Globalresearch is junk. Let's have a closer look at the definition of piracy: “(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: An embargo, however, according to the definition, is a legal prohibition, hence once a trade embargo has been established, acts of detention of vessels in breach of the embargo become legal, not acts of piracy. Let's compare it to the definition of manslaughter - the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought". But killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" is sometimes the result of self defense. Killing in self defense - if justified - is not unlawful. Piracy - unlawful. Seizing ship in breach of a legal embargo - not piracy, not unlawful. Manslaughter - killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" - unlawful. Killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" in self defense - not manslaughter, not unlawful. As one smart man once said, "I believe that the purpose of having a brain is to question - not to act like some robot". Question away, then.
May I remind you your words: Britain did not engage in acts of war against Iran, because trade embargoes are not acts of war. Britain does not blockade Iran, which would be an act of war.
Its not junk - Show where one country doing an embargo makes it legal to seize another nations ships. That ls laughable nonsense. Regardless if you are correct - then it was not illegal for Iran to seize the British ship either so either way your argument fails.
I did not say Britain engaged in aces of war .. nor did I say there were engaging in a blockade. Another poster was suggesting it was an act of war .. my response was on that basis to another poster. Notice the word "IF" do you understand what this word means. That is the problem when you jump into a conversation and parse out a sentence with no understanding of what is was meant. You are in blissful disingenuous denial - My point has been that regardless of whether it is an act of war , and embargo, a blockade, illegal or otherwise. What ever you apply to the Brits also applies to Iran equally.
Ideological pap. The post Brexit Brits, like the Canadians, Australians, and Japanese, have to get involved with a number of countries in trade deals.
Well that was a well thought out reasoned response, always seems to be a certain type of person that has to resort to insults when they can’t make an argument. As much as I think Brexit is the wrong move it’s going to have a serious impact on the EU budget and the potential for major issues in the future. Germany is going to have to step up and look after their foreign interests themselves instead of relying on other countries. The issue is every time they’ve tried this in the past the over stepped and It’s not gone well for them.
And of course it was the Marshall Plan and billions in aid that got Germans back on their feet. And the treatment of East Germans of other East Germans is well know, much the same as Muslims being the main target of other Muslims. They don't hesitate to turn on each other if their ideologies happen to conflict in some way.
The only reason they helped Hitler was to kill Jews. You call every country garbage except your own and France. Except that Nazi Germany and Vichy France were the real garbage. I can't believe you defend Nazi Germany. Shows that nothing much has changed...
There are SOFAs everywhere and they're often renewed and negotiated during succeeding administrations. Obama could have, and should have, either renegotiated the agreement or ignored it. There was just too much at stake and the Iraqi government at the time was just too corrupt and inept to be left on their own You do know what happened after Obama pulled the troops in 2011, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
So no, you don’t know what a SOFA is. Got it. Iraq wouldn’t let us remain unless we agreed to let them try our troops in Iraqi court.
That's no different to how the Prime Minister is chosen in the UK - the chosen leader of the UK has to get approval from the monarch
Obama said he was ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. It was until after the debacle began that he said he had no choice. Remember? https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...ng-all-us-troops-out-iraq-was-not-my-decision
It is very different giving up trade engagements which people have had for over 40 years. Why do you think Theresa May gave Donald Trump a State visit when there was so much opposition to it. Brexit Britain is desperate for a good deal with the US. I don't believe we will get it and what I saw a few months ago of the possibilities confirmed that. Oh if we are good, we will get a deal, Trump makes that clear. However a good deal is something very different. Whatever happens all economists say we are going to see a big drop in our living standards - one which we may never recover from. Britain shot itself in the foot with Brexit and is currently at its most vulnerable, something I am sure the US will use to their benefit to the extent they can.
Facts are never an insult. Its a fact populations on islands suffer from genetic problems. Your argument was an insult against my people
No, not the same at all. The royalty are figureheads and not the Supreme authority. Iran does what the Ayatollah dictates.
