So because the US is breaking the law against Iran, Iran gets to break the law against third party shipping?
You are advocating evil.
Also, I haven’t heard of any third party country being hit
Hitting the ships of a country is an attack against the country: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/3219379/stricken-thai-ship-drifts-into-iranian-waters
Like, I am absolutely not blanket defending the US under Trump. That shit is straight out fascism. Nowhere have I said the US is acting morally or legally with regards to Iran.
There are still some vestages of pre-fascist US in e.g. the US state department. So sometimes the US will actually justify their actions legally. So not literally every single thing the US does is illegal. But plenty of things are.
But you are apparently defending Iran's illegal behavior, by pointing to the US's illegal behavior. That is not how ethics works... two wrong does not make one right. And it is kinda wild that people like you often end up defending the blatantly evil fundamentalist undemocratic terrorist Iran.
Moments before the seizure, the tanker was flying the Guyanese flag, despite not being registered in that country.
It is legal to seize ships flying a false flag. So that seizure was not an illegal blockade by the US.
Second one is a Venezuelan one, which fair enough the US is acting illegally in all kinds of ways with Venezuela, nobody serious disputes that. But Venezuela is a special case.
Third one was a Panama flagged ship, and "Permission to board was obtained from Panama". So boarding that was legal.
Etc etc I assume. My point being, it is not a complete blockade - the US is going out of their way to specify legality (excluding Venezuela...). The US is not going to illegally board the Russian ships heading for Cuba.
You know when people said that, it was derisive right?
Derisive for some people. Not for some others.
Also, hilarious to say the Gulf War was the good and just war and the Iraq war was a big fuck up, considering they were both the product of the same political dynasty.
What kind of bullshit argument is that? Bush I could have taken Baghdad but didn't, because he was not an idiot and knew it would destabilize the Middle East. Bush II undid the decision of his father - that was the act of overthrowing the actions of his father, not some long term dynastical plan.
Here is Cheney in 1994 describing everything that went wrong after taking Baghdad, which is why Bush I did not do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
As if one did not inextricably lead to the other.
It didn't. Clinton did not go to Baghdad, and Gore would not have done so. Because they were not idiots, would have listened to the experts saying it was incredibly stupid.
And it has gotta be pretty obvious which trades are likely insider trading. So SEC could likely trivially prosecute them - and I assume it is blatantly illegal.
But I assume that Trump has also corrupted the SEC.
Note that the US still has slavery - the 13th amendment contains an exception for prison labor. Which is widely abused for literal slave labor.
Possibly. But at least it is a grey area, not obviously illegal. Unlike e.g. Iran shooting random third party civilian ships in an international shipping lane, which is unambiguously illegal.
Incorrect I think. There was that one Greek ship, but I think the US just threatened it with sanctions, not boarded it. So the threat of legal action, not the threat of force.
The attack on the school was not deliberate. While you obviously think so, nobody with a working understanding of ethics thinks that an accidental attack on civilians gives the other side the moral right to also attack civilians.
Why do you think I believe the US's actions are correct?
Yes I am using the fallacies correctly.
There is a power imbalance when dating your daughter. Just like a teacher is generally not allowed to date their student. So there is an issue with dating your daughter.