Guest pelmetman Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 9:15 AM Birdbrain - 2019-07-21 7:48 AM Have to say Funster is making you look rather silly and childish ... Maybe you should just calm down a little with the hatred and attempt to discuss different views without all your usual side issue stuff ... "vitriol , sheer nastiness , oozed from your pores , barging into this forum , vindictive , seething with venomous hatred , tirade of abuse , unbalanced person in need of professional help" ... Very telling Bullet is quoting facts with links to back them up. Compare that with you, Pelmet & Funster *-) It's funny how he forgot to quote the FACT that we were enforcing EU sanctions against Syria when we stopped the Iranian tanker which led to the Iranian stopping ours *-) ......... The Irony is that the EU sanctions could actually help start a war >:-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-07-20 5:23 PM The former UK Ambassador to Iran was talking on BBC Breakfast this morning and what he said made sense. Scroll to 3hr 10m 53sec mark https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00071dd/breakfast-20072019 Yeah - pity the ones that make sense tend to be the ones that have retired :-( British shipping is now excluded from a vital trade route because Iran can bide its time and nip out and seize a British ship at its convenience. Letting the Iranian Tanker go on condition it doesn't go to Syria might be a way of face saving for English politicians so we can get it resolved. Just have to hope Iran accepts. But can we blame them if they don't? Britain and America can choose not to trade with Syria themselves. But what gives them the right to force that on to other nations by seizing their ships. When Iran is being crippled by US sanctions can we expect them to let Trump tell them who they can't trade with *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 9:24 AM Bulletguy - 2019-07-20 5:23 PM The former UK Ambassador to Iran was talking on BBC Breakfast this morning and what he said made sense. Scroll to 3hr 10m 53sec mark https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00071dd/breakfast-20072019 Yeah - pity the ones that make sense tend to be the ones that have retired :-( British shipping is now excluded from a vital trade route because Iran can bide its time and nip out and seize a British ship at its convenience. Letting the Iranian Tanker go on condition it doesn't go to Syria might be a way of face saving for English politicians so we can get it resolved. Just have to hope Iran accepts. But can we blame them if they don't? Britain and America can choose not to trade with Syria themselves. But what gives them the right to force that on to other nations by seizing their ships. When Iran is being crippled by US sanctions can we expect them to let Trump tell them who they can't trade with *-) There's been a war coming for years, Iran is the biggest Islamic sh*t stirrer in the middle East, and has been backing Islamic terrorism for years *-) ......... Along with calling for the total destruction of Israel 8-) ........... I can see why they appeal to our resident Jew hating Corbynites :-| ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:19 AM It's funny how he forgot to quote the FACT that we were enforcing EU sanctions against Syria when we stopped the Iranian tanker which led to the Iranian stopping ours *-) ......... The Irony is that the EU sanctions could actually help start a war >:-) ........... In waters claimed by Spain which Britain refuses to discuss with the EU. So lets not pretend the EU wanted us to do it. Letting Her Unelected Majesty's Tax Haven of Gibraltar, which claims to be British without paying British taxes or contributing to the defence budget, push us into a dispute with Spain - Again >:-) A country in which over a million Brits choose to live in, but 30,000 Gibraltarians want to keep out of so they can operate as a parasitic tax haven sucking revenue out of Spain and Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:19 AM It's funny how he forgot to quote the FACT that we were enforcing EU sanctions against Syria when we stopped the Iranian tanker which led to the Iranian stopping ours *-) ......... The Irony is that the EU sanctions could actually help start a war >:-) ........... In waters claimed by Spain which Britain refuses to discuss with the EU. Letting Her Unelected Majesty's Tax Haven of Gibraltar, which claims to be British without paying British taxes or contributing to the defence budget, push us into a dispute with Spain - Again >:-) What's that got to do with the UK enforcing EU sanctions? :-S ........... Oh silly me.......Of course you're trying to change the subject (lol) (lol) (lol)......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:30 AM There's been a war coming for years, Iran .... .... and who is starting it? The nuclear power with the biggest strongest military? Or Iran *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:39 AM enforcing EU sanctions.......... When did Iran join the EU *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 Try and see it from the other side's point of view. Imagine Britain leaves the EU. Then an EU country seizes a British ship because they suspect it of trading with a country the EU (not Britain) has sanctions against....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-07-21 12:36 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-20 10:40 PM Bulletguy - 2019-07-20 11:22 PM pelmetman - 2019-07-20 10:08 PM Has Corbyn condemned his pirate mates yet? :-| ......... Nah thought not *-) ........ Has May? Nah thought not.....that's what we have a FS for you dummy which thankfully isn't Johnson because he'd just make matters worse. *-) You're unbelievable. The fact the we have a FS hasn't stopped Comrade Corbyn commenting on everything under the sun. Mainly Israel and the USA of course or any action we take on any of our enemies. So what? Corbyn is leader of opposition so it's his job to challenge 'everything under the sun'....just as Tories would, and do, when they are in opposition. Of course you'd prefer he sat there, said nothing and did as he was told by a weak Tory government. But you claimed that he hadn't criticised the Iranians because we have a FS to do that. So the point hasn't been answered. Corbyn is quick to comment on anything that might show the US or the UK in a bad light but when the Iranians break international law he has nothing to say. Stop contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 10:57 AM when the Iranians break international law What have you to say about Trump breaking 'International Law' by renenging on our nuclear treaty with Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 10:47 AM pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:39 AM enforcing EU sanctions.......... When did Iran join the EU *-) Er, Iran isn't in the EU but the EU has enforced sanctions against Iran which are backed by the UN and ban Iran from selling oil to Syria. Do try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 10:44 AM pelmetman - 2019-07-21 9:30 AM There's been a war coming for years, Iran .... .... and who is starting it? The nuclear power with the biggest strongest military? Or Iran *-) So your argument appears to be that only the most powerful party in a confrontation can start a war? Which rule book is that in? I would suggest that the countries most responsible for starting a war are those that sponsor terrorist groups and encourage others to fight proxy wars on their behalf. Now who would be the biggest culprit here I wonder? https://www.csis.org/war-by-proxy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/iran-tells-middle-east-militias-prepare-for-proxy-war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 11:32 AM Try and see it from the other side's point of view. Imagine Britain leaves the EU. Then an EU country seizes a British ship because they suspect it of trading with a country the EU (not Britain) has sanctions against....... If those EU sanctions were also UN sanctions, as are the oil sanctions on Iran, then my my view would be that Britain must take the consequences if it is breaking those sanctions. But we're Britain, not a country run by religious medieval savages that cares nothing for its own people, so the chances of us breaking such sanctions are unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 10:13 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-20 10:33 PM Do you really think that an Iranian fighter jet travelling a very short distance to attack a ship in the Persian Gulf is going to get up to 3000 kph? I'm not setting myself up as an expert like yourself *-) But I do know that fighter jets use speed wherever they can - it makes them harder to see coming and shoot down. Otherwise whats the point of having a jet that can travel so fast? Er, the point of having a jet that can travel so fast is that it can cover long distances very quickly, when that is necessary. It also makes it more difficult to target. But if an Iranian F14 were to travel at Mach 2.5 it would be in Saudi Arabia in a few minutes, the last place it wants to be. It's not really too difficult to work out. Do you really think that a plane leaving Iran to attack a warship in the Persian Gulf needs to travel at such speeds? Apart from which the official enquiry at the ICJ never cited speed or a visual sighting as part of the equation. That's because they had experts to advise them. But you don't need to be an expert to know that an F14 flying to attack a target only a couple of hundred miles away won't be going supersonic, you just need a brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 10:15 AM Birdbrain - 2019-07-21 7:48 AM Have to say Funster is making you look rather silly and childish ... Maybe you should just calm down a little with the hatred and attempt to discuss different views without all your usual side issue stuff ... "vitriol , sheer nastiness , oozed from your pores , barging into this forum , vindictive , seething with venomous hatred , tirade of abuse , unbalanced person in need of professional help" ... Very telling Bullet is quoting facts with links to back them up. Compare that with you, Pelmet & Funster *-) Really, perhaps you missed all my links in the earlier posting? Bullet's only link was to an opinion that sometimes sanctions lead to war. I destroyed that one very easily. He is a master of posting opinions and tittle tattle as hard facts, such as when he accused Jacob Rees Mogg of taking his millions and his hedge fund to Dublin. That was a lie. JRM doesn't even operate hedge funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:20 AM if an Iranian F14 were to travel at Mach 2.5 it would be in Saudi Arabia in a few minutes, the last place it wants to be...... you just need a brain. Is it this 'brain' of yours thats telling you it couldn't travel at speed without avoiding Saudi Arabia *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 12:01 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 10:57 AM when the Iranians break international law What have you to say about Trump breaking 'International Law' by renenging on our nuclear treaty with Iran? How can withdrawing from an agreement be 'breaking international law'? If certain countries agree a policy and later one of them decides that it isn't for them and wishes to withdraw, what is illegal about that? Breaking international law would be doing something forbidden in that agreement, not leaving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:29 AM . That was a lie. JRM doesn't even operate hedge funds. He operates funds based in Dublin. The basis of your argument seems to be whether you define them as hedge funds or not. Which is so immaterial as to be clutching at straws really, to evade the issue and change the subject as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 12:30 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:20 