Iran tries to hijack vessel British Heritage

[Black Red Devil]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No BRD. The tanker spat blew up because the UK enforced a EU sanctions regime on Syria. 

DO try and keep up ! 

 

Sure Roofy, make sure you wipe the dirt out of your eyes after you've pulled your head out of the ground.  You've (the UK) been sucked in and you haven't even realised it.

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Millions of Miles ? 

Oh My God... Mullahs on the Moon ? 

OK, 984,632 miles.

[Black Red Devil]

53 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, but that's pretty much business as usual with the current US approach.

Reminds me of that setup when Saddam was thrown the gauntlet by Bush and the UK and Australia were quick to jump on the bandwagon and run with the baton.  Even the French twitched to the idea of invading Iraq until they were bullied into submission and accepted Bush's excuse Saddam was hiding WMD.  History repeating itself.

[Black Red Devil]

6 hours ago, and then said:

Perhaps I should have been more specific.  Do you agree with their use of tariffs against those transiting the Straits?

Rubbish.  It would never happen or be allowed and Iran, even with nukes, would never have the power to stop ships from going through the straits.  Typical neocon rhetoric to make Iran out be the warmongers while all I see is a nation under constant attack by western forces led by US Congress.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

Rubbish.  It would never happen or be allowed and Iran, even with nukes, would never have the power to stop ships from going through the straits.  Typical neocon rhetoric to make Iran out be the warmongers while all I see is a nation under constant attack by western forces led by US Congress.

Hi there BRD. Umm.. the Iranian Parliament is in the process of debating a bill to do precisely that; to impose 'tariffs' on boats from SOME countries transiting the Gulf. That is what triggered this most recent series of posts.

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/iran-seeks-put-tariffs-on-ships-using-strait-of-hormuz-465391.html

So your "typical neocons" are just reacting to REALITY in Iran. 

Perhaps you should "wipe the dirt out of your eyes" ?  

Edited July 23, 2019 by RoofGardener

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

Rubbish.  It would never happen or be allowed and Iran, even with nukes, would never have the power to stop ships from going through the straits.  Typical neocon rhetoric to make Iran out be the warmongers while all I see is a nation under constant attack by western forces led by US Congress.

Right.  Not enough integrity to be honest.  No surprise.

[Setton]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Oil sanctions against Syria have nothing to do with the nuclear deal with Iran. 

Yes, you said that already. 

So to repeat my point, our detention of the Grace 1 would not have escalated to this point if not for the US going back on its word.

If the US kept to the deal, Iran would not have seen our actions as aligned with US sanctions because there wouldn't be any. Iran would still want the JCPOA to continue and would not, therefore, have seized a British tanker in response. 

As i said previously, I know who is ultimately responsible for any conflict and it isn't Iran this time. 

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Reminds me of that setup when Saddam was thrown the gauntlet by Bush and the UK and Australia were quick to jump on the bandwagon and run with the baton.  Even the French twitched to the idea of invading Iraq until they were bullied into submission and accepted Bush's excuse Saddam was hiding WMD.  History repeating itself.

Exactly. So far looking like we're determined not to be dragged in. 

It's unfortunate that the US stupidity leads to an increased threat to us. We have to defend our shipping bit I am extremely pleased to see we are doing that with our neutral partners in Europe, and not siding with the aggressor in this conflict. 

[Setton]

On that note, ladies and gentlemen, the 'special relationship':

Quote

Iran oil tanker crisis: Mike Pompeo says ‘responsibility falls to UK to take care of its ships’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iran-oil-tanker-mike-pompeo-british-ship-trump-drones-us-uk-a9015876.html

Once again, the US ****s stuff up and leaves its allies to pick up the pieces. 

Remind me, what are we getting out of this relationship again? 

[RoofGardener]

50 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, you said that already. 

No I haven't. 

51 minutes ago, Setton said:

So to repeat my point, our detention of the Grace 1 would not have escalated to this point if not for the US going back on its word.

If the US kept to the deal, Iran would not have seen our actions as aligned with US sanctions because there wouldn't be any. Iran would still want the JCPOA to continue and would not, therefore, have seized a British tanker in response. 

So you admit that Iran is conflating the two issues ? 

52 minutes ago, Setton said:

As i said previously, I know who is ultimately responsible for any conflict and it isn't Iran this time. 

Lets check.. hmm.. who attacked and pirated the Stela Impero ? Was it the Americans ? Gosh, no, it wasn't. 

Was it North Korea... gosh.. no again. 

Oh wait, it was the Iranians, wasn't it ? 

Who tried to break international sanctions about selling oil to the Syrians ? Oh gosh, it was the Iranians, wasn't it ? 

[Setton]

26 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So you admit that Iran is conflating the two issues ? 

When I have I ever said otherwise? 

Although conflating is a little misleading as it implies deliberate deception. Rather, Iran genuinely believes the UK intercepted the grace 1 because the US told us to. 

Quote

Lets check.. hmm.. who attacked and pirated the Stela Impero ? Was it the Americans ? Gosh, no, it wasn't. 

