War with Iran is it imminent

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, sir roger said:

I have no idea about the rights and wrongs about either situation , not being a maritime legal expert , but the immediate acceptance that we are completely in the right ( not pushed into it by the US , honest guv) whereas they are dirty foreign pirates may give a snapshot of where the Brexit vote came from.

It is! Because the assumption in here that we are wrong and Iran are right is fucking mental.  The Iran that hangs gays, subjugates it’s people and is run as a mental theocracy!  All this ‘coincidence’ bollocks about pay rises in the civil sector!   

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I miss the good old days of the Russians being the baddies. All this Middle East brinkmanship, Islamic extremists and cyber wars bollocks has made spy novels absolutely shite. 

 

That's the real crime here. Bring back Karla.

[Rico1304]

37 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

You basically said that seizing a ship you believe is breaking the law is an act of piracy. The case of the Grace 1 suggests that you're wrong.

 

Do you know which laws Iran has accused the ship of breaking? BBC Breakfast mentioned something about failing to stop and provide assistance after an alleged collision with an Iranian fishing vessel. In those circumstances, is it relevant whether or not it's in international waters?

International waters means they have no jurisdiction.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

33 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

the assumption in here that we are wrong and Iran are right

Who assumes that?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

International waters means they have no jurisdiction.  

So, if a vessel commits an offence in international waters nobody has the right to intervene? That's fucked up, if true.

[sir roger]

Surprise, surprise. The poodle has done well.

 

The United States has authorised the deployment of military personnel and resources to Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon says, to provide “an additional deterrent” in the face of “emergent, credible threats” in the region.

 

The move, agreed in conjunction with the kingdom, aims to boost regional security as tensions in the Gulf mount over Iran’s standoff with the US over sanctions and the 2015 nuclear agreement, and Tehran’s seizure of two British-linked vessels in the strait of Hormuz on Friday.

Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry confirmed the deployment.

 

“Based on mutual cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, and their desire to enhance everything that could preserve the security of the region and its stability ... King Salman gave his approval to host American forces,” a ministry spokesman was quoted by Saudi state news agency SPA as saying.

 

In June, the Pentagon said it would deploy 1,000 troops to the Middle East but did not say where they were going.

Saudi Arabia has not hosted US forces since 2003 when they withdrew following the end of the war with Iraq.

Gulf crisis: story began with UK's seizure of Iranian-flagged ship in Gibraltar

 

Read more

The US presence in Saudi Arabia lasted 12 years, starting with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

As many as 200 US aircraft were stationed at the Prince Sultan air base, around 80 km (50 miles) south of the capital at the peak of the Iraq war, and as many as 2,700 missions a day were handled by the headquarters in Saudi Arabia.

 

But relations between the two countries were not always easy during the 12 years of cooperation, particularly following the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York which were orchestrated by Saudi-born al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

 

Tensions in the Gulf increased further on Friday when Iran said it had seized two British-flagged tankers in the strait of Hormuz.

 

Iran’s revolutionary Guard claimed to have taken the British-flagged Stena Impero into port after Iranian officials said it had infringed maritime regulations.

 

The ship’s owners said the vessel had been “approached by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter during transit of the strait of Hormuz while the vessel was in international waters”.

 

A second tanker, the Mesdar, which is Liberian-flagged but British operated, also made a sudden diversion from its course towards the Saudi port of Ras Tanura on Friday, and tracking data showed it moving northwards towards the Iranian coast before apparently turning off its tracking signal.

 

Iran’s semi-official news agency, Fars, reported the ship was briefly detained in the strait of Hormuz and given a notice to comply with environmental regulations before being allowed to continue on its way.

 

The incidents in the strait of Hormuz came as US President Donald Trump insisted that the US military had downed an Iranian drone that was threatening a US naval vessel, despite denials from Tehran.

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

So, if a vessel commits an offence in international waters nobody has the right to intervene? That's fucked up, if true.

