I watched the drama play out, too. Bush was urged by most world leaders to keep his trousers on and listen to Hans Blix. Did Bush go ahead when he did to avoid waiting a year and getting tangled up in the 2004 election? I'd bet on it.
That's because, against the advice of all military leadership, BHO pulled the troops in 2011, claiming he had 'ended the war'. Agreed. IIt was a huge blunder that will have lasting consequence.
The width of territorial waters varies from 3 to maximum 12 nautical miles from the coast. Regardless of whether the British ship was in Iran's territorial waters or not, Iran is bound by the Geneva Convention of 1958 to grant innocent passage rights through the straits, including warships in peace time. For all intents and purposes, seizing a commercial ship that uses this right of innocent passage is akin to piracy on high seas. Details here: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/16/transit-passage-rights-strait-hormuz-and-iran%E2 %80%99s-threats-block-passage This issue is far more complex than it seems. Gibraltar straits: http://www.gibnet.com/fish/waters.htm The main motivations for the seizure of the British ship are, probably in this order: 1. Raising oil prices. 2. Restoring Iran's honor, an imperative in the honor/shame culture common to the whole Middle East and Maghreb.
looking at that map it seems very unlikely to me that the british seized the ship in gibraltar waters, did they seize it in spanish or international waters ?
I understand there's an ongoing controversy regarding territorial waters in Gibraltar, but regardless, the sanctions were put in place by the EU of which Spain is a member, so enforcement of sanctions in Spanish territorial waters is perfectly legal.
Is the same not true of Gibraltar ? You keep failing to address the central point - what is good for the goose - is good for the gander.
China may emerge as an unexpected beneficiary of the mounting tensions in the Persian Gulf, after Iran detained a British-flagged oil tanker in a key waterway for oil transit. British maritime intelligence firm Dryad Global believes that the shipping industry “was not really prepared” for this situation, and that shipping companies are now starting to look for alternatives to using British-flagged vessels in the region. "Normally it's the British-flagged, US-flagged and Saudi-interest vessels that are the most likely to be targeted," Philip Diacon, head of Dryad Global, told AFP news agency. Diacon said most of his clients were now looking to register their ships under the flag of China, Iran’s strategic ally. "We are starting to see talk of moving to Chinese-flagged vessels," he noted. Over 18 million barrels of crude oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz each day – a third of all oil shipped by sea and a fifth of the world’s supply – and won’t stop, however volatile the political situation. "Oil will continue to flow,” Diacon highlighted. “The Iranians have no interests in disrupting other nations." Recording of the Confrontation Over the weekend, his company released the recording of the moment when Iranian maritime forces radioed warnings to the British tanker, the Stena Impero. According to the audio, an Iranian patrol vessel told the Stena to alter course, presumably after it collided with an Iranian fishing boat whose distress calls it ignored. But the HMS Montrose, the British frigate patrolling the area, told the tanker that it “must not be impaired, impeded, obstructed or hampered”, since it was passing through a recognised international strait. Tehran said that the tanker turned off its communications and ignored the warnings, whereafter it was seized and taken to a port in Iran pending an investigation. The HMS Montrose was a little bit too late to intervene, as it arrived at the scene when the tanker was already in Iran’s territorial waters (according to the UK and the ship’s owners, the Stena Impero was inside Omani territorial waters prior to the detention). The HMS Montrose "really didn't have much chance of having an impact on the scene," Philip Diacon said. He refused to explain how his firm obtained the audio, but said the exchange was conducted over Channel 16, designated as an international distress frequency. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/...y-mull-ditching-uk-flagged-vessels-for-china/
Again: the British ship wasn't in breach of an embargo established by Iran. The Iranian ship was in breach of an embargo established by the EU (some of the sanctions included in the embargo have been put in place by the UN). Not a goose and gander situation. Should France arrest a random German citizen on its territory just because a French citizen was imprisoned in Germany for breaking the law? And there's this: UK ratified the UNCLOS, by the way. I'll accept your tit for tat approach if and when international conventions, customary international law, and treaties, define straits as playgrounds for two years old.
Yes They hate trump much more than any foreign leader And they hate trump supporters for making him possible
Exactly. They hate. That's the bottom line. That hope and change crap didn't quite live up to the hype. They should be blaming themselves instead of the American people.
The truth is everyone that pays Federal income taxes received a tax break. You're confusing truth with leftist propaganda. How sad.
in that context the iranians can call sanctions on wherever the Uk ship was heading and seize the ship to perfectly legal. EU sanctions aply to memberstates on syria they do not count for the rest of the world just like that
During the Iraq war the MSM was only concerned about one thing, looking for and hoping a Marine or soldier would violate the PC rules of engagement.
First the Bush administration went in front of Congress and used the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as a reason for regime change in Iraq. Even though Congress overwhelming passed the Iraq Liberation Act that President Clinton signed it into law, Congress changed their minds. But it had only been a couple of years since 9/11 and the Democrats were still really scared of Arab buggy men wearing diapers on their heads and that they might get their hands on a nuke or some other WMD's so everyone agreed if Saddam had WMD's there needs to be a regime change in Iraq. According to Saddam Hussein, the British intelligence were so good that even Saddam believed he had nukes. After Hussein was captured he didn't blame Bush (43) but the British for the war. It's all here...-> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI: Twenty Interviews and Five Conversations with "High Value Detainee # 1" in 2004 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 279 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/
I like In n Out freedom fries. Those who don't have an In n Out near by like McDonald's freedom fries.
