US Navy dispatches destroyer after Iran 'fires warnings shots and boards cargo ship'

I'll provide the same amount of evidence as you have in the past...

 

Ok, I stand corrected. But change the word "rebellion" to "protests" and the argument stands the same. Obama supported the protests in Egypt (that led to the Muslim Brotherhood taking over) and Tunisia . Libya and Syria were/are outright civil war.

 

If you can not see how this incident would be a major concern for our Government, then you have no clue about Maritime Laws and how they apply to open registry.

I really do not care what you think if you are unable or unwilling to formulate a valid argument as to why it would be relevant. Just because you can not connect the dots, that does not mean your conclusions are the correct ones based on current agreements and laws. I have provided easily researched accords and facts, while you have provided nothing except your opinion. You can easily highlight some of the terms I have mentioned, such as Marshall Islands, Compact of Free Association, Maritime Laws, Admiralty Laws, Flag of convenience, or open registry if you wish to educate yourself.

Bottom line, the Maersk Tigris sails under the flag of an Island Country that is under the protection of the US. I does not matter what "mission" the ship was performing, it still sails under the flags of a protected country. Per Maritime Laws, the country that a ship sails under is paramount.....even if the reason for sailing under that flag is to avoid taxes if another country is listed.

 

so no revolution was held.....that's why they were called demonstrations...

 

Revolution, revolt, coup, insurrection, mutiny, uprising, riot, demonstration.......words that are interchangeable based on one's perspective.

 

not hardly, {Mod Edit - Rule 3}

 

Strawman argument. I never mentioned how concerned our governing should be or should not be.

Still makes no sense to think, without any evidence, this ship was targeted due to it's registry. Additional, nothing has been provided to support your earlier assertion that this ship "was doing business" for the Marshall Islands.

 

But I did....many times. I'm just sticking to the same dialog. I never said that Obama was personally the issue, just that this should be a concern for the Government. You are the one seemingly trying to make this about Obama. Though I did say:

which is a true statement, though the more correct statement should have been the "Obama administration".

I never stated that it was selected because of it's registry, only that it was a possibility. As far as we know at this time, it could have been a spy ship, it could have had someone on board that was trying to defect, it could have been trying to get sensitive material out of the country, it could have just been the wrong color.

My contention is that the reason does not matter. What does matter is it sails under the flag of a island country under the protection of the US. It also does not matter whether the cargo it was carrying was slated for the Marshall Island coffers or not or whether it was doing business directly for the Marshall Islands or not. That is irrelevant. The fact that it was sailing under the Marshall Island flag means that it was doing business for them.....whether directly, indirectly, or not at all.

 

Excellent. Shall we then assume you will got take to task the author of the OP whom did link it to Obama?

Because to date you jhave done little other than claim that the registry of the ship was indicative of why it was targeted through a bizarre and unsupported set of claims about how we must defend Danish owned ships.

 

Well if they're our ally, and Iran fired on them, then obama considers Marshall Islands our enemy now and will support Iran.

 

Why should I? To sooth your butthurt? If you have an issue with what he said, you should do your own research and dirty work. You're a big boy.....fight your own battles.

I do not have an issue with Molon. I feel he often provides commentary built with some intelligent thought process.

Please show me where I have ever made the claim that it's registry was the reason it was detained. I have presented these main facts.

1. Iran knew the registry of the ship (the flag was probably a dead giveaway).
2. The ship is registered to the Marshall Islands.
3. The Marshall Islands is under the protection of the US per the Compact of Free Association.
4. Because of that covenant, the US is involved and the ship is of an US interest.

The true country of ownership is irrelevant, but if you really want to get technical, according to a spokesman for the ships true owners, it is highly likely that the ship is 100% owned by US investors.

 

Whilst I appreciate any and all concern about the level of pain my backside is in, I must say it has little to do with anything I was discussing.

 

And anything I was discussing had nothing to do with whether Obama is personally the cause, problem, or solution. Though I am flattered that you feel me worthy of championing you against the OP, I must decline as what I post and to whom is really not the topic of this thread. Now if you wish to continue this back-and-forth, please find another toy to do so with, as I would rather discuss the detained ship and it's political ramifications.

 

Excellent. I will consider this exchange over.

 

This ship probably had US produced nukes on board knowing Obama.

 

Here's a thought: What do Libya, Tunisia, Syria and Egypt have in common?

All four nations had relatively moderate secular governments
which Obama opposed. Either through brutal military action (like in Libya), proposed military force (like in Syria, before Putin out positioned Obama), through political support (like in Egypt) or, as in Tunisia, the support has been
largely financial and political (Obama has called Tunisia "the ideal example of the Arab Spring" even though women's rights have been reversed under the new ultra conservative Islamists in the Ennahda Party).

So why not support the uprising in Iran when he could have lent his influence and American prestige? Because in that case it was the Muslim theocrats who were faced with a loss of power, and not the other way around.
Actions speak louder than words...when Obama has had the chance to replace a largely secular Muslim government with a more strict theocratic government, Obama has always sided with rigid Islamists in the Middle East.

Unquestionably, the Iranian move was provocative. These are the people Obama thinks he can make a deal with?
He's been played.

 

You do not know if this is a fact. At the moment it is pure speculation, nothing more. Read the OP.

 

So, tell me, MOD EDIT - Rule 3, why was this ship targeted by Iran?

MOD EDIT - Off topic

 

I agree with you 100%. MOD EDIT - Rule 8

What most of the MOD EDIT - Rule 2 left seemed to miss was why Iran claimed to target the ship.

Notice that it did not Iranian Waters. Iran is in essence claiming sovereignty over the entire Persian Gulf, and will say who can travel the waterways.

 

The larger point, I think, is this: Iran is an enemy state of the USA. As such, our president should not be making ANY deals that give them aid and comfort, like the unearned relaxing of sanctions. Iran's unlawful and provocative taking of this ship adds a series of exclamation points on to that earlier sentence.

 

Unearned?

That is a new perspective. Whilst I appreciate and applaud a bit of vision outside the currently accepted perception, It is my understanding that we, the United States, are negotiating with Iran along with a coalition of allies, and that there have indeed been concessions made by Iran.

 

Not a new perspective at all. Iran is an enemy state. Sanctions, presumably, are imposed with some reasoning behind them. They are imposed with some SPECIFIC goal that is required to be met as a condition of their removal. If Iran has met the conditions, then they have earned removal of the sanction, and the sanction ought to be removed. If they have NOT met the conditions, then removal or relaxing of the sanction would be 'unearned'. Unearned relaxing of sanctions amounts to 'aid and comfort' for the enemy. And THAT amounts to a well defined breach of the Constitution.

To resolve this, we need to either:

A) remove Iran from the State Department's list of states who sponsor terrorism (where they currently hold the #1 spot), or...
B) declare and end to the 'War on Terror'.

Because as long as those two things are happening, and as long as Iran declares ITSELF as an enemy, Iran is to be considered an enemy. And, we cannot Constitutionally give aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of unearned relaxing or removal of sanctions.

 

Interesting.

Where in the Constitution would I find that?

 

Article 3 section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

So, I suppose the semantics begin, and you'll now argue that relaxing of sanctions is not giving the enemy aid and comfort, right?

 

Um... the sanctions were imposed because Iran was building a nuclear program. The deal is to remove the sanctions in exchange for hobbling the program. It's not a giveaway; it's not giving them "aid and comfort". It has no bearing on whether we like Iran or not.

During the Cold War, we routinely made treaties and deals with the Soviet Union -- for instance, nuclear arms reduction.

The idea that we shouldn't talk to our enemies and make agreements where possible is silly.