Iran says it has captured British oil tanker

a reply to: 1337Kph

I guess anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of your Dear Leader is a leftist in your narrow mind , that's OK , you're just misguided , politics is not as black and white as you seem to think.

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: face23785
The lengths to which leftist members here will go to to apologize and make excuses for the terrorists in Iran are incredible.

Not a "leftist" but I find it incredible how Trumpeters who didn't want any more foreign intervention and lauded Trump for his stance on no more foreign intervention still follow like sheep as he leads you toward more foreign intervention.

You guys are priceless , like your leader your opinions change with the wind.

You have a point, about some who decrie foreign intervention, but again, you are oversimplifying.

I beleive a vast majority of ppl are against war. Particularly ones that are initiated for the sole purpose of interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. An example would be if we sent armed forces into Venezuela to install a "puppet" government.

When another country, or organization such as ISIS, becomes an external threat, by supporting terrorism globally, or interfering with international trade via piracy in international waters, that is a different circumstance.

Most people are not naive to the need for global security, and the reality that the US is the only nation that has the ability to project power anywhere on the planet, on a sustained basis.

Although almost nobody "wants" war, and the death/destruction that comes with it, sometimes action is needed to affect a change of direction. Almost nobody wants pointless, protracted, open ended engagements with no clear, attainable goals, and no exit strategy. Almost nobody is in favor of a "boots on the ground" situation in IRAN.

Going to war is not the same thing as punching the drunk guy that felt up your sister.

a reply to: Mach2

You have a point, about some who decrie foreign intervention, but again, you are oversimplifying.

I don't think I am , this current stand off is born of ideology not a need for global security.


When is a terrorist organisation not a terrorist organisation ?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Mach2

You have a point, about some who decrie foreign intervention, but again, you are oversimplifying.

I don't think I am , this current stand off is born of ideology not a need for global security.

?

A couple questions:

Do you not believe IRAN's "ideology" can be a threat to global security?

Do you believe piracy on the high seas is acceptable?

Do you think simply lifting the sanction will change IRAN's attitude about attaining nuclear weapons, or its financial and idealogic support for terrorism?

🤷‍♂️ Why aren’t these convoys not escorted thru this hot zone? 🤔 I also have no idea why we have not completely pulled out of Asia Minor, speaking for the country I pay taxes in btw it’s been 18 years since 9/11. Also why on earth 🌏 Bolton, is advising potus is literally frightening lol 🤯. IRAN, is a religious faction chances are a holy war is good, based off of their archaic ideology, the leadership that is. I dunno sounds like something dumb and deadly is going to happen.. Gotta love that self destructive instinct our creator(s) designed in us to prevent us from reaching the stars.

a reply to: Mach2

Do you not believe IRAN's "ideology" can be a threat to global security?

Yes but Iran isn't the only country in the region or the world that has a dangerous ideology but they are the one's being goaded.

Do you believe piracy on the high seas is acceptable?

That depends on your definition of piracy , the seizure of the tanker is a response to what Iran believe to be piracy.

Do you think simply lifting the sanction will change IRAN's attitude about attaining nuclear weapons, or its financial and idealogic support for terrorism?

The Nuclear deal was constraining Iran and stopping them attaining nuclear weapons , the US walking away from the deal has not done anything to help that effort.

Financial and ideological support for terrorism ? , seems that's fine as long as you're on the right side of the US and buy weapons from the US.

a reply to: gortex

1. The only country comparable, when factoring in desire to attain nukes would be NK, and they are nowhere close in terms of terrorist activity. It's not like we ignored other terrorist threats, Afghanistan for example.

2. The seizure near Gibraltar was in accordance with universally accepted norms. The circumstances are not similar in the eyes of anyone other than IRAN, but I do accept that IRAN would not differentiate.

3. Whether or not the deal was effectively prohibiting them from that goal is subject to debate. With little or no real verification allowed, my opinion is that at best, it only slowed them slightly.

a reply to: Mach2

The only country comparable, when factoring in desire to attain nukes would be NK, and they are nowhere close in terms of terrorist activity.

The desire to acquire a defensive Nuclear deterrent when your enemy (Israel) has them should be of no surprise
Of course your country turns a blind eye to leading terrorist breading threat Saudi Arabia because they feed the M.I.C with the cash they crave , making America great again regardless of the facts.

The seizure near Gibraltar was in accordance with universally accepted norms.

The seizure of the Iranian vessel was in response to arbitrary sanctions imposed by the US , sanctions imposed in an effort to squeeze the Iranian people into revolt and force the desired "regime change" Bolton and others want, Iran is being attacked financially so of course they're going to respond.

Whether or not the deal was effectively prohibiting them from that goal is subject to debate.

