[talaniman]

Skirting sanctions ain't good.

[paraclete]

Skirting sanctions ain't good.

There appears to be only one nation on Earth who believes sanctions are an effective weapon. They are indeed a blunt instrument with consequences. You may remember that sanctions are what forced Japan into WWII. Admittedly their actions could not be permitted to continue but direct confrontation may have led to a better outcome.

Now the consequence of sanctions are playing out in the Gulf and oddly it is the UK that is on the front line. This is what comes of toadying to the US, you get yourself into a fight you haven't prepared for. The UK ceased to be a force east of Suez 70 years ago and the Iranians recognise this. The UK should have left the US Mediterranian Fleet to intercept that tanker because the US has no intention of protecting any vessel other than its own. Anyway this argument drones on

[jlisenbe]

The UK should have left the US Mediterranian Fleet to intercept that tanker because the US has no intention of protecting any vessel other than its own.

First we interfere too much, and then not enough. And so it goes.

[paraclete]

First we interfere too much, .

I'll go with that thought, you like the average bully, loud, in your face and when confronted you go to water

[jlisenbe]

I'll go with that thought, you like the average bully, loud, in your face and when confronted you go to water

You're welcome for saving your rear ends during WW 2.

As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It is my fond hope that the U.S. will say to the rest of the largely defenseless world, "Take care of your oil shipping lanes yourself. We're energy independent. Not our problem." A nuclear armed Iran would be our problem, but we don't need that oil.

[tomder55]

Brit commandos are more than capable of retaking the vessels back . The question is ;has the civilized world stopped taking on the fight against piracy ?


If the choice is sanctions or allowing the 12ers to develop nukes then I'll attempt sanctions 1st . The only other option after that is war .

[talaniman]

Just the latest escalation in a messy affair between entitled big mouths and thugs trying to rule the world. Pick a side, you lose. I wish it were as simple as just piracy.

[tomder55]

You may remember that sanctions are what forced Japan into WWII. Admittedly their actions could not be permitted to continue but direct confrontation may have led to a better outcome.

What a warped distorted view of the history . The Japanese had imperial expansion on their mind when they put the chain of events into place. Japan's eyes were 1st on resource rich Siberia They had defeated Russia handily in 1905 in Manchuria .But Siberia was the prize. .They needed the resources because their expansion into China was proving to be more difficult that expected .In the summer of 1939 they attacked Russia on the Mongolia frontier .

In the climactic battle, August 20-31, 1939, the Japanese were crushed in a tank battle at

Khalkhyn Gol by Soviet General

Georgy Zhukov (who was also responsible for defeating the German invaders of Russia making him the greatest General in WWII). Once the Japanese were denied Siberia they had no choice but the look for resouces along the Pacific rim .The sanctions imposed on Japan were designed to prevent them the ability to get the resources to fuel their imperial expansion. They did not provoke war . They were designed to deny the Japanese the ability to continue war .

The same can be said of sanctions against Iran. Their pursuit of nukes is designed to make their ambitions for regional hegemony a reality .

The emperor gave Iran billions which they used to fund terrorism support their nuke and ballistic missile programs and for

domestic crackdown,

. The apologists say it was their money. Ridiculous after 40 years of crimes against humanity, no one with a backbone or a conscience would give them a penny.

[jlisenbe]

The apologists say it was their money. Ridiculous after 40 years of crimes against humanity, no one with a backbone or a conscience would give them a penny.

Well stated. It was possibly the dumbest move made by the Obama administration and completely inexcusable.

[paraclete]

You're welcome for saving your rear ends during WW 2.

As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It is my fond hope that the U.S. will say to the rest of the largely defenseless world, "Take care of your oil shipping lanes yourself. We're energy independent. Not our problem." A nuclear armed Iran would be our problem, but we don't need that oil.