Was it North Korea... gosh.. no again. 

Oh wait, it was the Iranians, wasn't it ? 

And why are tensions with Iran at the point where they would consider this? Oh, that's right, because the US went back on its word and tried to topple yet another regime. 

Quote

Who tried to break international sanctions about selling oil to the Syrians ? Oh gosh, it was the Iranians, wasn't it ? 

Iran is perfectly at liberty to sell oil wherever they like. The issue is that they tried to do so through EU waters when the EU has such sanctions in place. 

Normally, this would have been a minor diplomatic spat between the UK and Iran. But because the US has spent the last few months desperately stoking tensions to try and force Iran to strike first, they see no option but to retaliate. 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

On that note, ladies and gentlemen, the 'special relationship':

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iran-oil-tanker-mike-pompeo-british-ship-trump-drones-us-uk-a9015876.html

Once again, the US ****s stuff up and leaves its allies to pick up the pieces. 

Remind me, what are we getting out of this relationship again? 

What he ACTUALLY said was this... 

"...“The responsibility in the first instance falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships,"

That is just literally true. He's not saying that the US is unsympathetic, or wouldn't help, but it is TRUE. The UK has the primary responsibility to look after its own ships. It has the power and ability to do so, but we got complacent. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by RoofGardener

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

I read some where that about 15 to 25 British transport ships cross hurmuz every day, im not sure they can protect all of them, any way its great to pull all of uk navy near by sitting ducks, also that will add costs and sea sickness to protect ships that would pass any way as they always did, good job iran

[RoofGardener]

18 minutes ago, the-Unexpected-Soul said:

I read some where that about 15 to 25 British transport ships cross hurmuz every day, im not sure they can protect all of them, any way its great to pull all of uk navy near by sitting ducks, also that will add costs and sea sickness to protect ships that would pass any way as they always did, good job iran

Meh.. we'd just need about 8-10 ships tops, just to form a conveyor system. 

If Iran attacked either our Tankers, or our Navy ships, in international waters, then it changes the dynamics of the situation COMPLETELY. Iran would immediately become a pariah nation, akin to North Korea. 

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

25 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

If Iran attacked either our Tankers, or our Navy ships, in international waters, Iran would immediately become a pariah nation, akin to North Korea. 

Then you will impose oil export sanctions on them ?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, Setton said:

our detention of the Grace 1 would not have escalated to this point if not for the US going back on its word.

What amazes me is, the ugly rhetoric that pours out of people's mouths because those damn MOOZIES had the ballz to enrich uranium beyond agreed to limits under the agreement.

Yet these same people not only think that it was Ok for the US to break the agreement, but that Iran is still under contract and should obey the terms of it. Prejudice much? 

[Black Red Devil]

8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hi there BRD. Umm.. the Iranian Parliament is in the process of debating a bill to do precisely that; to impose 'tariffs' on boats from SOME countries transiting the Gulf. That is what triggered this most recent series of posts.

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/iran-seeks-put-tariffs-on-ships-using-strait-of-hormuz-465391.html

So your "typical neocons" are just reacting to REALITY in Iran. 

Perhaps you should "wipe the dirt out of your eyes" ?  

The whole story is neocon rhetoric.  A clear attempt to push the Iranians into doing something drastic by trying to impose tariffs in international waters would be not only inefficient but provoke an international reaction led by the US.  Goal achieved by the neocons if they pass any such bill.  The Iranians are doing this out of desperation because there is no justification for the sanctions and for undermining their economy. 

You can hide your head in the ground or look the other way but now reality suggests the UK is in the mix of it over some banality which goes way back when Trump decided to white wash Obama's previous agreement. Everyone was satisfied with the JCPOA, except for the Israeli's, who have now gone quiet. 

You see Iran breaching sanctions and the UK taking actions like little soldiers.  I see a setup, which unfortunately Iran may fall into out of desperation, which started with the Israeli's, followed through happily by Trump and pushed onto the faithful allies.  What do they say, 'if you want the truth follow the money trail'?

[Black Red Devil]

8 hours ago, and then said:

Right.  Not enough integrity to be honest.  No surprise.

Absolutely laughable coming from you.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, the-Unexpected-Soul said:

Then you will impose oil export sanctions on them ?

Then their ability to cause any more destruction in the area would be, uh, severely limited.  They'd have no multi-ton surface vessels, little or no airforce and their ability to use missiles would depend on how quickly they could launch and hide the launchers.  Such a conflict would take weeks, not months, to finish and the idiots that keep warning everyone about the dangers of invasion would be shown to be, well, idiots.  

 

14 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Absolutely laughable coming from you.

Yet you still don't address the question.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yet these same people not only think that it was Ok for the US to break the agreement

Can you point me to a signed copy of that agreement?  By that, I mean an actual document with the signatures of BOTH nation's representatives?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, and then said:

Can you point me to a signed copy of that agreement?  By that, I mean an actual document with the signatures of BOTH nation's representatives?

and this makes a case...?   If what you say is true then Iran never had an obligation to honor a deal. No way around it, Iran can do what it wants without the per usual rhetoric that "Iran has broken the agreement".
If the US wants Iran to act as it did before Trump pulled up stakes then let Trump go back in and honor the agreement. Iran was doing fine then. Trump wants everything here. But as a good negotiator he should know that you have to give to get.

