Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post." Certainly one, might be both.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Huh good god What is it good for Absolutely nothing " Friend only to the undertaker... Or perhaps the ultimate warrior, hulk hogan and jake the snake roberts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet?" Depends how much ordnance is coming up to its use by date. A lot? Bomb the fuck out of Iran Not a lot? Lob a couple of hand grenades at Brazil. They'd soon chuck the towel in.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should only start a war, if we or our allies were deliberately attacked by Iran. Wouldn’t be shocked if the USA invades Iran if they keep up with the attacks on oil tankers, shooting down drones and enriching uranium needed for nukes. Trump did the honourable thing last time by stopping retaliation attacks. Next time I wouldn’t be shocked if USA responds with force, which they have every right to do so. This would be my last option. If it had to be done I’d gladly give the order to save the lives of my fellow countrymen and our allies by any means necessary. Iran with its current leaders should not be allowed nuclear weapons. As for saving the planet, that’ll be great. Re planting the Amazon, using more renewable energy, reducing our emissions. Every needs to pitch in from the rich to the poor, it’s not like we are a interplanetary species yet, Earth is the only planet we currently have- let’s not destroy it." Um, the USA broke the treaty. Iran has only just done so itself after several months. The USA has not been doing anything honourable. As you have an opinion on this subject you'll also be well aware that Iran has quite a moderate elected government and a far more reactionary theocratic one with the Revolutionary Guard as autonomous armed forces. Iranian actions are hard to decipher for that reason. Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. " Why not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not?" They will provide assurances ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ??" I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet?" I think I will allow the government to make this decision. Trump and tucker Carlson believe BBC/CNN and neocons are pushing us into a catastrophic war. The recent episode in the gulf involved 2 ships crossing paths. Nothing more. The military didn't report it as a huge issue to worry about but the media did. Donald trump to his credit has tried to calm the situation. Iran must never be allowed nuclear weapons/enriched uranium under any circumstance. If a war was to happen I hope we just bomb them and don't get involved in a land war because of the heavy casualty rate that will happen. But if a war did happen I wouldn't be "anti war" because Iran is dangerous in its intentions. I don't protest all war. If Iran started to develop weapons and purchased enriched uranium I would want them dealt with swiftly from the air. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should only start a war, if we or our allies were deliberately attacked by Iran. Wouldn’t be shocked if the USA invades Iran if they keep up with the attacks on oil tankers, shooting down drones and enriching uranium needed for nukes. Trump did the honourable thing last time by stopping retaliation attacks. Next time I wouldn’t be shocked if USA responds with force, which they have every right to do so. This would be my last option. If it had to be done I’d gladly give the order to save the lives of my fellow countrymen and our allies by any means necessary. Iran with its current leaders should not be allowed nuclear weapons. As for saving the planet, that’ll be great. Re planting the Amazon, using more renewable energy, reducing our emissions. Every needs to pitch in from the rich to the poor, it’s not like we are a interplanetary species yet, Earth is the only planet we currently have- let’s not destroy it." You can't just invade Iran. It's not really possible unless you want to play 1944 dday or battle of the Somme. Israel/saudi/usa/allies They would have to go from Saudi..through kwait and iraq ..crossing tigris river and head for tehran from the south They can do it but they face going through loads of heavily defended mountains with probably pushing 1 million armed regime fanatics. It's not like iraq where it's all flat and the national army don't want to fight. We can destroy their navy/airforce/sam sights with sufficient losses eventually But invadeing them on the ground will be too many casualties. In 2002 the Americans did a war exercise replicating this and they lost 20,000 men in one day to the Iranians. I calculate risking the deaths of 20,000 soldiers in one day wouldn't be worth invadeing Iran but it would be if they decided to start making nukes and we could stop them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes? "Old?? 
