Allies play hard to get on U.S. proposal to protect oil shipping lanes

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Why would Iran care about the Middle East with so many of its enemies there?  

Because it doesn't have only enemies there. But you are right in a way. The US did topple Saddam and allow the Shiites to gain control of Iraq. But once that was done, they wanted the Americans out of there. 

[EVENKEEL]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And who created this whole situation? Do you think that might possibly be the reason why other nations don't want to help the US? You broke it, you bought it.

Those reasons will all disappear when reality sets in. Iran Hijacked a UK ship, end of story. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Those reasons will all disappear when reality sets in. Iran Hijacked a UK ship, end of story. 

But it seems that it's the beginning of the story that concerns most countries. And the UK was very foolish to stop that ship. According to Spanish news sources. the United States was following it via satellite and maybe other surveillance. When it asked the UK to stop the ship, it complied. As has been noted elsewhere, it could have simply warned the ship to stay out of its waters. And been much better off for it.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And the UK was very foolish to stop that ship.

 

UK was foolish for stopping a tanker in prohibited waters who will be no doubt using that oil money to fund terrorism? 

 

I mean whats your point here? Let Iran be? Let them do whatever they want? 

 

What about if they decide to have a terrorist attack in Bristol? Or London? 

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

UK was foolish for stopping a tanker in prohibited waters who will be no doubt using that oil money to fund terrorism? 

 

I mean whats your point here? Let Iran be? Let them do whatever they want? 

 

What about if they decide to have a terrorist attack in Bristol? Or London? 

There had not been any Shia terrorist attacks in western countries for decades. Recent attacks in Paris, London, etc... have been conducted by Sunni terrorists, who for most of them have been brainwashed in Salafist mosquees financed by S.A. But Trump acting against Iran in order to support S.A. interests in the ME is fine, right?

[candide]

37 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Backed and supplied by Iran with the intent to kill Americans. They are not hero's and their intent is to spread Iranian influence, kill Americans and Jews, and terrorism.

Shia tend to support Shia and Sunni tend to support Sunni (including Al Quaida and ISIS) in this region. Nothing unexpected. Same in Yemen: SA and the UAE provide weapons they bought from the US to Al Quaida and other Sunni factions, while Iran supplies weapon to the quasi-Shia faction. But for you, Iran is bad while SA and the UAE are good, right?

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

Quote

Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook told a State Department press briefing Tuesday that Tehran is to blame for 17 percent of all U.S. service personnel deaths between 2003 and 2011, having supplied weaponry to Shiite militias fighting U.S. occupation.

 

Hook noted that the U.S. figure is in addition to the "thousands" of Iraqi troops and civilians killed in attacks by Iranian proxy forces.

 

Wow..... I need this explaining 

 

Brian hook blames Iran for 17% of US deaths caused by Shiite militia fighting US occupation.... because Iran supplied the guns

 

thats your argument?..... thats an argument?

 

with the US being one of the biggest, if not the biggest, suppliers of arms to just about everyone, your line of reasoning means that the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.... and in response, 608 Americans died?

 

do you actually think about this stuff before you post?

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

do you actually think about this stuff before you post?

 

Iran giving weapons to factions that are trying to kill Americans makes Iran responsible for those deaths, those factions being Iranian proxy armies. 

 

You gonna try and deny it? 

 

3 minutes ago, jany123 said:

your line of reasoning means that the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people...

 

If we are militarizing a faction to fight you behind the scenes as an unofficial proxy army, then yes. If we are selling arms to allied governments, then no. 

 

And we don't sell arms to 'just about anyone'. 

[jany123]

10 hours ago, PhonThong said:

Even the Chinese have to have USD to trade on the oil market.

Just what sanctions do you suggest the world put on the U.S.? 

