Gulf of Oman incidents

[skirk]

I remember the days when you could'nt move in the gulf for Type 42's and Type 22;s............where did it all go wrong..............

[98elise]

GT03ROB said:

Gadgetmac said:

GT03ROB said:

Gadgetmac said:

We have a Navy, albeit much reduced, shouldn't they now be escorting our tankers through the Strait of Hormuz?

If not what's the point of them?

Our ships don't work in the gulf, it's too hot for them, engines pack up!

Where's our super-duper, all singing and dancing, £3.1bn aircraft carrier?

Portsmouth. Has it got any planes yet?

Come to think of it... has it got a captain after they sacked the last one?

Aircraft carriers not in service rarely have aircraft on board, it would be pointless.

Aircraft carriers in home port rarely have aircraft on board as it's pointless.

Our new aircraft carrier is not in service AND in its home port so why would it have it's aircraft onboard?

Edited by 98elise on Saturday 20th July 10:42

[GT03ROB]

98elise said:

GT03ROB said:

Gadgetmac said:

GT03ROB said:

Gadgetmac said:

We have a Navy, albeit much reduced, shouldn't they now be escorting our tankers through the Strait of Hormuz?

If not what's the point of them?

Our ships don't work in the gulf, it's too hot for them, engines pack up!

Where's our super-duper, all singing and dancing, £3.1bn aircraft carrier?

Portsmouth. Has it got any planes yet?

Come to think of it... has it got a captain after they sacked the last one?

Aircraft carriers not in service rarely have aircraft on board, it would be pointless.

Aircraft carriers in home port rarely have aircraft on board as it's pointless.

Our new aircraft carrier not in service AND in its home port so why would it have it's aircraft onboard?

So my point stands our super-duper 3.1bn aircraft carrier is as much use as the other 2 ships in Portsmouth, Victory & the Mary Rose.

[dudleybloke]

I'm willing to lease the Navy my inflatable kayak if it will help.

[Countdown]

Can't we ask the Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder with us?

[Gadgetmac]

We’re going to buckle aren’t we?

I can see us doing a tanker-for-tanker swap and walking away with our tails between our legs, duly chastised.

What message this will send out to the world about the UK’s stature and how to negotiate with us in the future god only knows.

I’m not an American fan by any stretch of the imagination but can you imagine one of their tankers being taken by the Iranians - or anybody else for that matter.

We legally detain their ship so they hijack one of ours. And we can’t say we didn’t see this coming. They’ve been probing ships for weeks.

[dudleybloke]

Countdown said:

Can't we ask the Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder with us?

They're either with us or against us.

[Countdown]

Gadgetmac said:

We legally detain their ship....

Since when were non-EU countries legally obliged to follow the diktats of the EU?

How about Iran imposes a legal tax on tankers going through the Straits of Hormuz..... will all countries be obliged to pay it?

[Condi]

Gadgetmac said:

We legally detain their ship so they hijack one of ours.

Under what 'legality' did we detain theirs?

It was an EU law (ergo, not recognised by the Iranians, or Syrians, and there is nothing to say they are bound by it) and the ship was probably not in British waters at the time.

We massively overplayed our hand, at the behest of the Americans, and this retaliation was entirely foreseeable, Not only that the Iranians had been saying so for weeks. Not that any harm will come to the ship, or the crew; they'll simply be kept until we release theirs.

The court in Gibraltar has yet to decide if the holding of the Iranian ship is legal, but it certainly wasn't proportionate given ongoing discussions around the nuclear agreement and the public statements from the EU partners of wanting to retain it!

[Gadgetmac]

Condi said:

Gadgetmac said:

We legally detain their ship so they hijack one of ours.

Under what 'legality' did we detain theirs?

It was an EU law (ergo, not recognised by the Iranians, or Syrians, and there is nothing to say they are bound by it) and the ship was probably not in British waters at the time.

We massively overplayed our hand, at the behest of the Americans, and this retaliation was entirely foreseeable, Not only that the Iranians had been saying so for weeks. Not that any harm will come to the ship, or the crew; they'll simply be kept until we release theirs.

The court in Gibraltar has yet to decide if the holding of the Iranian ship is legal, but it certainly wasn't proportionate given ongoing discussions around the nuclear agreement and the public statements from the EU partners of wanting to retain it!

It was in Gibraltarian (EU) waters at the time it was seized suspected of carrying oil to Syria which is against EU law.

Hence “legal” no?

[Gadgetmac]

If not I see a business opportunity to set up a small floating shop in Iranian waters selling scotch whisky and bibles.

[Countdown]

Gadgetmac said:

It was in Gibraltarian (EU) waters at the time it was seized suspected of carrying oil to Syria which is against EU law.

Hence “legal” no?

No.

The Guardian said:

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”

[psgcarey]

Gadgetmac said:

It was in Gibraltarian (EU) waters at the time it was seized suspected of carrying oil to Syria which is against EU law.

Hence “legal” no?

Nope, Straits of Gibralter are covered under the maritime law of Transit Passage, anyone can go through as if it was international water.

[milkround]

What's happening to the sailors who were on this boat?

People seem more concerned than a really expensive bit of metal than humans who are probably pretty worried. (Assuming they have not just let them go).

[Condi]

milkround said:

What's happening to the sailors who were on this boat?

People seem more concerned than a really expensive bit of metal than humans who are probably pretty worried. (Assuming they have not just let them go).

They'll be looked after quite well. This is a PR exercise by the Iranians to make a point about the UK impounding their tanker. It would be totally counter productive for anything to happen to the crew while in Iranian hands.

[anonymous-user]

Iran says the ship was seized because it was involved in an accident

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-ta...

Not a massive step to spin that up & spin the Gibraltar claim down so that they are both perceived by particular audiences as either side needs

[DAVEVO9]

HMS Montrose was 60 mins away not 10 as some reports suggest.

What about the chopper? Or did they mean the chopper would have been 60 mins away?

[Gadgetmac]

psgcarey said:

Gadgetmac said:

It was in Gibraltarian (EU) waters at the time it was seized suspected of carrying oil to Syria which is against EU law.

Hence “legal” no?

Nope, Straits of Gibralter are covered under the maritime law of Transit Passage, anyone can go through as if it was international water.

Territorially the Straits are claimed by Spain, Morocco and the UK. You may have passage through them but you cannot commit a crime within them.

[psgcarey]

Gadgetmac said:

Territorially the Straits are claimed by Spain, Morocco and the UK. You may have passage through them but you cannot commit a crime within them.

Unless your geography is so tragically bad you think one, or both, of Syria and Iran are in the EU they have not committed a crime.

I'm not the only person on this thread telling you this.

Take the hint.

[fido]

I was out last night with a friend on the South Bank and we started talking to a group of people near us. among them were a guy and girl from Israel and Iran - not a combination I expected and it reminded me of this thread. I asked them about all the stuff on the news and what their thoughts were on it. I asked her what she thought of the current leader and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Straight out she was adamant that they were a bunch of idiots and the last thing they needed were nuclear weapons, and shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons. I also asked her if the current government was better or life under the Shah - she said definitely the latter though she said he was too weak to stop the revolution. Just one person's opinion but nevertheless someone in their twenties who doesn't condone or support any of the current going-ons.