That's the thing with international law- it;s mostly convention.
For example, it is convention to escort intruding aeroplanes outside of your airspace (and leave them be entirely if the infraction is too short to react to). But Turkey was within its rights- assuming they were telling the truth, which is a whole other argument- to use lethal force for such a transgression. No-one was happy with it, but they had the right.
And the US backed that use of force- albeit reluctantly- and that puts them in a poor position for criticising Iran for something far more mild. Technically speaking, Iran could have filled those sailors full of bullets. That might have caused a conflict, but it's still something they technically had the right to do.
You don't mess around with the borders of nations. If you do, you expect consequences.
All these people going on about the Geneva Convention would be more convincing if they paid attention to what they were reading- the GC is for nations at war.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit. And Iran would never be over here.This is just another example of you being anti American and anti military.
The only reason they returned our men was because Obama the idiot is about to give them 100 billion dollars.
No one here has any proof they were in Iranian waters.
Infact them stealing the gps equipment almost proves the Iranians are liars.
When trump gets in office this deal will be revoked and if not revoked.
Enforced..
It's not bullshit, the US would react to a foreign military ship it thought entered US waters.
Stop with the nonsense accusations, I'm neither and it makes you look foolish making such claims.
Obama isn't "giving" Iran money, you're phrasing it like Chris Christie, it's a silly deception.
So what should have Obama done then concerning this situation, since our sailors being returned swiftly and without serious incident is apparently not good? What outcome would have been acceptable to you? <--- do hope you answer this
Imo this is the first example of a embolden Iran.
They know Obama is weak and won't do anything.
They swindled the US out of 150 billion dollars and now will have nukes in 10.2 years.
Obama already admitted the break out time was months.
Their only goal is to spread and fund terror.
Funny though, they can't even take out Isis.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's not bullshit, the US would react to a foreign military ship it thought entered US waters.Stop with the nonsense accusations, I'm neither and it makes you look foolish making such claims.
Obama isn't "giving" Iran money, you're phrasing it like Chris Christie, it's a silly deception.
So what should have Obama done then concerning this situation, since our sailors being returned swiftly and without serious incident is apparently not good? What outcome would have been acceptable to you? <--- do hope you answer this
And what proof do you have we would put them on their knees with their hands up, at gunpoint. Steal equipment and make the sailors apologize on camera?
I guess none, since I didn't claim that. I said the US would react to a military Iranian boat entering US waters. I can imagine the US military would approach an unknown and possibly dangerous situation with weapons ready, they're not stupid.
Care to answer my question now? What should have Obama done in this situation; what outcome would have been acceptable to you?
The Obama administration has acknowledged it, they're the ones that told us it happened and that a peaceful solution was quickly agreed upon.
Complaining that the Obama administration hasn't done anything concerning the hostages Iran is holding and then chastising it again for quickly diffusing another situation which could have lead to more hostages. You people are silly.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are silly
You're the one who's stance is the Obama administration should acknowledge an event that the Obama administration acknowledged.
Imo this is the first example of a embolden Iran.They know Obama is weak and won't do anything.
They had no problem taking hostages under Reagan, but don't take hostages vs Obama. Odd conclusion.
They swindled the US out of 150 billion dollars and now will have nukes in 10.2 years.
We've paid them zero dollars over the recent deal (the money in question was in Iranian accounts that the international community froze, and then with the deal, unfroze. It was never ours nor in our hands), and they could've gotten nukes in under half a year from the point they started before.
So, the first half of your statement is wrong, the second half is an improvement over what the situation was before. Heck, all that's saying is in case they try something, there's *three* presidential terms to act against it. Sounds pretty good.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama has a way of making executive orders like the one on guns and prequel it with "well this isn't going to do anything."Obama has a long history or pre scuttling his deals.
This is no different.
Iran will never change. You should wise up and quit apologizing for them.
What does this have to do with anything that was said (ignoring how wrong it is in the first place)?
You're all over the place, never able to actually answer the question posed. Misdirection after misdirection. Incoherent statements that mean nothing and are unrelated to the subject at hand.
You don't debate, you don't argue, you just plug fingers into your ears and shout nonsense.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656
Looks like we're getting our prisoners back in a prisoner swap.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656Looks like we're getting our prisoners back in a prisoner swap.
We are getting back 4 innocent people and giving them 7-8 actual criminals.
Intersting swap.
These people should never have been imprisioned.
And there is still Robert Levisnon who is not being released.