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
"Erm, because you can track oil tankers... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fascinating how conflict in the gulf triggers debate, whereas destruction of the rain forest barely raises an eyebrow. " It's a fair point. I don't think that the Gulf issue is actually about oil though. It's about geopolitics. Deforestation isn't, but perhaps it should be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers..."And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?"What happened last time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?"How many times to repeat same process? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?"Perhaps no repeat is needed. Iran just needs the money. It's better not to reach an agreement then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?"who’s agreement is it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?""Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria." So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course. So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism? What are you actually objecting to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?"What about the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?"Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions."Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?"I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not. I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution? That does not actually imply supporting Iran. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran."Did I suggest a military solution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
"You haven't actually made any suggestions. What do you want? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want? "Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria” That sounds reasonable ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?"
What's a treaty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?"The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?"What is a treaty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?"Why is a treaty required? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required? "What is a treaty? What is a contract? Define them for me. Define them for yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself."Why do you assume I need to define a treaty? An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?"Fine. A treaty and a contract are both agreements. Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something. Sound familiar to what we are discussing? “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria” That's diplomacy. Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent. What "robust" solution would you like to see? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?"You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?"What I actually said was this: "Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria." What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?"Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria” So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel? You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?"There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement. You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again. I have given you a suggestion which you do not like. Fine. What do you suggest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?"Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer? Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ? This is an Eu issue, isn’t it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?"Not really. The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request. The EU has been silent on the matter. You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote. The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be. Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia. If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet. War? Chess? What? So, for the avoidance of doubt; The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU. The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf. To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found. That's realpolitik. You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required. Nobody knows what you think should happen. The end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end."Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
"No answer again. Change of subject. Well done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done "Change of subject?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??"What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping? War or diplomacy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?"Why so black and white? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?"How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion? Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject. You seem unsatisfied though. Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so. The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough? "I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view... or is that incorrect? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
"I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem. Apologies if I have missed it. If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem.
Apologies if I have missed it.
If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles."did I say I have a solution? I offered a view, you were unsatisfied with it correct? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem.
Apologies if I have missed it.
If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles.
did I say I have a solution?
I offered a view, you were unsatisfied with it
correct?"You haven't offered a view. You have offered a critique of my comments which has stretched and drifted with each response. You have not contributed anything new or responded to my simple enough request when I have catered to yours. Is that why you feel that agreements are of know use? Because you do not reciprocate with equal courtesy when requested? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem.
Apologies if I have missed it.
If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles.
did I say I have a solution?
I offered a view, you were unsatisfied with it
correct?
You haven't offered a view.
You have offered a critique of my comments which has stretched and drifted with each response.
You have not contributed anything new or responded to my simple enough request when I have catered to yours.
Is that why you feel that agreements are of know use? Because you do not reciprocate with equal courtesy when requested?"my post: "So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria." what was your request for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fascinating how conflict in the gulf triggers debate, whereas destruction of the rain forest barely raises an eyebrow. " Absolutely spot on Sir | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem.
Apologies if I have missed it.
If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles.
did I say I have a solution?
I offered a view, you were unsatisfied with it
correct?
You haven't offered a view.
You have offered a critique of my comments which has stretched and drifted with each response.
You have not contributed anything new or responded to my simple enough request when I have catered to yours.
Is that why you feel that agreements are of know use? Because you do not reciprocate with equal courtesy when requested?
my post:
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria."
what was your request for?
"I agreed with your view as offered. You, apparently,did not agree with yourself. You have then tried to make the discussion wider and more convoluted than the initial, simple position for which you actually have no objection. I have asked for your solution to the situation. You apparently don't have one so your questioning on this thread is also getting a bit boring as you are not contributing anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?
I'm not debating if what Iran was doing was dodgy or not.
I'm asking why you would object to a non-military solution?
That does not actually imply supporting Iran.
Did I suggest a military solution?
You haven't actually made any suggestions.
What do you want?
Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That sounds reasonable ?
What's a treaty?
The EU should negotiate a treaty with Iran to ensure they don’t ship oil to Syria?
What is a treaty?
Why is a treaty required?
What is a treaty? What is a contract?
Define them for me. Define them for yourself.
Why do you assume I need to define a treaty?
An Eu treaty with Iran to provide a guarantee the seized oil isn’t going to Syria ... that’s what you are suggesting ?
Fine.
A treaty and a contract are both agreements.
Legally binding, but still an agreement where one party agrees to do something in exchange for another party doing something.
