War with Iran?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2019, 11:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Re: following closely the relation of statements to support, I only have time to respond to this point at the moment.

I quoted the Co-Chair of the EU Council of Foreign Relations stating, in reference to sanctions on Syria and the seizure of the Iranian ship, that the EU does not enforce its sanctions on non-Eu countries.  If the EU does not enforce its Syrian sanctions on non-EU nations, then the reason given for the seizure by Britain and Gibraltar does not fit--though it does align with the US goal of preventing Iran from selling oil anywhere. I.e., it aligns with the enforcement of US, not EU policy.

You claim the bolded regarding enforcement of EU Syrian sanctions on non-EU countries is "demonstrably false." That leads me to expect you have evidence that the EU routinely, as a matter of policy, impounds sanctioned cargo on ships from non-EU countries or some such. 

But you only provide a link to a quote that the EU "sanctions currently in place include an oil embargo."

This looks like "proof" of what no one is disputing--i.e., that there are EU sanctions in place on Syria. Not proof that I made a "demonstrably false statement" by quoting an EU official on EU policy. Happily, you "abstain" from calling me a liar.

So my "weasel loophole" would be that while my quote of an EU official stating EU policy NOT to enforce EU sanctions on Syria on non-EU nations does call into question the "official" British explanation of actions that align with US , not EU policy, your "proof" that EU sanctions on Syria "include oil" does not even address, much less refute, my (and Bildt's) point.

As expected, weaseling out of it.  If you want to have a semantic argument about how EU sanctions are imposed then I'm not really interested.  You claimed the UE does not sanction non-EU members.  This is demonstrably false.  I know your weasel attempt is to now claim they don't "actively" impose sanctions, but as that's not what you said that's not what is being addressed.

All of this is window dressing on your poorly constructed argument that is based on nothing but supposition.  You have zero solid proof that the UK acted on behest of the US and, of importance, this directly contradicts your initial point which is that the UK doesn't want to partner with the US because of the damage it would do to the Iran deal.  So which is it, does the UK want to help, and act on the behest of, the US?  Or do they want to shun US assistance and partnership as they hope to save the Iran deal?  Maybe you think they're trying to play both sides?  It'd be interesting if you actually picked a position and stuck with it, then I wouldn't have to ask these questions.