No, there’s international law.  Courts can intervene. But imagine I create a law saying green ships are illegal in the uk and then board all green ships in international waters...

[Davelfc]

13 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

So, if a vessel commits an offence in international waters nobody has the right to intervene? That's fucked up, if true.

I think it's covered under 'Universal jurisdiction' 

[sir roger]

41 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It is! Because the assumption in here that we are wrong and Iran are right is fucking mental.  

I haven't seen anybody say that at all , I'm sure the Iranian ship was contravening regulations.

 

What strikes me is that we have never been that bothered about rules being flouted for donkey's years , so it would take astonishing naivety to believe there is no correlation to USA's escalation in the area and us suddenly wanting to be the Straits of Hormuz policeman.

 

Basically, I am sick of us being the fucking lapdog for USA , it's not as if we ever get anything back in return other than a pat on the head.

 

The situation a few months ago was that everybody had a treaty with Iran , that although it was probably felt was favourable to Iran was worth the imbalance to keep the region a little bit more stable. In strides the mango-coloured cowboy with his size fives trashing the treaty for his own ends. We then have a simple question , do we stick with the rest of the world to try and get the treaty back on track , or do we do Trump's dirty work & get dragged into a very volatile situation which could easily compromise the lives of British citizens in future.

 

Guess which way we jumped ?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

45 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No, there’s international law.  Courts can intervene. But imagine I create a law saying green ships are illegal in the uk and then board all green ships in international waters...

 

37 minutes ago, Champions of Europe said:

I think it's covered under 'Universal jurisdiction' 

Serious question  - who enforces the law in international waters? If a naval vessel witnesses a crime, do they have to sit back and watch the crime unfold, waiting for a court on the other side of the world to reach a decision? Or is the naval vessel authorised to intervene?

 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Serious question  - who enforces the law in international waters? If a naval vessel witnesses a crime, do they have to sit back and watch the crime unfold, waiting for a court on the other side of the world to reach a decision? Or is the naval vessel authorised to intervene?

 

I think, and it’s only think, that if there’s threat to life they can intervene. 

[Bjornebye]

It depends on the offence. Smuggling or hostile acts can be acted on right away. And if they find out beans are going  on fry-ups in the galley then the naval ship can be blown up if it doesn’t drill a few missiles into the dirty bastards 

[Rico1304]

That interview; 

 

- tracked in international waters until redirects into Iranian waters

- is freedom of movement in international waters a fighting matter - he says yes

- hopefully diplomatic solution - he doubts it. 

- could be swap, doubts that will happen as blackmail

- Iran hurting, nothing to lose

- have warned they will stop oil if sanctions aren’t lifted

- attack on all shipping 

- they look like pirates

- international pressure to get oil out (Japan etc)

- could put more warships out there

- milder factions of Iranian people aren’t in power

- FS didn’t rule out military action

- heading back to tanker wars of the 80’s 

- unless sanctions change going to get worse

- Iran deal looks dead

- next 6 weeks he thinks it will escalate 

- in September could get worse

- freedom of international waters paramount 

- tanker swap shows weakness

- taking a ship in international waters is piracy

- US have offered sit down

- all about oil and investment into iran

 

[aRdja]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

It is! Because the assumption in here that we are wrong and Iran are right is fucking mental.   

If you were looking at the bilateral relationship between the two countries then that wouldn’t be a bad assumption IMO. The UK did overthrow their secular government for oil. 

[SasaS]

49 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Serious question  - who enforces the law in international waters? If a naval vessel witnesses a crime, do they have to sit back and watch the crime unfold, waiting for a court on the other side of the world to reach a decision? Or is the naval vessel authorised to intervene?

 

 

Serious question - did you actually believe for a second this was not done in retaliation for UK seizing Iran's tanker at Gibraltar? The chance the tanker did something wrong under any jurisdiction in the context of the current escalation is almost non--existant.

[TheHowieLama]

The vessel's owners said it was fully complying with regulations and was in international waters when it was approached.

