The US government seized nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian crude oil allegedly bound for China, according to newly unsealed court documents and a statement released by the Department of Justice on Friday.
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?
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.
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
…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.
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.
If Russia placed a sanction on the United States and started seizing transport ships, would that be legal?
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.
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?
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.
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
…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.
The sanctions are illegitimate.
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.
Because it condemned by the United Nations and the international community.