In the meantime, Iran is not out of bounds with the deal. This makes provocative actions by the Trump admin wrongful and dangerous.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Can you point me to a signed copy of that agreement?  By that, I mean an actual document with the signatures of BOTH nation's representatives?

That's an interesting point, @and then. I don't believe the Iranian parliament every approved the deal ? I mean.. they approved A deal, but it wasn't the deal agreed to by the rest of the world (it was the JCPA document with additions to it that where NOT sanctioned by the rest of the world. )

Typical sneaky Mullahs. Duck and dodge and squirm and NEVER treat the Kuffar honourably. 

They breached the agreement from day 1 ! 

Edited July 24, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

That's an interesting point, @and then. I don't believe the Iranian parliament every approved the deal ? I mean.. they approved A deal, but it wasn't the deal agreed to by the rest of the world (it was the JCPA document with additions to it that where NOT sanctioned by the rest of the world. )

Typical sneaky Mullahs. Duck and dodge and squirm and NEVER treat the Kuffar honourably. 

They breached the agreement from day 1 ! 

And yet they kept to the one we all agreed for a year or so after the US breached it. 

How very odd. 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

And yet they kept to the one we all agreed for a year or so after the US breached it. 

How very odd. 

Well, DID they keep it ? There was a degree of trust involved when it came to inspections (which where the grounds President Trump disagreed on, leading him to withdraw from it, as he believed it was to easy to "cheat"). 

The fact that the Iranian Parliament hasn't ratified the deal, nor has the President of Iran signed it, suggests a lack of commitment on their part from day 1. 

A statement by Rouhani (president of Iran) said, with breathtaking arrogance and cynicism.... 

"“If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it . Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

So the nuclear agreement was - in the eyes of the Iranian leadership... "an unnecessary legal restriction". Well then...... 

Edited July 24, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, DID they keep it ? There was a degree of trust involved when it came to inspections (which where the grounds President Trump disagreed on, leading him to withdraw from it, as he believed it was to easy to "cheat"). 

Well let's see. On the one hand we have the IAEA saying they did. On the other hand we have... and then - a far right loon obsessed with causing a war. 

Who do you believe? 

Quote

The fact that the Iranian Parliament hasn't ratified the deal, nor has the President of Iran signed it, suggests a lack of commitment on their part from day 1. 

A statement by Rouhani (president of Iran) said, with breathtaking arrogance and cynicism.... 

"“If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it . Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

So the nuclear agreement was - in the eyes of the Iranian leadership... "an unnecessary legal restriction". Well then...... 

Of course they view it as unnecessary. Remember, their narrative is that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon. 

So restrictions to prevent them doing so would be unnecessary, wouldn't they? 

[.AKUMA.]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, DID they keep it ? There was a degree of trust involved when it came to inspections (which where the grounds President Trump disagreed on, leading him to withdraw from it, as he believed it was to easy to "cheat"). 

The fact that the Iranian Parliament hasn't ratified the deal, nor has the President of Iran signed it, suggests a lack of commitment on their part from day 1. 

A statement by Rouhani (president of Iran) said, with breathtaking arrogance and cynicism.... 

"“If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it . Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

So the nuclear agreement was - in the eyes of the Iranian leadership... "an unnecessary legal restriction". Well then...... 

What utter nonsense RoofGardner, like seriously dude do you not get tired of making stories up?? Is there any Evidence at all to suggest Iran was not being compliant to the deal?? and please for the love of god do not post Israeli sources as they are the very reason the Agreement fell apart.

Or what about the recent speculation that Trump merely did so to spite Obama?

 

[RoofGardener]

28 minutes ago, .AKUMA. said:

What utter nonsense RoofGardner, like seriously dude do you not get tired of making stories up?? Is there any Evidence at all to suggest Iran was not being compliant to the deal?? and please for the love of god do not post Israeli sources as they are the very reason the Agreement fell apart.

Or what about the recent speculation that Trump merely did so to spite Obama?

Well @.AKUMA., the fact that the Iranian parliament never voted for the agreement, and the President never signed it, is a matter of public record. As for "evidence.. not being compliant", that IS a problem, because the agreement didn't provide for a solid inspection regime. Hence we can neither positively prove, nor disprove, that the Iranians where in compliance. That is the reason that President Trump pulled out from it. Not because he thought the Iranians where "cheating", but that the 'deal' made it impossible to know if they where or not. He wasn't being "Anti-Iranian", merely objecting to a poorly drafted deal. 

The contempt shown by that quote from the Iranian President strongly suggests that they did not take the deal seriously. Everything else is conjecture. 

Incidentally, what on EARTH do you mean by "Israel... the very reason the Agreement fell apart" ? Israel was not involved in the agreement one way or the other. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by RoofGardener