Sound familiar to what we are discussing?
“we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
That's diplomacy.
Although the USA doesn't feel that it needs to stand by its treaties, so that's a great precedent.
What "robust" solution would you like to see?
You think iran will negotiate with the EU to complete a contract/treaty to allow its vessel to be released?
What I actually said was this:
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
What would you like to happen in light of tensions rising in the Gulf?
Hmm ... sure I’ve said this before; which led you to your questions about a treaty; anyway, this time with feeling - Something a bit more robust than a polite “we’ll let your ship go if you promise not to take it Syria”
So, how about that Iran /Eu negotiation for a release treaty/contract of their vessel?
You think iran will respond to polite diplomacy?
There was a nuclear treaty that they abided by for years. The USA broke the agreement.
You didn't suggest anything before and once more you haven't again.
I have given you a suggestion which you do not like.
Fine.
What do you suggest?
Why are you asking the same question again as I repeated my previous answer?
Who in the Eu is going to decide what is to be done with with the vessel ?
This is an Eu issue, isn’t it?
Not really.
The reality is that the UK appears to have used the EU sanctions against Syria as a pretext to fulfil a US request.
The EU has been silent on the matter.
You are the one obsessed with them. Read what I actually wrote.
The UK is sorting out its own mess. As it should be.
Agreements, both informal and secret, agreements, accords and treaties are how international diplomacy has been conducted for centuries if not millennia.
If you do not like this system, which I find acceptable, then please provide your solution. You haven't managed that yet.
War? Chess? What?
So, for the avoidance of doubt;
The UK did something at the behest of the USA and blamed the EU.
The EU don't care but UK shipping is now under threat in the Gulf.
To avoid military conflict the UK will release the Iranian tanker of the oil is not sold to Syria. Iran just want the money so they will probably be quite happy with that outcome if a buyer can be found.
That's realpolitik.
You don't like it and keep asking me for some other solution that I do not think is required.
Nobody knows what you think should happen.
The end.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe still being held in an Iranian jail?
No answer again.
Change of subject.
Well done
Change of subject??
What solution would you like to tensions increasing in the Gulf with the oil tanker capture and threats to UK shipping?
War or diplomacy?
Why so black and white?
How about we do that think where you actually volunteer an opinion about which to have a discussion?
Asking questions is fine, but I have already contributed my view, in fact the UK government view, on the subject.
You seem unsatisfied though.
Why not provide your solution? If you don't have one that's fine. Say so.
The thread is about going to war though. Would you like to half go to war? Is that grey enough?
I offered a view very early on in the thread - check back, it was you who seemed unsatisfied with this view...
or is that incorrect?
I cannot see anything that you have written that indicates your solution to the problem.
Apologies if I have missed it.
If you restate it here we won't need to go around on circles.
did I say I have a solution?
I offered a view, you were unsatisfied with it
correct?
You haven't offered a view.
You have offered a critique of my comments which has stretched and drifted with each response.
You have not contributed anything new or responded to my simple enough request when I have catered to yours.
Is that why you feel that agreements are of know use? Because you do not reciprocate with equal courtesy when requested?
my post:
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria."
what was your request for?
I agreed with your view as offered. You, apparently,did not agree with yourself.
You have then tried to make the discussion wider and more convoluted than the initial, simple position for which you actually have no objection.