 Each country has the right to conduct business with whomever they wish, they also have the right to stop conducting business with other countries. When the US imposes sanctions on a country they are using their tremendous economic power to punish countries with whom they have problems. For example, when the US imposes sanctions on North Korea they are stopping North Korea’s ability to conduct business through US banks and businesses. When the US imposes sanctions on a country they also will stop doing business with any other country that does business with the sanctioned country. Again, every country has the right to do business with whomever they choose. However, the US has such substantial influence in the world economy that when they impose sanctions on a country it is in the best interest of other countries to honor those sanctions as well because if not they don’t they will lose access to American banking, businesses and trade. As well as access to other countries economies because they are not honoring the US sanctions.

  Be careful what you wish for.

Right there, you just described an international bully vs a geopolitical leader. You may be calling a spade a spade, but... the US shouldn’t be using its spade to shovel Shiite.

 

and... there is a big difference between honoring, for honors sake (willingly) vs being compelled to honor (forced)

 

sanctions that the world, should it decide its in the best interest of all, putting aside regional rivalries, to thwart the efforts of a would be autocrat, who’s government is unwilling or unable to control him, might include reducing sales of metals and other materials to wage war, as well as defying US sanctions on others. Think South Africa and the end of apartheid.

 

 

 

[jany123]

6 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Iran giving weapons to factions that are trying to kill Americans makes Iran responsible for those deaths, those factions being Iranian proxy armies. 

 

You gonna try and deny it? 

 

 

If we are militarizing a faction to fight you behind the scenes as an unofficial proxy army, then yes. If we are selling arms to allied governments, then no. 

 

And we don't sell arms to 'just about anyone'. 

No... I’m not going to try and deny that 608 Americans died because Iran sold some guns.

 

are you trying to trivialize the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died because of American supplied guns and bombs.

 

your choices here are limited... the most obvious response is to admit to a staggering display of hypocrisy.

 

???????????? and then there’s the whole NRA suck my second amendment thingy, because guns don’t kill people, people kill people, so I guess whichever way you jump, going forward, hypocrisy is At the heart of the matter... American hypocrisy... and that where you (the Divided States) lead, others should follow, is pretty messed up.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Iran giving weapons to factions that are trying to kill Americans makes Iran responsible for those deaths, those factions being Iranian proxy armies. 

 

You gonna try and deny it? 

 

 

If we are militarizing a faction to fight you behind the scenes as an unofficial proxy army, then yes. If we are selling arms to allied governments, then no. 

 

And we don't sell arms to 'just about anyone'. 

No, to more than anyone. You're even supplying the major supporter and supplier of terrorism with nuclear capabilities.

 

Your posts show a blind faith in US foreign policy, which shows a clear lack of understanding of the ME geopolitical situation.

[jany123]

3 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

Yes.  They need the money and defense of USA.  

Debatable... what “they” need, is to not make an enemy of the school yard bully, which is a completely different thing, in that the adversary being feared, is the supposed friend.

 

The US could use its might for right, however, it appears to be eschewing traditional moral values to further its economic growth (or that of its masters)... to wit... North Korea has a great real estate potential to build trump hotels on its coastline... according to your dear leader.

[Thainesss]

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m not going to try and deny that 608 Americans died because Iran sold some guns.

 

No, Iran didn't 'sell some guns' they GAVE the weapons to factions that were trying to kill Americans, with the express intent to kill Americans. Jews too. 

 

 

[jany123]

25 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

And we don't sell arms to 'just about anyone'. 

Lmao... I mis spoke... and ya got me.

 

36% of weapons are supplied by the US to 98 countries world wide.... but then again... that’s just about anyone who wants them isn’t it?... the rest get them thru third party dealers.

[jany123]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

No, Iran didn't 'sell some guns' they GAVE the weapons to factions that were trying to kill Americans, with the express intent to kill Americans. Jews too. 

 

 

So... now your saying 608 Americans died because Iran gave guns away.... and you still ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands have died by American weapons that were sold to third party countries.

