War with Iran?

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

No. The EU has all along been "actively" imposing sanctions on Syria--through EU members. But it has not been "actively" requiring non EU countries not the target of Syrian sanctions to adhere to EU sanctions.

For the 3rd time, I quote an EU official, speaking in official capacity, stating that the EU does not enforce EU sanctions on non-members. Here are his words. Again.

"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.”

The point of the bolded is that while the EU would require EU members like France or Denmark or Poland to honor EU sanctions on Syria, it would NOT force non-EU countries like Panama or Brazil or China, not themselves targets of sanction, to adhere to EU sanction policy.  "That's what the US does," not the EU.

If this is NOT a claim that the EU does not enforce EU policies on countries which do not belong to the EU, and are not themselves the target of Syrian sanctions, then why point out that "Iran is not a member of the EU"?

You take Bildt to claim the EU does not impose sanctions on ANY non-EU countries--like Syria--in the same sentence he references EU sanctions imposed on Syria. That would be quite a contradiction. "Demonstrably false," as you put it.

But it is a "falsehood" no one is bothering to demonstrate--but you. And why would anyone, if the rest of the world understands Bildt's point is not that the EU does not impose sanctions on ANY non-EU nations, but rather that the EU does not police non-EU nations' shipping to insure they are respecting EU sanctions on Syria.

Which means that Britain and Gibraltar were not following EU policy when they seized an Iranian tanker flying a Panamanian flag, while claiming they were enforcing EU sanctions.