PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Mob Storms British Embassy


Davian93
11-29-2011, 09:25 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/11/29/iran-britain-embassy.html

Not good by any means.

Sei'taer
11-29-2011, 10:00 AM
Nope, but it's probably going to get worse. We have a weak president and a disjointed country right now. It's definitely not the best time for this to be going on.

Frenzy
11-29-2011, 10:17 AM
hard-line students? really? if you say so.

Davian93
11-29-2011, 11:03 AM
hard-line students? really? if you say so.

Paid regime enforcers is a more likely description than "students".

Davian93
11-30-2011, 08:13 AM
And the UK has retaliated by expelling Iran's diplomats from the UK. Thus, both countries have completely broken off relations with each other.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-30-2011, 10:29 AM
Oh, Joy.

1979 all over again?

Zombie Sammael
11-30-2011, 11:18 AM
We have bigger problems right now. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2011/nov/30/public-sector-strikes-live-coverage)

Davian93
11-30-2011, 11:32 AM
We have bigger problems right now. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2011/nov/30/public-sector-strikes-live-coverage)

So how's that Tory majority working out for you?

Zombie Sammael
11-30-2011, 11:53 AM
So how's that Tory majority working out for you?

They don't even have a majority. It's a pathetic coalition between those who should know better and those who don't, apparently determined to bring misery to all and the country to its knees for nothing more than ideology and excuses.

...but that's just my opinion.

Sinistrum
11-30-2011, 04:10 PM
Meh I'm not too surprised by this. Storming embassies is like a cultural tradition for then at this point.

Seeker
11-30-2011, 04:10 PM
Nope, but it's probably going to get worse. We have a weak president and a disjointed country right now. It's definitely not the best time for this to be going on.

Wait, what does that have to with anything?

America is completely uninvolved in this situation and - with the exception of condemning the actions of these protesters - should probably stay that way.

Res_Ipsa
11-30-2011, 06:55 PM
They should have shot the little bastards as they crossed the line and kept shooting till they ran out of bullets. Sadly, like American embassies the British have idiotic rules of engagement.

Davian93
11-30-2011, 07:10 PM
They should have shot the little bastards as they crossed the line and kept shooting till they ran out of bullets. Sadly, like American embassies the British have idiotic rules of engagement.

Idiotic rules of engagement that likely saved their lives given that these were 99% Regime thugs bent on trashing the place, not murdering them.

Res_Ipsa
11-30-2011, 07:58 PM
Idiotic rules of engagement that likely saved their lives given that these were 99% Regime thugs bent on trashing the place, not murdering them.

I have no idea how well armed and equipped British Embassy details are. I do however know how well armed and equipped US Embassy details are.

Also, as a history guy, you should understand that Arabs respond to strength. They think in centuries compared to the western mind and with them, it is war to the knife. It is even more of a brinksmanship game than with Russians.

Sei'taer
11-30-2011, 08:04 PM
Wait, what does that have to with anything?

America is completely uninvolved in this situation and - with the exception of condemning the actions of these protesters - should probably stay that way.

We should, but we have a president who desperately needs to show strength. That's where America becomes involved.

Davian93
11-30-2011, 08:09 PM
I have no idea how well armed and equipped British Embassy details are. I do however know how well armed and equipped US Embassy details are.

Also, as a history guy, you should understand that Arabs respond to strength. They think in centuries compared to the western mind and with them, it is war to the knife. It is even more of a brinksmanship game than with Russians.

I know how well armed our details are too...and it wouldnt be enough to even phase a mob intent on storming it. Also, it would likely start a war regardless of their provocation.

Every Russian you meet is the most paranoid SOB you will ever meet. Remember that when you study their history.

Davian93
11-30-2011, 08:11 PM
We should, but we have a president who desperately needs to show strength. That's where America becomes involved.

Show strength how? We cant invade Iran. We cant even really hurt them. A 3rd major war would bankrupt us completely even if we had the capability to wage one...which we dont. We already have sanctions on anything militarily useful. What could even FDR or Reagan have done in this situation?

Terez
11-30-2011, 08:14 PM
Show strength how? We cant invade Iran. We cant even really hurt them. A 3rd major war would bankrupt us completely even if we had the capability to wage one...which we dont. We already have sanctions on anything militarily useful. What could even FDR or Reagan have done in this situation?What they did do might be far more important.


http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377886_265929850121877_246310432083819_713879_1085 488885_n.jpg

Davian93
11-30-2011, 08:18 PM
What they did do might be far more important.


http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377886_265929850121877_246310432083819_713879_1085 488885_n.jpg

Well, you could probably remove the flags from Iraq and Pakistan shortly as neither country wants us there and our relations with Pakistan are probably worse than our relations with Iran. Iraq will be an Iranian satellite in 5 years and in their sphere of influence in about 45 days when our troops are gone.


The best thing we can do is stay the hell out of their indigenous youth-based dissent and make sure they arent labeled as American sympathizers. If its one thing that unites a country, its a foreign enemy. Thus, when an idiot like Gingrich says we should openly support the student protesters, he's just demonstrating his stupidity. You'd think a guy with a doctorate in history would know better.