 

at least the Iranians weren’t profiting from those deaths, unlike Americans profiting from the deaths of hundreds of thousands... who then holds the moral high ground... those profiting from death, or those non for profit entities?

 

 

[PhonThong]

40 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Right there, you just described an international bully vs a geopolitical leader. You may be calling a spade a spade, but... the US shouldn’t be using its spade to shovel Shiite.

 

and... there is a big difference between honoring, for honors sake (willingly) vs being compelled to honor (forced)

 

sanctions that the world, should it decide its in the best interest of all, putting aside regional rivalries, to thwart the efforts of a would be autocrat, whose government is unwilling or unable to control him, might include reducing sales of metals and other materials to wage war, as well as defying US sanctions on others. Think South Africa and the end of apartheid.

 

 

 

I don't care one way or another. It was just suggested that the rest of the world should have sanctions against the United States. 

 I asked,  how that would be done. What would you sanction? 

[jany123]

52 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

I don't care one way or another. It was just suggested that the rest of the world should have sanctions against the United States. 

 I asked,  how that would be done. What would you sanction? 

 

 Sanctions in the form of trade embargo’s, is what I replied, as outlined below, in the post that you quoted me as having made

(your name is on it, because I lifted it straight from your response to my post.... my words, quoted by you, but obviously not read and understood by you)

54 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

sanctions that the world, should it decide its in the best interest of all, putting aside regional rivalries, to thwart the efforts of a would be autocrat, whose government is unwilling or unable to control him, might include reducing sales of metals and other materials to wage war, as well as defying US sanctions on others..... Think South Africa and the end of apartheid.

Would it be easy ?... no

would it succeed?... arguably not

would it be right? ... arguably yes

the real purpose?.... international condemnation of the trump and US foreign policy

the result?... quantifiable damage to America’s reputation.

[Morch]

On 7/20/2019 at 8:02 AM, Cryingdick said:

Let the "allies" play coy. America isn't threatened by Iran we have a presence and very few tankers in the area. We have oil at home the "allies" can defend their own vessels.  

 

On 7/20/2019 at 12:46 PM, jimmyyy said:

The US does not need oil from the middle east we have our own sources, so who really needs help when Iran acts like this, sure as hell not the USA. 

 

So, if the USA isn't bothered, and it's not a threat, why is the Trump administration so invested in this?

[Morch]

On 7/20/2019 at 3:54 PM, spidermike007 said:

 

No question the US is playing with fire. A war with Iran could cripple the US and bring horror to the economy. The degree of terror they could wreak on US soil could make 9/11 look like an intro. They just do not see it. And a lot of Trump's devotees do not seem to see it either. Iran is far more powerful an adversary than Iraq was, and how well did we do there? Does the US ever learn anything? Is the US capable of learning, with regard to it's rather hapless and bizarre foreign policy. Does it even have a foreign policy under Trump, with a dismantled State Department? 

 

He will not be re-elected. That is fairly certain. And he will probably spend many years in prison, after the SDNY gets finished with him. And the world will rejoice, that a hateful, criminal, racist bully was finally brought down. 

 

More of your trademark hyperbole scaremongering. The USA playing with fire. Right. Not Iran. The mighty Iran will bring down the USA. Sure. "Horror". "Terror". More like over-hyped nonsense from someone who read a couple of articles, and that too - without paying much attention to caveats and nuance.

 

As for Trump's re-election prospects, I think it's way too soon to tell. A whole lot can happen between now and and then.

 

[Morch]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, billd766 said:

So tell us all why Iran is acting like this?

 

Obviously it has nothing to do with Trump pulling out of a fairly stable deal, sending a carrier group into shallow waters, sending B52s to the gulf area, sending extra troops as well, declaring sanctions on Iran and ANY country that has dealings with Iran.

 

So why in any gods name would you expect Iran to roll over and say sorry.

 

IMHO to de-escalate the problems perhaps the USA and especially the POTUS (who is the prime creator of the mess) should pull out of the region completely and lift the sanctions immediately.

