# Iranian thugs at the British Embassy



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

My friends in the UK, I share your outrage. I am especially outraged that the thugs tore up a portrait of Her Majesty, a gracious woman who for over half a century has done her duty and done ill toward no one. Thirty one years ago my country allowed itself to be humiliated for over a year, but we did get our people back. A few years ago you got your sailors back in a much shorter time. It is as if there is a juvenile delinquent down the street but the adults just let him carry on. 

I know how the ancient Romans would have responded, but those times have past and I don't presume to know what your response should be. Good luck with it and God save the Queen.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> My friends in the UK, I share your outrage.
> 
> *I know how the* *ancient Romans would have responded*, but those times have past and I don't presume to know what your response should be. Good luck with it and God save the Queen.


I share your outrage. If Iran keeps heading in the direction of acquiring an atomic bomb then I wouldn't be so sure that a Roman-style response isn't in the cards. Let's see: We invaded Afghanistan; which is on the right of Iran (on the map), and then we invaded Iraq; which is on the left. Time to tighten the vise? Nothing like a war in a far-off place to distract the voters from their problems at home, eh?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I was under the impression that we were invited into Afghanistan. Certainly we in the UK were told that our involvement was merely as observers, not in an active military capacity, to assist with nation building following the US support of the N.Alliance against the Taleban.
One could argue that, despite all we're told about the Euro and the Banks, that the economic collapse of the West has been caused by our vast expenditure on unnecessary military adventures.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

With Winston Churchill and British Petroleum demanding that we intercede, the US staged a coup d'etat in 1950s Iran and the Iranian people have never forgotten it. Both the US and Britain have a history of using embassies as home bases for undermining foreign governments. Some of these anti-Western demonstrations are the result of our past intercessions; the Iranians are paranoid that the US and Britain continue to meddle in Iranian affairs. I suppose this is why the embassies are always among the first targets of the violent demonstrations.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ There's no way the Iranian government should have allowed this to happen to a foreign embassy. For all we know is was carried out by operatives from their government. 

None the less you make a great point Bandit. Prior to the 1950 coup d'etat staged by the U.S. C.I.A. the Iranian government was democratically elected in fair elections that no one disputed.

After all how would anyone reading this feel about another country if they overthrew our democratically elected government? I know I would hate the government that did this to my country.

Too few Americans care enough to understand that our government's failed diplomatic policies have caused many people all over the world to hate us. And it's highly patriotic to say so.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Too few Americans care enough to understand that our government's failed diplomatic policies have caused many people all over the world to hate us.


One must accept the bad with the good!!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> ...our government's failed diplomatic policies have caused many people all over the world to hate us.


What policies? Could you be more specific?:icon_study:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I suspect that 127.72 MHz is referring to our CIA's past and ongoing efforts to manipulate or at the very least influence world events...and he is absolutely spot on. Iran is an example of but one of those misadventures. Reflect if you will on our Vietnam experience, or on several mid-eastern regimes, past and present; how about Iraq and finally, Afganistan and the late OBL...a monster of our own CIA's creation to complicate The Soviet Unions Afganian escapades, who clearly turned and rather devastatingly bit the hand of it's former master! Alas, Iran is but one of many examples of our CIA's past misadventures. It is perhaps good to fight the good fight, but it is also essential that we some day learn when it is that we are stepping across a line that should not be crossed.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Right you are Eagle. The context of my remark was stated in two preceding sentences.

I wish I believed that twenty percent of the U.S. population could cite the examples you have.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Ah, the consequences of the Cold War live on. We - and the Brits - wanted guaranteed access to Mideast oil in case we, i.e. NATO, had to go to war against the Soviet Union, i.e. the Warsaw Pact, and fight World War III. Mossadegh didn't want to play along with the game. He wanted independence for Iran and did not want to guarantee U.S. and British access to Iranian oil if WW III broke out. So Eisenhower's CIA overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power, and the rest is history.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> So Eisenhower's CIA overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power, and the rest is history.


Now that the Shah has been replaced, what has it been, 30 years now, don't you think the little Persian haters would be over it by now??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Reflect if you will on our Vietnam experience....


They must be too busy building Nike sneakers to hold the same grudge Iran has!!


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

*Greeks*



WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that the Shah has been replaced, what has it been, 30 years now, don't you think the little Persian haters would be over it by now??