Seeker
11-30-2011, 09:44 PM
We should, but we have a president who desperately needs to show strength. That's where America becomes involved.

Wait, hold on, I'm confused again. Why does Obama need to show strength? And what are you defining as strength?

I mean if you're saying that Obama backs down every time a bunch of right-wing crazies raise a fuss, I agree with you. However, as Bryan has frequently told me, the President does not (and should not) have legislative power, so a) Obama's inability to institute public health care and repeal the Bush tax cuts has more to do with a spineless Democratic party than with his own decisions. And b) his difficulties with Congress have little to do with Iran's perception of America's military might, which is the only definition of strength that would be relevant to this discussion.

If you're saying that America needs to flex its military muscles just to prove that it HAS them, then you've subscribed to a philosophy that leads to international aggression and violence against America. Reference Ron Paul's discussions on blow-back and the dangers of nation-building if you want to hear a voice from the Right discuss these matters.

I find myself lukewarm about Obama in the best of times. This is because I have come to see him as the voice of a corrupt and broken political system rather than the rebel he claimed to be during his campaign. Congress makes a bad decision and Obama gives a speech to apologize for it and soothe everybody's frustration. The sad part is that he has the right ideas - stricter regulation of the financial sector, public health care and an end to corporate lobbyists - but he lacks either the will or the power to enact these changes. Again, a lot of this has to do with his spineless colleagues in the Democratic Party. In the last two years, the Democrats have caved on just about every issue.

And every time they do, Obama comes out of the White House with chagrin on his face and says "Well, they tried their best..." or something to that effect. It's pitiful. A perfect example of this is his attempt to repeal the Bush tax cuts. When the Republicans filibustered and the Democrats gave in, Obama went on TV and said. "Well, I had to leave the tax cuts in place because removing them would have made life harder on low income families."

You want to know why that's bullshit? Because the solution was so simple. Leave the tax cuts in place for low-income families, repeal them for families making a combined income of more than say... three times the median household income. (Which would put the point at which you are ineligible for the tax cuts at somewhere around a combined income of $90 000). Yes, as a lefty, I'm very much in favour of tax cuts... FOR THE POOR!


For those of you who want to check my numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income



And why do I care (since I'm Canadian?) Well, for one, I'm sick of America's descent into plutocracy serving as a bad example for Canadian politicians. For two, my fiance has to live there. And for three, general concern about the fate of the human race.

Sei'taer
11-30-2011, 09:53 PM
Show strength how? We cant invade Iran. We cant even really hurt them. A 3rd major war would bankrupt us completely even if we had the capability to wage one...which we dont. We already have sanctions on anything militarily useful. What could even FDR or Reagan have done in this situation?

There you go. And by show strength, I mean that it looks that way. I'd rather he not do anything, however the pundits that I read all seem to feel like he isn't showing any strength in either his foreign or domestic policies. He needs to stay completely out of it and let the British handle it on their own. The last thing we need is him trying to make some dumb power move when we don't even need to be involved.

Anyway, I just don't want him to make any move at all, but I feel like he may do something stupid to try to appear stronger than he is.

Seeker
12-01-2011, 12:26 AM
There you go. And by show strength, I mean that it looks that way. I'd rather he not do anything, however the pundits that I read all seem to feel like he isn't showing any strength in either his foreign or domestic policies. He needs to stay completely out of it and let the British handle it on their own. The last thing we need is him trying to make some dumb power move when we don't even need to be involved.

Anyway, I just don't want him to make any move at all, but I feel like he may do something stupid to try to appear stronger than he is.

In this, we are in agreement. But I don't think you need to worry. Dumb power moves and shows of force aren't in Obama's profile. His foreign policy has always been about establishing good economic and diplomatic relations with other countries. It's the one thing I have to give him credit for.

And since he seems to do just fine on issues that are completely within his purview, I would like to once again point out that Obama probably WOULD be doing a better job if he wasn't hampered by a useless and morally bankrupt Democratic party.

GonzoTheGreat
12-01-2011, 04:12 AM
Also, as a history guy, you should understand that Arabs respond to strength.And what, pray tell me, is the relevance of that?

Iranians aren't Arabs, and they haven't been Arabs since at least before the whole idea of "Arabs" was ever even invented. If you knew anything about history, then you would have been aware that there has been a clear and discernable distinction between what are now called Arabs and what are now called Iranians for at least 4,500 years, and probably a lot longer than that. For instance, it plays a role in the early part of the Gilgamesh Epic, and is taken as a fact of nature then already.

And, as an added amusing detail: the Iranians are very well aware that Americans respond to strength too. Before the Embassy thing in 1979, the USA treated Iran (Persia, then) as a protectorate. Afterwards, it was politely dealing with it (the Iran-Contra affair, for instance).

Davian93
12-01-2011, 07:17 AM
Reagan being a punk in Lebanon didnt help either. "Oh, they killed a bunch of Marines? Well, lets get the hell out of here!!!"