 

IMO, the last line exemplifies the nonsense these topics are infested with.

Not that it would happen (and you know it) - but a full USA pull-out from the region would not necessarily de-escalate the situation. One obvious scenario is Iran getting more emboldened with its regional efforts and push. Or taking more liberties with maritime traffic when it suits. Basically, what you offer is if-Iran-gets-its-wet-dream-scenario, all will be well.

[Morch]

On 7/20/2019 at 10:04 PM, billd766 said:

Actually they did by proxy with the UK which is why the UK now has a problem with Iran.

 

It is now time for the USA to get sanctioned and the rest of the world to ignore US sanctions.

 

If you insist on ignoring European sanctions on oil supply to Syria, sure. Fits the narrative much better.

Ass for your international-sanctions-against-the-USA nonsense fantasy - you and who else? International cooperation doesn't manage even much lower bar issues.  And that's assuming the World at large is all on board with your agenda. It isn't.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, candide said:

There had not been any Shia terrorist attacks in western countries for decades. Recent attacks in Paris, London, etc... have been conducted by Sunni terrorists, who for most of them have been brainwashed in Salafist mosquees financed by S.A. But Trump acting against Iran in order to support S.A. interests in the ME is fine, right?

 

In shift, EU sanctions Iran over planned Europe attacks

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions/in-shift-eu-sanctions-iran-over-planned-europe-attacks-idUSKCN1P20UA

 

U.K. Seized Tons of Explosive Materials Linked to Hezbollah in 2015, Report Says

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/report-u-k-seized-tonnes-of-explosive-materials-linked-to-hezbollah-in-2015-1.7345269

 

And the local angle...

 

Iranians convicted over Bangkok bomb plot

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/thai-court-convicts-iranians-bomb-plot

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

UK was foolish for stopping a tanker in prohibited waters who will be no doubt using that oil money to fund terrorism? 

 

I mean whats your point here? Let Iran be? Let them do whatever they want? 

 

What about if they decide to have a terrorist attack in Bristol? Or London? 

And by stopping that ship they lessened the probability of that?

 

And it's doubtless they would use that money to fund terrorism why? You know what their spending priorities are? Demonizing much?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

No.

 

Shipping isn't threatened, one British ship was taken as revenge for the taking of an Iranian ship.

 

And no, it is not caused by Iran.

 

If you say so. Insurance rates are up, though. Oil prices showed a bump as well. But as long as you're satisfied there's no issues....why worry, eh?

 

Somehow, posters seem to feel that "revenge for" is a legitimate construct. It isn't. As for "not caused by Iran" - yeah, them leprechauns... But seriously, Trump started this mess, ok. How Iran acts or reacts is not dictated by the USA, though - these are Iranian choices. Choosing to fan the flames included.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

Doesn't Trump understand yet that the world does NOT revolve about him or the USA.

 

 

 

Reading these topics, or indeed, international news seems to disprove your point, if you even had one.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

In shift, EU sanctions Iran over planned Europe attacks

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions/in-shift-eu-sanctions-iran-over-planned-europe-attacks-idUSKCN1P20UA

 

U.K. Seized Tons of Explosive Materials Linked to Hezbollah in 2015, Report Says

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/report-u-k-seized-tonnes-of-explosive-materials-linked-to-hezbollah-in-2015-1.7345269

 

And the local angle...

 

Iranians convicted over Bangkok bomb plot

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/thai-court-convicts-iranians-bomb-plot

^

 

 

I will play the devil's advocate role:

- first case is more about fight between Iranians: targeting MEK (an organisation responsible for terrorist attacks in Iran), not UK citizens

- second case: it's unclear what the destination was (arms to be exported?). Main suspect not arrested

- third case: according to the article it could be a retaliation after a 'terrorist' attack in Iran.

 

I am not particularly sympathetic to these initiatives, but I think they cannot be compared to the killings by Sunni Al Quaida and ISIS in New York, Paris, London, Madrid, Brussels, etc....

