31–40 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US: Nice. Then we will just roll the dice once a week and point our finger to random big company of yours.
The U.S. wouldn't do this because it would have no effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US: Nice. Then we will just roll the dice once a week and point our finger to random big company of yours.
RoW: Good luck defending arbitrary behaviour in front of a court
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's not a clandestine operation but just a challenge to the US demands, therefore it's public? US: Don't trade with Iran because politics UK, DE, FR, CN, RU: Sorry, We like the deal we made and we would like to trade with Iran. US: If any company trades with Iran, won't be able to trade with the USA. Make your choise. UK, DE, FR, CN, RU: Okay then, we will create an infrastructure where the USA won't be able…
US: Nice. Then we will just roll the dice once a week and point our finger to random big company of yours.
In this case it could come back to harm the US tech sector for example, and it would push EU closer to China and Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions are a type of war on civilians. Great power adversaries are no worse than allies like Saudi Arabia. American unilateralism is evil, and it has to end. The sooner the better!
There's good and bad to America being able to do things unilaterally. The bad is stuff like the Iraq War. But two examples of its good are the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has global reach and has been used in enforcement actions against international businesses operating internationally, and more recently the Magnitsky Act. Both of these are the best exports of American influence and require the US to be at…
That was all nice and fine. Unfortunately it's no more sustainable with a president, who can kill a country's economy with an early morning twitter tantrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the US get to unilaterally decide who gets sanctioned and who doesn't? Europe has a lot more to loose on an unstable Iran than the US and can't risk deals being undone because the US has a new regime every 4 years.
The US gets to unilaterally decide because they've underwritten global stability and security in the post-WW2 era. Europe being one of the biggest beneficiaries of that. And this isn't even me being a jingoistic American, I was born in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US: Nice. Then we will just roll the dice once a week and point our finger to random big company of yours.
RoW: Good luck defending arbitrary behaviour in front of a court
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. wouldn't do this because it would have no effect.
the investigations, even if they find nothing, would require huge compliance efforts for the companies targeted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia invades another country. You are the President of the US. Your options are: 1.) Do nothing. Poland, and the parts of Germany that used to be East Germany, might not like the long term consequences of this plan. 2.) Start a nuclear war, killing hundreds of millions of people. A few disadvantages to this plan as well. 3.) Economic sanctions. You can certainly say this will kill people by way of depressing GDP gr…
In 1)-3) you assume that US is the world's global policeman who is always right because it is right. 4) The democratic way: ask people in this "another" country and if the opinions split then restructure it: either convert it peacefully into two countries (like Czechoslovakia) or confederation/federation.