 

Could believe them I guess. There does not seem to be any damaged fishing vessel around.

 

 

This happened a matter of hours after the announcement on the Iranian tanker. Not days, hours -- seems strange.

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Serious question  - who enforces the law in international waters? 

 

For shipping, the IMO ulitmately. The flagged country holds jurisdiction and the closest coastal country has some authority as well. The speculation is if this vessel were already in international waters it would put Oman as the closest coastal country.

 

If you have any doubt about the veracity of those claims note that Iran's official position has already changed on this:

 

A spokesman for Iran's highly influential Guardian Council has been quoted describing Britain's detention of Grace 1 as part of an "illegitimate economic war" and therefore Iran's response in seizing the Strena Impero ws part of "the rule of reciprocal action... well-known in international law".

 

This contrasts with the initial comments from Iranian authorities on Friday that the tanker had been "violating international maritime rules".

 

[clangers]

Just bring it on, we haven't had a good war for a while, what's not to love? Great TV. I know there will be thousands of innocent victims and it'll be an economic disaster but along with Brexit I welcome the coming apocalypse. This isn't real anyway is it, it's surely all reality TV? People keep telling me Donald Trump is the president, that's surely a wind up? Thank god we're in the capable hands of BJ now.

[Rico1304]

16 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

For shipping, the IMO ulitmately. The flagged country holds jurisdiction and the closest coastal country has some authority as well. The speculation is if this vessel were already in international waters it would put Oman as the closest coastal country.

 

If you have any doubt about the veracity of those claims note that Iran's official position has already changed on this:

 

A spokesman for Iran's highly influential Guardian Council has been quoted describing Britain's detention of Grace 1 as part of an "illegitimate economic war" and therefore Iran's response in seizing the Strena Impero ws part of "the rule of reciprocal action... well-known in international law".

 

This contrasts with the initial comments from Iranian authorities on Friday that the tanker had been "violating international maritime rules".

 

Who’d have thunk it? 

[No2]

Great to see Britain upholding EU law when everyone else turned a blind eye.

 

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”

[Section_31]

US invasion tactics 101. Same as Iraq.

 

Place unreasonable sanctions on regime, resist all attempts by regime to comply with what you want, tell everyone they've got weapons of mass destruction or are up to heinous terrorist shenanigans in the region that you can't go into too much depth on.

 

Get your outriders to get on-board and then eventually invade. 

 

Israeli F-16s  will be all over these cats' oil refineries before you can say Rachel Riley likes pork sausage.

[Davelfc]

Iran has released a video of the capture, unfortunately it's been hosted by that scum rag so won't be posting it. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

Serious question - did you actually believe for a second this was not done in retaliation for UK seizing Iran's tanker at Gibraltar? The chance the tanker did something wrong under any jurisdiction in the context of the current escalation is almost non--existant.

Not really.  Both sides are run by twits and twats and gits with gats engaging in tit for tat.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Corbyn's comments; talking sense, as usual. 

 

 

[magicrat]

6 hours ago, sir roger said:

I haven't seen anybody say that at all , I'm sure the Iranian ship was contravening regulations.

 

What strikes me is that we have never been that bothered about rules being flouted for donkey's years , so it would take astonishing naivety to believe there is no correlation to USA's escalation in the area and us suddenly wanting to be the Straits of Hormuz policeman.

 

Basically, I am sick of us being the fucking lapdog for USA , it's not as if we ever get anything back in return other than a pat on the head.

 

The situation a few months ago was that everybody had a treaty with Iran , that although it was probably felt was favourable to Iran was worth the imbalance to keep the region a little bit more stable. In strides the mango-coloured cowboy with his size fives trashing the treaty for his own ends. We then have a simple question , do we stick with the rest of the world to try and get the treaty back on track , or do we do Trump's dirty work & get dragged into a very volatile situation which could easily compromise the lives of British citizens in future.

 

Guess which way we jumped ?

Patience ,the chlorinated chicken is on its way