His idea of being "tough" on Iran was to sell them weapons under the table.

Ishara
12-01-2011, 09:12 AM
In this, we are in agreement. But I don't think you need to worry. Dumb power moves and shows of force aren't in Obama's profile. His foreign policy has always been about establishing good economic and diplomatic relations with other countries. It's the one thing I have to give him credit for.

And since he seems to do just fine on issues that are completely within his purview, I would like to once again point out that Obama probably WOULD be doing a better job if he wasn't hampered by a useless and morally bankrupt Democratic party.

Aside from surgical strikes using Predator drones? (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/11/08/obama-the-hawk/) Not exactly diplomatic... Effective, sure.

Crispin's Crispian
12-01-2011, 11:14 AM
And what, pray tell me, is the relevance of that?

Iranians aren't Arabs, and they haven't been Arabs since at least before the whole idea of "Arabs" was ever even invented. If you knew anything about history, then you would have been aware that there has been a clear and discernable distinction between what are now called Arabs and what are now called Iranians for at least 4,500 years, and probably a lot longer than that. For instance, it plays a role in the early part of the Gilgamesh Epic, and is taken as a fact of nature then already.

And, as an added amusing detail: the Iranians are very well aware that Americans respond to strength too. Before the Embassy thing in 1979, the USA treated Iran (Persia, then) as a protectorate. Afterwards, it was politely dealing with it (the Iran-Contra affair, for instance).
That distinction is made very clear the first time you meet a Persian-American. You don't dare call them Arabs...

Davian93
12-01-2011, 11:16 AM
That distinction is made very clear the first time you meet a Persian-American. You don't dare call them Arabs...

My first comment would be, "You guys make great rugs!"

I wonder how that would go over.

Other possibilities would be:

"Persian eh? How's the Shah doing?"

"Persian? I used to have a Persian cat...what are the odds?"

Crispin's Crispian
12-01-2011, 11:35 AM
"Persian? I used to have a Persian cat...what are the odds?"
At least in one case I know about, the answer would likely be:

"Oh yeah? I used to have a stupid dog, too."

Ivhon
12-01-2011, 11:49 AM
My first comment would be, "You guys make great rugs!"

I wonder how that would go over.

Other possibilities would be:

"Persian eh? How's the Shah doing?"

"Persian? I used to have a Persian cat...what are the odds?"

Give it up for DAV! I! AAAAN everybody!!! That's our show for toNIGHT! Don't forget to tip your waitresses they work hard for the money peace OUT!!

Kalli
12-01-2011, 12:33 PM
Well if we get lucky Michelle Bachman will get elected. The she can pull our ambassadors out of Iran... http://news.yahoo.com/us-embassy-iran-michele-bachmann-oops-moment-002030317.html

Davian93
12-01-2011, 12:39 PM
Well if we get lucky Michelle Bachman will get elected. The she can pull our ambassadors out of Iran... http://news.yahoo.com/us-embassy-iran-michele-bachmann-oops-moment-002030317.html

She already "corrected" herself to say she was joking and that she meant that she WOULD pull our embassy out if we actually had one, blah, blah, blah. She's on our House Intelligence Committee...let that sink in for a bit.

Seeker
12-01-2011, 12:46 PM
Aside from surgical strikes using Predator drones? (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/11/08/obama-the-hawk/) Not exactly diplomatic... Effective, sure.

Thanks, Tal. I may have to revise my statement.

Ishara
12-05-2011, 10:59 AM
I was also shocked...

maacaroni
12-06-2011, 06:38 AM
An attack is coming, it will just come out of the blue. I don't think it is in any of the West's best interests for a messianic theocracy to get nukes.

The recent bomb outside the British Embassy in Bahrain shows how Iranian influence is spreading.

Expect a newsflash about Israeli fighters any time in the next year or so - followed by retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas.

I personally don't think they can't destroy the capability without soldiers on the ground, but hey, what do i know?

Davian93
12-06-2011, 07:41 AM
An attack is coming, it will just come out of the blue. I don't think it is in any of the West's best interests for a messianic theocracy to get nukes.

The recent bomb outside the British Embassy in Bahrain shows how Iranian influence is spreading.

Expect a newsflash about Israeli fighters any time in the next year or so - followed by retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas.

I personally don't think they can't destroy the capability without soldiers on the ground, but hey, what do i know?

Israel doesnt have the technical capability to launch an attack without tacit approval from the US...they'd also have to violate the airspace of Turkey, Iraq or Saudia Arabia...none of the three would likely say yes this time around.

yks 6nnetu hing
12-06-2011, 07:52 AM
Israel doesnt have the technical capability to launch an attack without tacit approval from the US...they'd also have to violate the airspace of Turkey, Iraq or Saudia Arabia...none of the three would likely say yes this time around.

precisely. And seeing as Turkey is in NATO, while Israel is most pointedly not, it's highly unlikely that Israel will get that approval from US.