AM if an Iranian F14 were to travel at Mach 2.5 it would be in Saudi Arabia in a few minutes, the last place it wants to be...... you just need a brain. Is it this 'brain' of yours thats telling you it couldn't travel at speed without avoiding Saudi Arabia *-) Not if it was heading across the Gulf to intercept a vessel. Saudi Arabia is the biggest landmass on the other side, but whichever country it flew over it would be violating someone's airspace. It's not really too difficult to comprehend if you do have a brain and especially if it isn't a brain conditioned to believe our enemies over us. But I see that you've changed tack now and that you're not disputing that if it travelled at Mach 2.5 it would end up in another country. What do you have to say about the ICJ investigation, which made no mention of speed or a visual sighting being relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 12:36 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:29 AM . That was a lie. JRM doesn't even operate hedge funds. He operates funds based in Dublin. The basis of your argument seems to be whether you define them as hedge funds or not. Which is so immaterial as to be clutching at straws really, to evade the issue and change the subject as usual. No, I just gave an example of his Bulletguy's duplicity. His claim was that JRM had relocated his business to Dublin because of Brexit and 'taken his millions there'. That is a lie. His company specialises in emerging markets and has offices in other countries but the money that it invests is scattered all over the world. Dublin is a branch office that was planned long before Brexit, His firm is firmly based in the UK. But to compare his form of investing with hedge funds is beyond ignorant. His firm's investments do well when economies prosper. He doesn't 'hedge' against failure. Please don't expect any further response for a while, I'm going out but I'll happily refute any more of your rather silly arguments this evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:33 AM Breaking international law would be doing something forbidden in that agreement, not leaving it. I put 'international law' in inverted commas because I'm going by your definition. You said the Iranians had broken 'international law' As far as I am aware Iran didn't even join the agreement to sanctions against Syria in the first place. Even if they had wouldn't they have the same right to pull out of it as Trump did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-07-21 12:49 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:33 AM Breaking international law would be doing something forbidden in that agreement, not leaving it. I put 'international law' in inverted commas because I'm going by your definition. You said the Iranians had broken 'international law' As far as I am aware Iran didn't even join the agreement to sanctions against Syria in the first place. Even if they had wouldn't they have the same right to pull out of it as Trump did? Oh dear,very quickly as I'm off out. Iran is in the UN, these are UN approved sanctions. Every member of the UN is expected to abide by its rulings. How difficult is that for anyone with a brain to comprehend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:47 AM He doesn't 'hedge' against failure. Thats exactly what he is doing by holding foreign currencies - effectively shorting the UK in preparation for Brexit. Branson has said he expects the pound to fall against the dollar as much again as it has already in the event of a no-deal Brexit. In which case many of Branson's businesses wil be no longer viable as costs are in $ and revenue in £. Wheras Rees Mogg's foreign currency investments will make a killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:52 AM John52 - 2019-07-21 12:49 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 11:33 AM Breaking international law would be doing something forbidden in that agreement, not leaving it. I put 'international law' in inverted commas because I'm going by your definition. You said the Iranians had broken 'international law' As far as I am aware Iran didn't even join the agreement to sanctions against Syria in the first place. Even if they had wouldn't they have the same right to pull out of it as Trump did? Oh dear,very quickly as I'm off out. Iran is in the UN, these are UN approved sanctions. Every member of the UN is expected to abide by its rulings. How difficult is that for anyone with a brain to comprehend? Is Iran not allowed to pull out of them like Trump did over the nuclear treaty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-07-21 10:57 AM Bulletguy - 2019-07-21 12:36 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-07-20 10:40 PM Bulletguy - 2019-07-20 11:22 PM pelmetman - 2019-07-20 10:08 PM Has Corbyn condemned his pirate mates yet? :-| ......... Nah thought not *-) ........ Has May? Nah thought not.....that's what we have a FS for you dummy which thankfully isn't Johnson because he'd just make matters worse. *-) You're unbelievable. The fact the we have a FS hasn't stopped Comrade Corbyn commenting on everything under the sun. Mainly Israel and the USA of course or any action we take on any of our enemies. So what? Corbyn is leader of opposition so it's his job to challenge 'everything under the sun'....just as Tories would, and do, when they are in opposition. Of course you'd prefer he sat there, said nothing and did as he was told by a weak Tory government. But you claimed that he hadn't criticised the Iranians because we have a FS to do that. So the point hasn't been answered. Corbyn is quick to comment on anything that might show the US or the UK in a bad light but when the Iranians break international law he has nothing to say. Stop contradicting yourself. No i didn't. But feel free to quote my post verbatim where you claim i said he'd hadn't. I'll look forward to reading that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.