Well, they’re separated by the Panama canal, so by the same token that Africa and Asia aren’t the same land mass, neither are the Americas.
Well, they’re separated by the Panama canal, so by the same token that Africa and Asia aren’t the same land mass, neither are the Americas.
Bro I’ve been on roundabouts less circular than your logic
Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.
Can you explain what “international law” you believe US sanctions to have broken?
That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?
They … they know…
That’s how it normally works, yes… particularly if the country in question is not a signatory to the ‘international law’ in question.
I sure haven’t
I’m saddened to hear that there are still an appreciable amount of Spanish people talking about us that way, but I’m not upset at the dictionary for recording the way the language is used.
I’m guessing it’s approached in something of a similar way to how English language dictionaries handle the word gyp, which is to give its definition and note that it is offensive.
your arguing US law. I’m arguing international. They are not the same.
No shit… these companies operate in the US, which makes US law applicable to them.
I mean, if folks were making fun of their housing I’d agree but this is the equipment they’re buying to threaten their neighbors with, instead of feeding their starving population
Like every ceasefire.
Probably the reason Ukraine doesn’t want a ceasefire…
It takes all of three minutes to click through to the court order here. All three companies do significant business in the US, but the money to buy the oil was US dollars, and came from Oaktree Capital which is based in Los Angeles.
Which is (and this might be a shocker) in the USA.
Another country? What are you talking about my dude? An American company bought oil from Iran (in violation of US law), and had the oil they bought seized.
The government served them a court order, they turned the ship around and handed it over. No US naval involvement, etc.
Yeah, unironically it does in this instance.
The US negotiated with the Japanese.
The allies negotiated with the Nazis.
You know both these groups surrendered unconditionally, right?
Weirdly specific
They are, mate. You act like the West is standing behind Ukraine threatening to shoot anyone that retreats. We’re sending em guns and money, if they wanted to stop fighting they could make that decision tomorrow.
Russia can, very straightforwardly, retreat to Russia. Boom, peace!
Ah yes, “Glory to Ukraine,” seems like a super specific slogan that can only be associated with one movement. In no way is it a generically nationalist slogan.
I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they’ll eventually lose, it’s better for everyone if they give up quickly … then this historical example doesn’t seem relevant.
Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I’m sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it’s necessary to fight this one out.
Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I’ll admit it’s a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn’t terribly relevant.