War with Iran?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-31-2019, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like I get the last word, summarizing the exchange over our last four posts.

You: "The UK seized a ship that was violating existing EU sanctions as it was bound for Syria.  This had nothing to do with the Iran deal and I literally pointed that out in the post you just quoted."

Me: The British claimed the Iranian ship was violating EU sanctions on Syria. But the head of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non members. So why seize a non EU ship? Spanish claim Britain was acting under US instructions to squeeze Iran's economy, to force it to a new Iran Deal. 
Supporting links:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
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.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/crisis-talks-iran-nuclear-deal-set-kick-vienna-190728072008700.html
"Developments have occurred, such as the seizure of the tanker carrying Iranian oil in Gibraltar, which in our view is considered a breach of the JCPOA," Araghchi said in comments carried on Iranian state TV.
"Countries party to the JCPOA must not create any obstacles in the way of Iran exporting its oil," he added.

You: "Based on absolutely nothing in your quoted sources."   and

"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."

So noting the EU does not impose its sanctions on non-EU countries is NOT a new point?  NOT in my quoted sources?

Clear enough who is ignoring what here. You brought an unloaded gun to a knife fight. No ammunition? Repeat refuted claim and counter accuse; repeat refuted claim and counter-accuse--and then insist you'll only respond if there is "something new."  

You would not have to "save face" if you didn't launch into threads making bald assertions easily refuted, and then devoting your remaining energy to dodging the refutation by dogmatic, unsupported reassertion, and claiming others are not reading carefully, "ignoring" your facts, and otherwise at fault.

Then kindly show any proof that the UK seized the tanker due to US pressure or insistence.  Until you do so I'll take the UK's word on why they acted as they did.  Keep making excused for Iran though, it's enlightening. 

I await your next obnoxiously condescending post with ill disguised anticipation.