Iran was complying with the deal and weren't enriching uranium anywhere near weapons grade so it isn't up for debate it is a known.
Team America World police is a real today as it was in the Bush era , the more things change the more they stay the same , the Trump administration is no different in reality.

a reply to: gortex

1. There is no such thin as a "defensive" nuclear weapon. The philosophy of MAD is not Iran's goal, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is. I also don't remember Israe openly exposing their desire to exterminate Iran.

2. The sanctions that led to tge Gibraltar incedend is not soley US policy. It it recognized as legally valid my a multinational coalition, and it was a sanction on Syria, in any case. Do some backgound before posting.

3. Since there was no viable verification method, it is not possible to make statements of fact. Therefore, we are all working on assumptions. As I previously stated, though I would prefer it not be necessary, I do recognize that we do operate as "policemen", and decisions are made which are affected by agenda.

At this point, I feel your position is one of emotion and hatred of the US, rather than logic, so we have probably come to an impass, whereby further discussion is pointless.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Mach2

The seizure near Gibraltar was in accordance with universally accepted norms.

The seizure of the Iranian vessel was in response to arbitrary sanctions imposed by the US , sanctions imposed in an effort to squeeze the Iranian people into revolt and force the desired "regime change" Bolton and others want, Iran is being attacked financially so of course they're going to respond.


Wasn't the Iranian ship seized as it was suspected of breaching EU sanctions on Syria by transporting oil and had nothing to do with any US sanctions on Iran?

a reply to: Mach2

There is no such thin as a "defensive" nuclear weapon.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent , they are as defensive against attack as a gun is to a stick , they give cause for thought.

The sanctions that led to tge Gibraltar incedend is not soley US policy.

You will have to provide evidence of that claim.

Since there was no viable verification method, it is not possible to make statements of fact.

But there is and they were.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano’s statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal’s terms. It notes that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”
www.armscontrol.org...

At this point, I feel your position is one of emotion and hatred of the US, rather than logic

I guess that's to be expected , earlier in the tread I was accused of being anti British.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Wasn't the Iranian ship seized as it was suspected of breaching EU sanctions on Syria by transporting oil and had nothing to do with any US sanctions on Iran?

If so I stand corrected but it is still much of a muchness.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Mach2


I guess that's to be expected , earlier in the tread I was accused of being anti British.

Perhaps that may be cause for some self inflection?

I mean if it's multiple unaffiliated individuals telling you something, maybe it is you, not them who are wrong?

a reply to: Mach2

Being anti the policy decisions or actions of a government does not make one anti the country of that government , to imply it does echos the attitude of dictatorship.

I have the freedom of speech , criticising government is a right of the freedoms given by Democracy.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Mach2

Being anti the policy decisions or actions of a government does not make one anti the country of that government , to imply it does echos the attitude of dictatorship.

I have the freedom of speech , criticising government is a right of the freedoms given by Democracy.

No one is implying otherwise. That doesn't mean you are correct, or even rational in your views though, only that you are free to express them, irrespective of how misguided or ridiculous they may be.

I have no problem if someone wants to purport that the earth is flat, but I may argue otherwise.

New footage by Iran purportedly shows commandos rappelling onto UK-flagged oil tanker

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: deviant300
New footage by Iran purportedly shows commandos rappelling onto UK-flagged oil tanker

www.foxnews.com...

Thanks! I was just about to post that article, along with this question...

Why aren't Oil Tanker Crews ARMED with machine guns? It would be entirely within their right to blast the invaders as they exited their helicopter.

Isn't that how ship crews stopped the Somali pirates? By actively DEFENDING THEMSELVES?

The best part of this thread is leftists pretending they're not leftists while they're defending Iran.

a reply to: gortex

Can't help but get the feeling we're all watching some puppet show were the strings are attached to the same hand be it Iran, Russia America. Things got quite with Syria and the World needs entertaining.

Dear Iran

We would like to cordially invite you to the position of pot stirrer. It's a very noble role requiring minimum of acting skills much like schwarzenegger's "Conan the Barbarian".
This role would be beneficial to all countries involved as it would increase global oil prices as well as ascertain US dominating stance in the middle east.
The production, a rehash of Walt Disney's "Uncle scrooge gets even richer" will be a great success due to the fact the world audience has become well divided by the political soap opera "days of our lives" and will undoubtedly, believe this to be a credible story as they always have.
You'll be given a minimum of script lines to preach, like "death to America" and "Oil Tanker.... what Oil Tanker?
something we believe to be well in your capabilities. All we require is the use of a few of your fishing boats and crew, we will provide the empty tankers, drones and cgi.

Thank you
D.Trump OMG (orange man good)

a reply to: gortex