• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran's military 'fires at and seizes US cargo ship'[W:75]

PeteEU said:
The ship seized was Danish owned, and was seized because the company owed money.. it is a legal dispute.
Click to expand...
According to maritime records, the ship is currently chartered by Maersk Line (subsidy of A.P. Moller–Maersk Group), registered in the Marshall Islands (flag of convenience), and the ship containers are owned by Maersk. The ship itself is owned by Wide Gulf Ltd (investment group / US majority), and managed by Rickmers Shipmanagement which is based in Singapore. The ship was previously named Wide Gulf.

Initially, Al-Arabiya mistakenly reported that the MV Maersk Tigris was US flagged. The court case is 10 years old and was dismissed in 2007. Iran then twice attempted to try the case in different courts unsuccessfully. Proceedings were then initiated in the Tehran Public Civil Court. On 18 February 2015 the Tehran Court ruled that Maersk must pay USD163,000 and Maersk accepted the ruling. Iran however, appealed the ruling seeking higher compensation (USD4 million). On or about 28 April 2015, the Tehran appeal court ruled that Maersk must pay USD3.6 million. Maersk was not provided the most recent court documents nor the opportunity to appeal before the ship was seized.

In cases like this, a ship is usually seized with court documents while anchored in port, rather than making innocent passage in international waters .
 
In fact they do have business with the Marshall Islands and this ship. here's a bit of history and the law involved.

http://townhall.com/columnists/caro...the-marshall-islands-cautionary-tale-n1993129
 
Montecresto said:
Oh that racist right wing rag. Yes, well at least they pointed out that the Obama administration didn't condemn the act by Iran.
Click to expand...
"A racist right wing rag"? Do you dispute the facts contained in that article or can you only offer your juvenile critiques of the sources??

When the uninformed, and this is deliberate in your case, they attack the source, never the facts. Of course I also had a strong hunch you would self censor.
 

Shall we count the ways in which Ms Glick is wrong:

Second sentence -- "Iran controls the strategic waterway" WRONG!! Iran patrols that half of the Hormuz Straits which lies alongs its shoreline

"the Iranian seizure of the ship was in effect an act of war against America." Really? Was the attack on the USS Liberty an act of war? 34 Americans died in that attack, there are 34 non-Americans in total on the Maersk Tigris

Then she goes off into a long rant about various "anti-Israeli" actions, totally unrelated to the seizure of the ship by Iran and finally we get to the real target, President Obama. Like many of the haters, Ms Glick 'knows' the President's real intentions - just how she and others 'know' this stuff is not to be questioned but simply accepted -- because it is the TRUTH
Obama’s actual goals in both have little to do with his stated ones.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Shall we count the ways in which Ms Glick is wrong:
Click to expand...
Sure.
Second sentence -- "Iran controls the strategic waterway" WRONG!! Iran patrols that half of the Hormuz Straits which lies alongs its shoreline
Click to expand...
Then they effectively control it. They seized a ship not in Iranian waters and did so with impunity. Who controls it if not Iran?
"the Iranian seizure of the ship was in effect an act of war against America." Really?
Click to expand...
Obviously, if the US wants to pursue that line. All you need do is familiarize yourself with the arrangement between the Marshall Islands and the USA.
Was the attack on the USS Liberty an act of war? 34 Americans died in that attack, there are 34 non-Americans in total on the Maersk Tigris
Click to expand...
You've wandered off into another area. Best stick to the topic.
The opinions are hers, and they are drawn from the facts she has outlined.
 

It's that last sentence of yours which forms the foundation of the wall between our opinions - her "facts" are seldom ones I would see as factual
 
Somerville said:
It's that last sentence of yours which forms the foundation of the wall between our opinions - her "facts" are seldom ones I would see as factual
Click to expand...
Then perhaps you should broaden your sources of reading materials in order to see the larger picture.
 
A dose of reality for those who think the President is secretly aiding the Iranian push to destroy Israel when he does "nothing" about the ship seizure

Please note the plural "ships" in the headline
 
Somerville said:
A dose of reality for those who think the President is secretly aiding the Iranian push to destroy Israel when he does "nothing" about the ship seizure

Please note the plural "ships" in the headline
Click to expand...
Good to see that Obama is following these recommendations of the US Central Command in this instance..
 