I have asked for your solution to the situation. You apparently don't have one so your questioning on this thread is also getting a bit boring as you are not contributing anything."I was quite happy with my post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post." I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. " As I said, it geopolitics that matters. Short-term. I guess that the only argument is cutting down forests is not denying a resource to the world. Apart from oxygen and a stable climate maybe
You can't buy shares in that though, so who cares? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. " Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. " That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet." i was answering your post that no body cares well it seems our government do if they are prepared to send troops to help.As for imposing protection its not our place to tell other countries what to do we are (was)a democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet.i was answering your post that no body cares well it seems our government do if they are prepared to send troops to help.As for imposing protection its not our place to tell other countries what to do we are (was)a democracy." We aren't going to war over it are we? We never have. It is not a geopolitical problem that governments feel that they need to concern themselves over. Do you disagree? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet.i was answering your post that no body cares well it seems our government do if they are prepared to send troops to help.As for imposing protection its not our place to tell other countries what to do we are (was)a democracy. We aren't going to war over it are we? We never have. It is not a geopolitical problem that governments feel that they need to concern themselves over. Do you disagree?" i think its best to let governments rule and not get involved we have seen what happens when they do.Iraq,Syria,Libya etc.How about you do you think we should invade Brazil for cutting down the rain forest? better to offer some sort of financial benifit in my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. " Why not? A show of strength might make the poachers think twice, plus great training for aircrew. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet.i was answering your post that no body cares well it seems our government do if they are prepared to send troops to help.As for imposing protection its not our place to tell other countries what to do we are (was)a democracy. We aren't going to war over it are we? We never have. It is not a geopolitical problem that governments feel that they need to concern themselves over. Do you disagree?i think its best to let governments rule and not get involved we have seen what happens when they do.Iraq,Syria,Libya etc.How about you do you think we should invade Brazil for cutting down the rain forest? better to offer some sort of financial benifit in my opinion. " I agree. However, lots of people want to severely cut foreign aid budgets because these things are apparently not our problem. I don't think that deforestation warrants war. Oil does though, yet on a parallel thread Pat in his other guise is saying everything is great and we should just carry on as we are despite there being alternatives. Of course, he doesn't believe in man made climate change happening | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we keep chopping the Amazon down then war wont matter . We'll all be fucking dead anyway "They used to say this in the 70's lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we keep chopping the Amazon down then war wont matter . We'll all be fucking dead anyway They used to say this in the 70's lol"Who said that in the 1970’s? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So very polite . You can have your tanker back if you please give us assurances it won’t be sent to Syria. Why not? They will provide assurances ?? I don't know old chap. Perhaps it's possible to track a tanker and see where it goes?
Old??
They can and do track tankers - that’s how we got to where we are now.
Iranians trying to sneak some oil round the long way..
so why should we trust any assurances they give if the tanker is released
Erm, because you can track oil tankers...
And when they track the vessel and see it not going where it should ?
What happened last time?
How many times to repeat same process?
Perhaps no repeat is needed.
Iran just needs the money.
It's better not to reach an agreement then?
who’s agreement is it ?
"Fortunately, the UK is actually trying to de-escalate the situation by offering to release the Iranian tanker to sell its oil to someone other than Syria."
So UK and Iran. Unless we need permission from the USA of course.
So, again, should we not try to reach negotiated agreements using diplomacy and pragmatism?
What are you actually objecting to?
What about the EU?
Them too if we were really applying EU sanctions.
Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized?"It went the long way around to avoid going into unfriendly territorial waters where it could be intercepted, unfortunately for it, it didn't avoid Gibraltar's territorial waters and that's how we were the ones to board it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we keep chopping the Amazon down then war wont matter . We'll all be fucking dead anyway "Only if you stand in the way of the chain saw. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no war is good, stupid post or pissed post. I think you're scared of the answer. If later today Brazil said "keeping the rainforest is damaging our economy, we're going to cut it all down." Our government would do no more than register it's disapproval. If however, OPEC said "right, no more oil for countries in NATO" we'd be at war in days. How many Apache gun ships are protecting elephants from poachers? Have the marines been sent in to defend the orangutan from palm oil farmers? Nope. No body cares. Yes we do have troops protecting animals from poachers and training local patrols.One of our soldiers was killed only last month by a rogue elephant he was trying to protect Apache gun ships would not work in that scenario though. That is at the request of that government. We would not impose that protection would we? Even if it helped us and the rest of the planet.i was answering your post that no body cares well it seems our government do if they are prepared to send troops to help.As for imposing protection its not our place to tell other countries what to do we are (was)a democracy. We aren't going to war over it are we? We never have. It is not a geopolitical problem that governments feel that they need to concern themselves over. Do you disagree?i think its best to let governments rule and not get involved we have seen what happens when they do.Iraq,Syria,Libya etc.How about you do you think we should invade Brazil for cutting down the rain forest? better to offer some sort of financial benifit in my opinion. I agree. However, lots of people want to severely cut foreign aid budgets because these things are apparently not our problem. I don't think that deforestation warrants war. Oil does though, yet on a parallel thread Pat in his other guise is saying everything is great and we should just carry on as we are despite there being alternatives. Of course, he doesn't believe in man made climate change happening "Sorry but I don't get the 'Pat' reference. I am enjoying the debate though, it's good natured compared with the way some threads end up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet?" Need a good war every now and then, keeps the population down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet?" The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet? The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. " Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet? The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. Really? " We supply the weapons they do the killing.To be fair its not the bombs that are killing now.Its the famine that started during the war .The images of the starving children are pitiful and a shameful stain on all those who have played a role in this catastrophe . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet? The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. Really? We supply the weapons they do the killing.To be fair its not the bombs that are killing now.Its the famine that started during the war .The images of the starving children are pitiful and a shameful stain on all those who have played a role in this catastrophe ." . Muslims mostly  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized? It went the long way around to avoid going into unfriendly territorial waters where it could be intercepted, unfortunately for it, it didn't avoid Gibraltar's territorial waters and that's how we were the ones to board it." Maybe she sailed around the cape because she is bigger than suezmax? The maximum size of a ship going through the suez canal is 275m long by 55m wide (beam) with a draught of 20.1 m or up to 75m with a reduced draught of 12.2m wide. The MV Grace 1 has a length of 330 m (too long) with a beam of 58 m and a draught of 22.1m... The ship is too big to go through the Suez canal... So she has to go around the cape. She might squeeze through if they off loaded cargo and reduced her draught even then she is 55 meters too long. On going to war with Iran, yay! lets make war on a country that hasn't invaded another sovereign nation in over 300 years in support of the good ole US of A who have invaded over 50 sovereign nations since the end of WW2... Yeah but, I hear you say, Iran supports terrorism, well so has the USA when it suits them, as they have admitted... Wars like this, if it happens, is why we have Muslims trying to carry out terror attacks in this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Humans ." The hairless ape, did you really expect anything different?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized? It went the long way around to avoid going into unfriendly territorial waters where it could be intercepted, unfortunately for it, it didn't avoid Gibraltar's territorial waters and that's how we were the ones to board it. Maybe she sailed around the cape because she is bigger than suezmax? The maximum size of a ship going through the suez canal is 275m long by 55m wide (beam) with a draught of 20.1 m or up to 75m with a reduced draught of 12.2m wide. The MV Grace 1 has a length of 330 m (too long) with a beam of 58 m and a draught of 22.1m... The ship is too big to go through the Suez canal... So she has to go around the cape. She might squeeze through if they off loaded cargo and reduced her draught even then she is 55 meters too long. On going to war with Iran, yay! lets make war on a country that hasn't invaded another sovereign nation in over 300 years in support of the good ole US of A who have invaded over 50 sovereign nations since the end of WW2... Yeah but, I hear you say, Iran supports terrorism, well so has the USA when it suits them, as they have admitted... Wars like this, if it happens, is why we have Muslims trying to carry out terror attacks in this country." . That explains alot but. Why do they carry them out in India then or the Yemen,Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Australia, Russia, Kurdistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan..... Me thinks there's more to it perhaps. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized? It went the long way around to avoid going into unfriendly territorial waters where it could be intercepted, unfortunately for it, it didn't avoid Gibraltar's territorial waters and that's how we were the ones to board it. Maybe she sailed around the cape because she is bigger than suezmax? The maximum size of a ship going through the suez canal is 275m long by 55m wide (beam) with a draught of 20.1 m or up to 75m with a reduced draught of 12.2m wide. The MV Grace 1 has a length of 330 m (too long) with a beam of 58 m and a draught of 22.1m... The ship is too big to go through the Suez canal... So she has to go around the cape. She might squeeze through if they off loaded cargo and reduced her draught even then she is 55 meters too long. On going to war with Iran, yay! lets make war on a country that hasn't invaded another sovereign nation in over 300 years in support of the good ole US of A who have invaded over 50 sovereign nations since the end of WW2... Yeah but, I hear you say, Iran supports terrorism, well so has the USA when it suits them, as they have admitted... Wars like this, if it happens, is why we have Muslims trying to carry out terror attacks in this country.. That explains alot but. Why do they carry them out in India then or the Yemen,Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Australia, Russia, Kurdistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan..... Me thinks there's more to it perhaps." Well it's a bit of a simplistic reason for some terror attacks, I suppose you could dig around and find reasons for terror attacks in all those countries, there's a lot of Muslim on Muslim attacks, different factions of Muslim faith such as in Iraq, Shia and Sunni Muslims plus the kurds, 3 different countries until the UK made Iraq... India and Pakistan have history obviously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why wouldnt the tanker just go the direct route if it wasn’t doing something that it knew would break the sanctions of the EU and risk the oil being seized? It went the long way around to avoid going into unfriendly territorial waters where it could be intercepted, unfortunately for it, it didn't avoid Gibraltar's territorial waters and that's how we were the ones to board it. Maybe she sailed around the cape because she is bigger than suezmax? The maximum size of a ship going through the suez canal is 275m long by 55m wide (beam) with a draught of 20.1 m or up to 75m with a reduced draught of 12.2m wide. The MV Grace 1 has a length of 330 m (too long) with a beam of 58 m and a draught of 22.1m... The ship is too big to go through the Suez canal... So she has to go around the cape. She might squeeze through if they off loaded cargo and reduced her draught even then she is 55 meters too long. On going to war with Iran, yay! lets make war on a country that hasn't invaded another sovereign nation in over 300 years in support of the good ole US of A who have invaded over 50 sovereign nations since the end of WW2... Yeah but, I hear you say, Iran supports terrorism, well so has the USA when it suits them, as they have admitted... Wars like this, if it happens, is why we have Muslims trying to carry out terror attacks in this country.. That explains alot but. Why do they carry them out in India then or the Yemen,Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Australia, Russia, Kurdistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan..... Me thinks there's more to it perhaps. Well it's a bit of a simplistic reason for some terror attacks, I suppose you could dig around and find reasons for terror attacks in all those countries, there's a lot of Muslim on Muslim attacks, different factions of Muslim faith such as in Iraq, Shia and Sunni Muslims plus the kurds, 3 different countries until the UK made Iraq... India and Pakistan have history obviously. " . Basically it's a power struggle, you want your identifying group to have more power to give you leverage, we see this play out in all walks of life from sexuality to gender to sports fans, yet we see the spill over into extreme violence is vastly swayed on to politics and religion, those two subjects seem to be the only prelims into which we justify all violence and will do anything and everything for the greater cause. The far left and the far right wouldn't lose sleep over the extermination of one another and that's the same with religion, the real problem is the people in the middle we want to get along despite not liking or agreeing with each other because we know violence is not the answer and yet we just can't seem to reign in our extremes on our own sides, given the choice between the other side winning or having to reign in our own violent extremes we seem sadly to choose winning violently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet? The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. Really? We supply the weapons they do the killing.To be fair its not the bombs that are killing now.Its the famine that started during the war .The images of the starving children are pitiful and a shameful stain on all those who have played a role in this catastrophe .. Muslims mostly "What you talking about? Idiot, it's the British government that are responsible for the war in yemen! A modern day holocaust that is being kept out of the media, its a shame most brits don't even know what their evil government is up to! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we go to war with Iran to save oil and Israel? Or Brazil to save the rainforest/wildlife/planet? The brits are already at war with Yemen, well I wouldn't say war it's more like genocide. Really? We supply the weapons they do the killing.To be fair its not the bombs that are killing now.Its the famine that started during the war .The images of the starving children are pitiful and a shameful stain on all those who have played a role in this catastrophe .. Muslims mostly
What you talking about? Idiot, it's the British government that are responsible for the war in yemen! A modern day holocaust that is being kept out of the media, its a shame most brits don't even know what their evil government is up to! "So why is the British government making war against Yemen? Also, if what you say is true, and by your own admission "most brits don't even know" do you think you're justified in calling someone an idiot for not knowing about this clandestine conflict? Because it's not gaining you any respect here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