 

An additional remark is that these articles (thank you for linking them) show that terrorism seems to be a relative concept as every country (including Iran) seems to undergo terrorist attacks.

 

Iran is surely not angelic and I despise religious extremists (in particular bearded ones, whatever their religion). Having said that, my fellow citizens and citizens of fellow countries such as UK, USA or Spain have been killed by Sunni organisations (Al Quaida and ISIS) related to enemies of Shia Iran, such as Saudi Arabia. So the enemies if my enemies....

[marcusarelus]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And by stopping that ship they lessened the probability of that?

 

And it's doubtless they would use that money to fund terrorism why? You know what their spending priorities are? Demonizing much?

Iran Spends $16 Billion Annually to Support Terrorists and Rogue Regimes.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2018/01/10/iran-spends-16-billion-annually-to-support-terrorists-and-rogue-regimes/

 

[PhonThong]

8 hours ago, jany123 said:

 

 Sanctions in the form of trade embargo’s, is what I replied, as outlined below, in the post that you quoted me as having made

(your name is on it, because I lifted it straight from your response to my post.... my words, quoted by you, but obviously not read and understood by you)

Would it be easy ?... no

would it succeed?... arguably not

would it be right? ... arguably yes

the real purpose?.... international condemnation of the trump and US foreign policy

the result?... quantifiable damage to America’s reputation.

Jany123

9 hours ago, PhonThong said:

sanctions that the world, should it decide its in the best interest of all, putting aside regional rivalries, to thwart the efforts of a would be autocrat, whose government is unwilling or unable to control him, might include reducing sales of metals and other materials to wage war, as well as defying US sanctions on others..... Think South Africa and the end of apartheid.

 

That is not my quote. You need to stop changing peoples quotes. Against forum rules. 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, candide said:

I will play the devil's advocate role:

- first case is more about fight between Iranians: targeting MEK (an organisation responsible for terrorist attacks in Iran), not UK citizens

- second case: it's unclear what the destination was (arms to be exported?). Main suspect not arrested

- third case: according to the article it could be a retaliation after a 'terrorist' attack in Iran.

 

I am not particularly sympathetic to these initiatives, but I think they cannot be compared to the killings by Sunni Al Quaida and ISIS in New York, Paris, London, Madrid, Brussels, etc....

 

An additional remark is that these articles (thank you for linking them) show that terrorism seems to be a relative concept as every country (including Iran) seems to undergo terrorist attacks.

 

Iran is surely not angelic and I despise religious extremists (in particular bearded ones, whatever their religion). Having said that, my fellow citizens and citizens of fellow countries such as UK, USA or Spain have been killed by Sunni organisations (Al Quaida and ISIS) related to enemies of Shia Iran, such as Saudi Arabia. So the enemies if my enemies....

 

 

You can play whatever you like. It still wouldn't make your original comment correct or factual. You wish to minimize it as being a "fight between Iranians"? Well, it's carried out on other countries soil, and thus potentially involving local citizens. Note that respective governments do not quite see things your way, and rightly so. If your "argument" had much merit, than the Skripal case wouldn't have been much of a thing.

 

The one who "compares" is you. I'm just pointing out that Iran does carry such actions abroad, in contradiction to your comment. I would also point out that's where the "state" in "state sponsored terrorism" applies. AQ or ISIS carrying out attacks is one thing, a government sponsoring such things is another.

 

As for "enemies of enemies" - its a saying that got limited mileage in reality, even when it can be applied. And while you do not actually speak for your fellow citizens, relevant governments in said countries have not, generally, embraced your point of view.

[EVENKEEL]

What would happen if the US just packed it and left the entire region. Just said here you go, go Saddam H. batshite crazy and do what you want to whoever you want. Oh and by the way, no one......absolutely no one from the middle east will ever be allowed into the USA. Here you go the rest of the world, take care of it.