Sometimes the source can't be dealt with any other way then to attack it,for instance Fox news and Rush. when so much of it is lies or such distortions, it's a total waste of time and energy trying to strain through the few truths that come with these two sources , that I think it is acceptably to disregard or attack for what they are.
 
And of course it's much easier to just attack the source, while claiming 'lies and distortions', than to come up with any meaningful rebuttal.
 
Grant said:
And of course it's much easier to just attack the source, while claiming 'lies and distortions', than to come up with any meaningful rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Your right claiming isn't sufficient , I know that as a fact. Those two sources I listed, only say what they are told to say, they are simply a arm of the regressive party.
 
jbander said:
Your right claiming isn't sufficient , I know that as a fact. Those two sources I listed, only say what they are told to say, they are simply a arm of the regressive party.
Click to expand...
The 'regressive party"?
 

Harassment of multiple ships over a short period of time isn't simply a matter of a specific commercial ship's being involved in a dispute. Having said that, more robust patrols to safeguard shipping in the affected waters would be vastly preferable to a military response.
 

Supposed harassment of multiple ships...only ones saying this is the US military and its allies and they are hardly unbiased in the matter as they seem to want a war.

Think of it this way... Iran depends fully on the strait of Hormuz for its exports.. why on earth would they jeopardize this for a few cheap political points? No the only ones really wanting to dominate and cut Iran off from the Straits is the US and its allies.. to choke Iran even more.
 

There may be numerous rationale for such Iranian actions. For example, Iran clearly views a nuclear agreement as critical to its national interests. If Iran believes pressure could lead to somewhat more favorable terms and it calculates that such pressure has a reasonable prospect of succeeding, such pressure would make sense. That may well be what's at play. Iran seeks the lifting of all sanctions upon an agreement (the P5+1 seeks phased sanctions relief) and a broad exemption from international inspection for its military facilities. By imposing pressure, Iran might be signaling that a world without an agreement would be hazardous and that even if the P5+1 doesn't like all the terms, concluding what they would view as a flawed agreement would be better than the status quo. Such a strategy would not be about scoring "a few cheap political points," but shifting the likelihood and terms of an agreement that would significantly benefit Iran's national interest.
 

Or it could be a US plot to put pressure on Iran as well.. After all the US policy on Iran is hardly uniform and I bet that within the US military there is a rather large movement for war.. since the US military has no more wars to fight basically and that means cuts in budgets.

Listen, the US murdered 200+ people on an Iranian airplane and that did not start a war.. Iran sailing boats around ships in international waters.. which is not illegal btw, will that trigger a war? Doubtful, unless the US wants a war... then of course the US can just make **** up and attack like they did with Iraq.
 
PeteEU said:
Iran sailing boats around ships in international waters.. which is not illegal btw, will that trigger a war?
Click to expand...
Doubtful it will trigger a war, but your characterization of "Iran sailing boats around ships in international waters" is clearly far from what actually happened.

An Iranian warship ordered the MV Maersk Tigris to adjust course from international waters to Iranian waters. When the Maersk captain refused, the Iranian warship fired shots across the bow. The Maersk Tigris then complied and once it was in Iranian waters it was then ordered to dock at the Iranian port at Bander Abbas.

This action was clearly illegal under the United Nations Law of the Seas Treaty...

Iran’s legal claims for seizing the Maersk Tigris
 
I must say that regressives just love to get that war drum going don't they. This is a nothing, if our Allie did this, we would help them and you saying they are our enemy is a lie because they surely aren't mine. If you think that America actions are just acceptable and Irans are just automatically not accepting then we don't agree and with regressives that always the case. blind followers not leaders
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The inconsistency is with the article itself, nothing I can do about it, nor care too. thanks for bringing it to my attention tho. and of course you made an accusation, which is why you brought it up.


:lol:
fail
Click to expand...

You post a faulty article and assert that my pointing it out is a fail, lol. Ok dude.
 

As though you never dismiss a source. And again, The Obama administration didn't condemn the act, at least your source acknowledged that.
 
I guess it must be me, but I find that people who come up with all sorts of cute names for people they disagree with ("regressives" for example) reveal a lot about their own issues and insecurities.
 
LeoVlaming said:
I guess it must be me, but I find that people who come up with all sorts of cute names for people they disagree with ("regressives" for example) reveal a lot about their own issues and insecurities.
Click to expand...
Look in the mirror buddy , there is no regressive that I have ever met that doesn't do what your accusing me of. The name stays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…