Evidence? How many threads and posts have I made about "preemptive strikes"? Not many overall. I made one today about one being necessary if the Iranians had the capability to "irradiate" Americans citizens in our country which I think even y ou would agree with.
the militarization of Britain's military is disgusting. I expect better from a beacon of liberty, diversity and tolerance.
Specifically, the EU's and, as of right now, Gibraltar is still in the EU (along with the rest of the UK) so you'd have to be a stupid mother fucker to dock your ship there when you are breaking EU law, dumb ass. Take your stupid sniveling else where.
It is pretty telling that Iran sailed its illegal load of oil in a tanker all the way around Africa since Egypt wouldn't let it use the canal given all of Iran's past sanctions violations. The downside is the tanker had to dock some where to refuel and they chose Gibraltar where the UK nabbed them and rightly so. Oh, well, don't dock in EU ports when you want to break EU laws. Better luck next time.
Interesting that you refer to international law. Are you now agreeing that international law can in fact be used as a basis to determine the legality of people's actions - like say when crossing a border to seek asylum?
Hahahahaha. You realise that nations like Iran have been paying attention for the past 20 years? They literally share a border with Iraq, a still shattered example of what happens if you don't have an ability to strike back hard enough. They can also see Trump cozying up to Kim, since military action against NK would be too costly. They tried to make international agreements regarding nuclear activities, Trump threw them in the bin. I'm no fan of the Iranian government, but from a self preservation standpoint they're doing the rational thing.
Yup. Ukraine gave up their nukes, we saw how that worked out. Gaddafi gave up his weapons programs, we saw how that worked out. Why would any sane country disarm in good faith anymore?
Damn, are you trying to challenge John for the status of dumbest poster? Nope, the Iranian tanker entered the territorial waters of Gibraltar so it got bordered for violating EU laws. Do you even feel stupid? Certainly not as dumb as you should. Also, I have never supported Assad.
For those who are not complete idiots, like so many on your side seem to be, yes, if you enter the area of an EU port then EU law applies. Next time find fuel some where else other than an EU port (though it likely won't help you as all the north African states have trade agreements with the EU which obligate them to observe EU sanctions). The Iranians were betting no one was watching but they were wrong. As for Asylum, when 95%+ of the people are falsely filing asylum and committing fraud then the law needs to be changed. No doubt about it. We're talking about just enabling criminality, which I fully understand is your goal, but regular people must speak out and stop such abuse. Thus the sane people's opposition to your enabling of criminality.
You just tried to imply and ran up to the line without knowing how fucking stupid and wrong you were. Now that you have figured out how stupid and wrong you were you are now back tracking. That is pathetic but to be expected.
Hell, you are so ignorant and uninformed that the only treaty the US has signed says that refugees should be taken in but that every single last one of the nations signing it can write their own law about how to do that. That is it, the US signed a treaty that simply said they could do what ever they damn well please. I fully support that and do want a genuine process for refugees which ends the fucking massive abuse. because that is all we are talking about. Fuck Obama for deliberately engineering this problem and all for political reasons. Hell, fuck fake "charities" who pay people to come here to file false claims all for political reasons.
No, I asked you a question about your stance. If you think that implies I was in complete opposition to it then it says more about you.
I've noticed that happening a lot, where a legitimate question is assumed to be a challenge or backhanded insult.
It has to be said I think most in the UK would agree. We could really do without American "help" here.
Moreover they don't even have a nuclear weapons program to the best of anyone's knowledge. But they do have the ability to defend themselves against an attack, at least somewhat. The brave troops of the United States (thank you for your service!) are only utilised against an enemy that is defenceless, because public support for war is understood to be extremely thin. That's one reason why we're seeing sanctions against Iran. Maybe they can be starved into submission and weakened to the point where an attack carries fewer risks.
Look at the map, junior. What does the map tell you? That the US didn't sign the 1951 treaty you just linked to!
