07-30-2019, 04:55 PM
(07-30-2019, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not simply "asking the same question." I am pointing out that you have not actually answered my questions. That is why I dislike your answers. As usual.
The current disputed started with post #352, where, working from a link discussing the US refusal to protect anyone else's shipping in the Gulf, or form a coalition to do so, I stated that "I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis," and your first "answer" was that "Iran is responsible for their own actions." Unless you are claiming that is how Iran will view US paralysis, you are not answering the question. You are changing the subject.
In #357 I reiterate that my question is about "chains of consequences," the logic of events, not the morality of international actors regarding past events.
In post #358 I add a new link, regarding Britain's decision to form a coalition to protect shipping in default of US protection, crossing US policy to salvage the Iran deal.
Your immediate response in post #359 is "duh, The UK is an active signatory to the Iran Deal and hopes to salvage it" (repeating the reporting from my link) and their decision "should surprise no one." Of course it is not surprising that Britain responds to the US action by proposing its own coalition. The surprise is that they have to do this, WHY they have to do it.
Since everyone agrees the US/Britain are not working together because the US doesn't want a coalition and Britain doesn't want to be seen as part of the US policy in the Gulf because it wants to keep the Iran Deal, and Britain resolves the need for security by forming its own coalition, repeating all that doesn't explain why the separation should not be surprising or the coalition "face saving," however "bare bones" and oft repeated.
Question: How is separation between the US and Britain business as usual, unremarkable, as in not a tremendous stress on our favored ally, fissuring Middle East policy heretofore coordinated for 70 years? How will our allies view this separation and the costs it imposes on them?
Would this be your answer?
With the exception of the merely asserted "face saving" claim, this unnecessarily repeats what everyone already agrees on, without answering what was asked. Consequences? Our allies views? Britain did not propose a coalition to fill a genuine security vacuum, but to "save face" for not committing to a US policy universally condemned? Nothing to see here folks, move along?
Hmmm. No "worldview" in scattershot, off topic comments about Iran's "responsibility" and "piracy" and your Pompeoesque shrugging off of Allies' complaints? Why is this not a case in which Trump is "destroying old alliances"? Because "The UK wants to preserve the Iran deal . . . They realize that direct cooperation with the US Navy would jeopardize said deal . . . "etc.?
You can always assume that I read entire posts, and more, before commenting. Saving face is claiming you are not going to continue answering questions with non answers.
Again a lot of the same tripe, not a single new point. You also continue to completely ignore the fact that the tit for tat seizing of each other's ships has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran deal, at all. Any "security vacuum" is caused by a lack of the Royal Navy's ability to protect its own shipping necessitated by Iran's state sanctioned piracy as a response to a UK seizure of an Iranian tanker violating EU sanctions over Syria.
I'm now going to save face by ignoring your response if it contains nothing new. Feel free to claim whatever victory you choose from this.