They are still angry at the Greeks! lol


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that the Shah has been replaced, what has it been, 30 years now, don't you think the little Persian haters would be over it by now??


Well, apart from shooting down an Iranian airliner, supporting Saddam Hussein in his aggressive war against Iran, and carrying out what the Islamic world sees as a "crusade" against their Islamic brothers, the West hasn't really done anything to perpetuate Iran's dislike of the West!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Well, apart from shooting down an Iranian airliner, supporting Saddam Hussein in his aggressive war against Iran, and carrying out what the Islamic world sees as a "crusade" against their Islamic brothers, the West hasn't really done anything to perpetuate Iran's dislike of the West!


Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, and we don't like it.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Regillus said:


> Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, and we don't like it.


A statement which is exactly equivalent to Chouan's last example, if you switch "Iran" and "The West," and replace "Islam" with "Decadent Western Values." I doubt either statement justifies shooting down airplanes or procuring nuclear weapons.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Regillus said:


> Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, and we don't like it.


Get a lot of Iranian missionaries?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Get a lot of Iranian missionaries?


LOL. No but when the West engages in business dealings with Iran and other muslim countries they do sometimes try to make contracts abide by their interpretation of sharia law or some other part of the Koran.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> LOL. No but when the West engages in business dealings with Iran and other muslim countries they do sometimes try to make contracts abide by their interpretation of sharia law or some other part of the Koran.


So? Is that really "Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, and we don't like it."? Or is it an Islamic country trying to maintain it's Islamic values whilst dealing with, for example Christians, who are trying to retain Christian values?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, and we don't like it.


Are they really? Or is this a Western chauvanist view of people who aren't doing exactly what we want them to? There is no evidence at all that Iran is trying to push Islam on the West, no matter what Islamic rhetoric might suggest. Taking their rhetoric seriously is where there is likely to be a problem.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that the Shah has been replaced, what has it been, 30 years now, don't you think the little Persian haters would be over it by now??


Your perspective is interesting. (Especially the "Little Persian haters" comment)

I know it's difficult to imagine given the United State's military prowess but if our legitimately elected government was overthrown so a political puppet government could be installed which forever changed history for our country I would never be able to forgive.

And all the comments about what Iran does by "pushing Islam on the west?"

In any conflict the party that holds the most leverage, (power) is the party that holds the most responsibility. Sure the Iranians are wholeheartedly against us now and fully dedicated to oppose anything we say. They're this way because the U.S. government has screwed them every chance we could for many years.

The take away and the main point to this thread is that the U.S. government seldom reflects upon the cause and effect relationship our foreign policy failures have had upon some of our most pressing long term problems.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Your perspective is interesting. (Especially the "Little Persian haters" comment)
> 
> I know it's difficult to imagine given the United State's military prowess but if our legitimately elected government was overthrown so a political puppet government could be installed which forever changed history for our country I would never be able to forgive.


I live in the Land of The Star Spangled Banner and even here where it was fought, the war of 1812 is an afterthought.

I realize it wasn't successful, but damn them English bastards for trying!!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I'd drink to that,...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

This being Pearl Harbor Day, don't get me started on those Japs!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I live in the Land of The Star Spangled Banner and even here where it was fought, the war of 1812 is an afterthought.
> 
> I realize it wasn't successful, but damn them English bastards for trying!!


I rather thought that the US started that particular issue by invading Canada. If the UK responds to US invasion of their sovereign territory by attacking the US a year or two later, surely even an American can hardly blame them?
Who was unsuccessful? The US in their failed invasion or the UK in their failed attacks on Fort Henry and New Orleans? (At the same time as they were fighting Napoleon)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

What we have here (above) is typical revisionist blame America firstism.

The next thing you'll dream up, is that the Maine was blown up in Havana Harbor deliberately. 

The Lusitania was a gun-running legitimate target.

FDR baited the Japs into bombing Pear Harbor.

N. Korea liberated the South in a bid for peaceful unification.

Or that the World Trade Center was blown up by Neocon Jews to wage war on Islam. 

But I digress...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What we have here (above) is typical revisionist blame America firstism.
> 
> The next thing you'll dream up, is that the Maine was blown up in Havana Harbor deliberately.
> 
> ...


Well, conventionally, a country that invades another is usually regarded as the aggressor in a conflict, the invader usually being regarded as being the one that started the conflict. Perhaps your perception is different? Or are you suggesting that the US didn't attempt to invade Canada?

