Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,162
I think he is calling for a hunger strike.Apparently Jeremy Hunt has said Iran must expect a Robust response but also ruled out military action?
Robust = Military action, Jeremy...
I think he is calling for a hunger strike.Apparently Jeremy Hunt has said Iran must expect a Robust response but also ruled out military action?
Robust = Military action, Jeremy...
I know you didn't mean "close" in a literal sense, but it should be remembered that the distance from Iran to Russia is roughly the same as the distance from London to Birmingham (Azerbaijan isn't very big) and so while standing with it's buddy Iran against the US/UK may not be a smart move from Russia's POV, we may find that they have a differing opinion on not letting us overthrow and ally and install a puppet western government 2 hours drive from their border.
Also, Azerbaijan may not be a Soviet Socialist Republic anymore (so Russia no longer share a border with Iran) but it is still very much within the Russian sphere of influence (as a CIS member) so it could be argued Russia still share a political border with Iran.
3 Type-45s, I know it's a moot point as we have six of the things but it's worth pointing out.The UK really isn't, even with the reduced manpower. 1 Type-45 in the area basically denies Iran's entire airforce.
If China invaded Ireland with the purpose of overthrowing the Irish government and setting up a communist state that took its marching orders from Bejing would we sit back and do nothing just because China are tougher than us? From Russia's perspective it's the same thingI meant more in terms of relations. Not sure Russia would want to get drawn into this particular conflict.
3 Type-45s, I know it's a moot point as we have six of the things but it's worth pointing out.
Even so, we only have 6 of them... losing one vs them losing any number of their dinghys is massively costly and they know that.
That it would take 3 type-45 destroyers to counter Iran's air force, a couple of people were saying that just one of them could counter the whole Iranian air force, so just pointing out that it would take three but it's not an issue as we have six.What’s the 3 in reference to?
We have 16 of the Type-23, and if the gloves ever do come off and things get all shooty, those 'dinghys', as you put it, won't get within range of a warship to do any damage.
What was it then? There was no legal basis for it - EU sanctions are not enforceable against non-members.
Lots of talk of war here (which we can't win) so here's a novel idea as someone else has already said:
How about we give them back the ship we seized under orders of the US and they give us back ours?
Remember: we started this.
The Tasnim news agency quoted the Ports and Maritime Organisation of Iran as saying: "We received some reports on the British oil tanker, Stena Impero, causing problems.
"We asked the military forces to guide this tanker towards Bandar Abbas port to have the required investigations carried out."
Of course they are, what on earth makes you think they aren't???
EU sanctions are enforceable against anyone, don't like them/agree with them then don't visit any EU territories or try to make use of any EU entities while breaking them. Simples
LOL
What a surprise you don't seem to be condemning the seizure...
We didn't "start" anything. Iran was causing issues in this region with regards to shipping already - they've already physically attacked vessels on two occasions.
The enforcement of EU sanctions in Gibraltar (i.e. something with a legal basis) isn't cause to just arbitrarily seize a vessel in revenge without any legal basis. They attempted to do this already and were sent away by a RN vessel they then succeeded with some small tanker involved in bunkering operations and seemingly again with two British related tankers just now.
The only international legal body capable of issuing such sanctions whereby Iran would be obligated to comply by them are those made by the UN Security Council...newsflash: there are no UN Security Council sanctions against the export of oil to Syria.
No, EU sanctions are not enforceable against anyone unless you want to dismantle the entire concept of international law. If EU sanctions 'are enforceable against anyone' then there's nothing stopping Iranian law being 'enforceable against anyone' on the basis of a whim and hence we have the law of the jungle. This is why we have the UN.
Given your interesting legal views I take it you approve of the Iranians seizing the British ship today on the basis of 'maritime law irregularities' or whatever nonsense they came up with?
The amusing thing is that you actually think this about EU sanctions and not about the US trying to destroy Iran. You think we seized that ship because of EU law? Really? Why haven't any other EU countries done it? Or could it possibly be because the US told us to do it as the Spanish government has suggested?
Why weren't Iranian ships carrying oil stopped in the several years since the introduction of the EU sanctions you treat like holy tablets carried down from Mount Sinai?
I'm confused, Dowie.
Earlier in this thread you fully supported the UK's actions in seizing an Iranian tanker based on it breaching EU laws.
Why aren't you in favour of Iran seizing a British ship based on its breaches of maritime law as alleged by Iran?
Some consistency would be nice.
What's the difference? I think both sides' legal arguments are absolute ********, but I would love to hear your mental gymnastics justifying our actions over that of the Iranians' identical retaliatory actions.
P.S. Why would I condemn Iran's actions? They didn't start it, we did.
Of course they are. What are you smoking? you are aware that UK law exists and EU law exists and is enforced in UK/EU territories right?
We can't just seize a ship simply because the US desires it..
Can you cite an example of such a ship that was allowed to break EU sanctions and stopped in EU waters?
It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that Iran's actions are a response to us seizing their tanker first. We are to blame for this...why is this so difficult to understand?