran or whatever. After all it wasn't Iran's fault that the company that moved the oil around was not abiding by the laws of the country they were incorporated in. If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism you don't go around and seize assets by your enemies. If you do that then all what people conclude is that you're just doing what the fuck you want and benefit your friends and crush your enemies and so they are morally free to do the same. It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke, which sadly is what is increasingly happening to the US despite the best intentions of many (and thanks to the worst intentions of many others)

floxy 3y ago
I don't think we are using the same meaning for the word "sanctions".
- ithkuil 3y ago
  I don't think we are using the same meaning for the word "jurisdiction". Or has the US declared war on Iran?
  - floxy 3y ago
    I guess the US is not engaged in a hot war with Iran. Sort of lukewarm though. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223906769/yemens-houthis-red-sea-attack-missiles-drones-us-navy-un-resolution https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223906769/yemens-houthis-red...
wharvle 3y ago
> They should have allowed a non-us ship to transfer the oil and send it to Iran or whatever. After all it wasn't Iran's fault that the company that moved the oil around was not abiding by the laws of the country they were incorporated in. Did Iran already get paid for the oil? If so, they certainly don't need it back. If not, they should do better due diligence in the future, when handing their goods to others without cash-in-hand. Weird to trust something so valuable to some company without better awareness of how they operate. Cough. > If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism I disagree with much of what follows, in part because I don't think this describes something we are actually trying to do, now or historically, so the rest is built on a premise that I believe to be shaky. I'm not aware of "all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism" being either an explicit or implicit message of US foreign policy, ever (though I'm open to evidence to the contrary!) Pro-capitalism and pro-free-market (especially for foreign capital investment) policies are things we have pursued and advanced, yes, but there's always been a lot more going on, too, and I don't think those other parts have been covert or otherwise something that anyone on the international stage could have failed to appreciate. > It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke Giving countries a do-over when they "accidentally" (wink, touch nose) get involved in evading sanctions takes you to "international joke" territory real quick, too, though. Is this particular action a betrayal of principle, or following through on plainly-stated intentions, pragmatically and consistently?