That warped idea of history never gets old, does it? Japan had no intention of invading Australia. They had established their objectives and achieved them. Their problem was they lacked the resources to hold them. They knew your military strength was too great, even in 1941, they hoped to get you to negotiate, instead they infuriated you and what followed was a Pacific wide war which you happened to fight in our back yard to keep MacArthur safe

We don't buy oil from the middle east, certainly not Iran, so all of that is a side show, and you keep selling tickets to the conflicts you create

[paraclete]

What a warped distorted view of the history .

The same can be said of sanctions against Iran. Their pursuit of nukes is designed to make their ambitions for regional hegemony a reality .

Tom, giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing, just like they gave you nothing by signing the treaty. Trump recognised this, but disowning an international treaty is not the way to negotiate, even though it seems to be the only play Trump makes.

Forcing a soveriegn nation into poverty isn't the way to do it, it didn't work on Iraq

[tomder55]

it didn't work on Iraq

and you know why the UN oil for food program failed ? Because our "partners" like Australia violated the terms . (Clete knows what I am referencing . Everyone else look up the AWB scandal) . Yeah if sanction programs are routinely violated by coalition partners : (especially by scum like UN

Secretary-General Annan,)

they are more likely going to fail. When the world stood in solidarity with a different sanction program , South Africans realized they had no choice but the give up their nuke program .

giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing,

"their funds" was not available for them to use to fund their terror programs until the emperor gave them to the 12ers for hostage ransom . Those funds didn't belong to the 12ers .They belong to the people of Iran .They belong to the victims of the 12ers international crimes .

[jlisenbe]

giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing,

That's such a poor excuse. It's on the level of a parent giving their son his inheritance knowing full well he is a known terrorist and will use it to kill people. When we returned that money to Iran, we knew full well they were not simply going to use it to build schools.

[paraclete]

That's such a poor excuse. It's on the level of a parent giving their son his inheritance knowing full well he is a known terrorist and will use it to kill people. When we returned that money to Iran, we knew full well they were not simply going to use it to build schools.

all you are proving is there has been more than one dill in the White House

[paraclete]

and you know why the UN oil for food program failed ? Because our "partners" like Australia violated the terms . (Clete knows what I am referencing . Everyone else look up the AWB scandal) . Yeah if sanction programs are routinely violated by coalition partners : (especially by scum like UN

Secretary-General Annan,)

they are more likely going to fail. When the world stood in solidarity with a different sanction program , South Africans realized they had no choice but the give up their nuke program .




"their funds" was not available for them to use to fund their terror programs until the emperor gave them to the 12ers for hostage ransom . Those funds didn't belong to the 12ers .They belong to the people of Iran .They belong to the victims of the 12ers international crimes .

Are you still wrankling over being out maneuvered in that wheat deal. What's a little bribery in an arab country? And a South African bomb, be serious, Dem Kaffirs can barely feed demselves. mon What a boor


You have to get over Iran out maneuvering you in Iraq it is a matter of religion. What part of you ain't Shiite Muslim do you not understand?

[jlisenbe]

all you are proving is there has been more than one dill in the White House

I think it demonstrated your contention was a poor one.

[paraclete]

I think it demonstrated your contention was a poor one.

Really, what is your evidence?

[jlisenbe]

You want evidence that giving money, for any reason (or pretense) to a country committed to violence and terrorism is a bad idea? Really??

[paraclete]

You want evidence that giving money, for any reason (or pretense) to a country committed to violence and terrorism is a bad idea? Really??

Cut out the holier than thou, the US does it all the time. The US supported Saddam and he fell out of favour over Kuwait, that's what happens when you support a dictator because he is the enemy of your enemy. Obama was just a long line of expedience. I think we liked you better when you weren't imposing Pax Americana and don't do as I do, do as I say doesn't really cut it, the rest of us have a part to play in this world and as one of our Prime Ministers said, I did it my way

[jlisenbe]

Cut out the holier than thou, the US does it all the time.

And you need to cut out the distractions. You know full well the topic was the particular instance of giving monies to Iran with them in the midst of malicious pursuits. The other instances you note are worth discussing, but they are not the present discussion. You try to make the Iranian deal out to be merely returning to them that which was theirs. True enough, but to give them so much as penny in the present circumstance was unwise in the extreme.