Most liked posts in thread: British oil tanker seized in Strait of Hormuz

Can’t beat a good war with loads of big bombs to distract the country. Boris will be all over it.

 

We're gonna have to back down on this one, give them theirs back for our 2 , we were right to seize theirs though as it was supplying Syria with oil in breach of EU sanctions ...

 

We should show them we mean business and set up a blockade with help from the USA of all their ports , They will then have to come to the table and talk or risk a proper peoples revolution and the government toppled.

 

Britain and the US war mongering again.

The BAE etc arms deals must be running low now Syria has calmed down a bit. Let’s go after Iran

 

The US offered first to set up joint protection force, it was Jeremy Hunt who refused on our behalf stating he wanted a multi nation approach which the US refused to take part in, They have in the meantime been servicing our naval ship in the area HMS Montrose as a good friend should

 

Wars are very prosperous.

 

There's some who suggest the Stena first went across the bows of outgoing traffic, and then cut too fine the corner between Iranian and other waters -- something the Mesdar also is said to have done. That ship got a talking to, the Stena, thanks to the flag, was seized...

Now each side has one of the other side's ships...time to start bargaining?

RCB

 

I'd say the Iranians knew what they were doing seeing as it is their special forces that took over the vessel.

 

Worst thing. Iranians will back any leadership that the West is threatening, even if they don't like it, they are even more patriotic than the Turks. The more you try to hurt them economically, the more they will resist & the further away the West gets from where it wants to be.

 

Ivana?

 

We asked the US for help and they said defend your own tankers. Welcome to the special relationship under Trump. He also shat on Shinzo Abe after the his attempts to mediate (at the behest of Trump) failed. Talk about swimming with fecking sharks.

 

We rejected that because it's america's way of precipitating war with Iran as opposed to defending our interests, as John Bolton has stated is his aim multiple times. That guy is the biggest fecking warmonger going and to get into bed with the US and by extension Bolton is to accept we will be going to war multiple times in the name of US hegemony. That has literally never worked out well for us (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc etc) so why would it now? We already back one of the biggest funders of international islamic terrorism in the House of Saud as strangely, they follow the same form of Islam as ISIS et al. Join the dots for once and stop pretending we're always the good guys. We covertly and overtly topple regimes that don't suit us, democratically elected or not. Ourselves and the US have pursued a foreign policy based on destabilising the Middle East as much as possible to ensure our hegemony in the region and have done so since Kissinger was the Foreign Secretary (or US equivalent I can't remember the title), so to paint this as some sort of good vs bad where we need to go 'sort those bastards out' belies a naive view of the situation as it stands.

 

The UK has shafted Iran from day one, they even have a common phrase for being shafted, alluding to the English. We can't claim any moral high ground

 

well we created these nations in the middle east carving the area up with France so we have some responsibility to the area in that regard,