The Lusitania was clearly a legitimate target, whether or not she was carrying ordnance. She a vessel registered to a combatant nation and was sailing in an area that had been designated publicly by the Germans as being subject to unrestricted submarine warfare.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Well, conventionally, a country that invades another is usually regarded as the aggressor in a conflict, the invader usually being regarded as being the one that started the conflict. Perhaps your perception is different? Or are you suggesting that the US didn't attempt to invade Canada?
> 
> The Lusitania was clearly a legitimate target, whether or not she was carrying ordnance. She a vessel registered to a combatant nation and was sailing in an area that had been designated publicly by the Germans as being subject to unrestricted submarine warfare.


1) It has become popular to mischaracterize the War of 1812 and to draw lame paralells to the Iraq War of 2003. The USA was clearly provoked by England's war mongering, unfair economic trade policies and embargoes, as well as their ongoing conspiracy with Native Americans against us.

1803-1812 - British impress approximately 10,000 Americans forcing them to work on British ships. July 23, 1805 - British decide in Essex case that American traders who travel between neutral and enemy ports will allow for the seizing many commercial ships.
1806 - The British blockade France; American ships are caught in the middle and the British seize approximately 1000 US ships. 
1811 - Battle of Tippecanoe - Tecumseh's brother (the Prophet) leads attack on William Henry Harrison's army of 1000 men. 
June 18, 1812 - America declares war against the British. This war is known as "Mr. Madison's War" or "The Second American Revolution." 
August 16, 1812 - U.S. loses Ft. Mackinac as the British invade American territory. 
1812 - Three attempts are made by the U.S. to invade Canada. They all end in failure. 
1812 - The USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides") defeats the HMS Guerriere. January 1813 - Battle of Frenchtown. British and Indian allies repel Kentucky troops in bloody fighting. The American survivors are killed in the Raisin River Massacre.

**British Bastards. Now look what you have done. I'm all riled up!!**

2) Go ahead and defend your Hun Bastard friends, go ahead!!

Filthy English Kniggits!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Or are you suggesting that the US didn't attempt to invade Canada?


More than one-half of Britain's invasion force during the War of 1812 was composed of militia from one of its colonies, Canada; the US did indeed eventually attempt to invade this colony during the war. Plainly an outrage.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> The Lusitania was clearly a legitimate target, whether or not she was carrying ordnance. She a vessel registered to a combatant nation and was sailing in an area that had been designated publicly by the Germans as being subject to unrestricted submarine warfare.


The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Lusitania was indeed carrying munitions, which did technically disqualify her from cruiser line immunity under international conventions. The Germans did not know that the passenger ship was carrying such munitions, but suspected it because the use of non-military ships for this purpose had become fairly common British practice. The attack, while therefore possibly legally justifiable, was risky to the point of reckless, on both moral and political grounds. Germany never really asserted that it was entitled to torpedo civilian vessels as long as they were registered to a combatant nation in designated waters (which actually would have been a rather plain violation of international norms), but instead asserted (i) that a use of any passenger vessel to transport war material rendered that particular vessel an article of combat and therefore legitimate target and (ii) the regular use of cruise liners for such purposes entitled it to *presume* that all such ships were therefore legitimate targets. Accordingly, Germany did announce its intention to torpedo such vessels if found in designated waters. This was not an altogether unreasonable position, but it was problematic both morally and politically. It ended up serving them poorly.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> It ended up serving them poorly.


Dresden more than evened things out a few years later.

Hun Bastards!!


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Hi my friends.
I doubt we will be going to war with Itan my friends. Especially after the vietnam mess, the first gulf war, Iraq, Afganistan.
We learned one thing in this era.
We can bomb and destroy the entire populace and history of the places.
We messed up in the rebuilding phases of war and letting the state department, doing their diplomacy ****.
I think our military brass will learn from these and go forward with new knowledge.
Like Wilso did in WW2.
Nuke the place.
I believe we will do the same to Iran, and with no fears of diplomacy.
It is sad, that a military operation, has to woryy about politics.
We need to let the military, run the military!

Jimmy


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This is how to deal with Iranian thugs.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that the Shah has been replaced, what has it been, 30 years now, don't you think the little Persian haters would be over it by now??


If it were not for your ongoing ability to obtain a reliable internet connection - I would suggest that you must live in a cave.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

A cave with FiOS!!


----------

