Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
At the very least, we'll do it in a new Tom Hanks movie.
-
Features
Houthis turn pirate
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
At the very least, we'll do it in a new Tom Hanks movie.
Even if that were true (hint: most were just regular embassy staff) Iran's actions were wrong. You do not attack an embassy unless the embassy attacks you (which has never happened.) If you don't like what an embassy is doing you can throw them out, that's it. Legally, taking the hostages was the same as if they had come to the US and taken hostages. When the rebels handed the hostages to the new government and said government didn't promptly send them to the US they became complicit.
Conveniently ignoring what they have done.
And note that taking the embassy people hostage was an act of war. If they get invaded as a result, they asked for it in taking on a superpower.
The era of going to war to seize natural resources is over.
They call us the Great Satan because of Islam, not because of anything we have actually done.
laughing dog
Contributor
That arose out of the Iranian Islamic revolution. Given our meddling in Iran’s government for decades in overthrowing an elected leader, then installing the Shah, it seems to me it is valid to conclude that it is because of actions we have done.
barbos
Contributor
Are you sure?
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,138
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
That's bullshit.
There were weeks and months of warnings that the Iranians were going to take their country back. All the women and children had plenty of time to evacuate the war zone. All that was left was U.S. military/CIA staff trying to prop up a puppet government.
That wasn't an embassy. It was a military headquarters facility. Calling it the American Embassy doesn't change that.
Unfortunately for the Iranians, they didn't grasp who was really their enemy in the USA. They thought it was Carter. They couldn't have been more wrong. It was Bush. Once he got hold of power he launched the Iraqi Invasion.
Tom
It doesn't matter if they were playing spy games. Your only recourse against misdeeds by an embassy is to throw them out. You don't get to capture them.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,101
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Only if you feel beholden to the conventional approach.
I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes people don't obey all of the rules.
That's not how it's supposed to work. You respect embassies even in times of war.Only if you feel beholden to the conventional approach.
I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes people don't obey all of the rules.
laughing dog
Contributor
As usual, you are missing the point. Whether the takeover of the US embassy was legal or not, right ir wrong, it was because of actions the US gov’t had taken.That's not how it's supposed to work. You respect embassies even in times of war.Only if you feel beholden to the conventional approach.
I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes people don't obey all of the rules.
Even if true that doesn't make it not a violation of the laws of war.As usual, you are missing the point. Whether the takeover of the US embassy was legal or not, right ir wrong, it was because of actions the US gov’t had taken.That's not how it's supposed to work. You respect embassies even in times of war.Only if you feel beholden to the conventional approach.
I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes people don't obey all of the rules.
laughing dog
Contributor
Please point to any statement by anyone indicating they gave a rats ass about your irrelevant claim about a violation of the laws of war.Even if true that doesn't make it not a violation of the laws of war.As usual, you are missing the point. Whether the takeover of the US embassy was legal or not, right ir wrong, it was because of actions the US gov’t had taken.That's not how it's supposed to work. You respect embassies even in times of war.Only if you feel beholden to the conventional approach.
I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes people don't obey all of the rules.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,101
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There really aren't any laws of war; There are conventions, but fundamentally these can only be enforced by winning a war against the nation that is breaking those conventions.
Which is why German and Japanese war criminals went on trial after WWII, but British, American and French war criminals didn't.
If you're not prepared to go to war, and/or not capable of winning that war, then you have no way to enforce any rules of war on another nation. So any rules you might imagine are certainly a long way short of being laws.
Attacking an embassy makes a good excuse to start a war; But that's closer to being a tradition than to being a law, and ultimately if the most severe penalty for breaking a rule is that it will invoke angry posts about its nefariousness on a discussion board, how importantly do you imagine anyone will take that rule?
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,138
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
Using the U.S. Embassy as a base for attacking Iran made it just another military installation by the losers in the battle for Iran.
U.S. operatives centered in the "embassy" were helping our puppet king cling to power. They were supporting SAVVAK, Pahlavi's secret police. They were helping the ousted government kidnap, torture, and disappear dissidents for a long time.
What few "innocent civilians" were in the CIA command post we called an embassy were gone. It was no longer an embassy, it was an enemy position.
Tom
Any guns in the embassy shooting out? Nope--they were not attacking.
Supporting the previous regime doesn't constitute an attack. Running spies doesn't count as an attack.
Derec
Contributor
All you Houthi supporters will be happy to know that have continued their pirate activities.
Yemen's Houthis claim missile attack on Norwegian tanker in tense Middle East
Why is Biden dithering? Why not authorize some air attacks to fuck those vassals of Tehran thoroughly up? Safe international shipping is in US national interest. Allowing puppets of our enemies to terrorize ship traffic in a major shipping route is not.
Biden administration should never have delisted Houthis as a terrorist organization. They did that solely out of spite.
Yemen's Houthis claim missile attack on Norwegian tanker in tense Middle East
Why is Biden dithering? Why not authorize some air attacks to fuck those vassals of Tehran thoroughly up? Safe international shipping is in US national interest. Allowing puppets of our enemies to terrorize ship traffic in a major shipping route is not.
Biden administration should never have delisted Houthis as a terrorist organization. They did that solely out of spite.
Derec
Contributor
As usual, I was correct and all the Muslim apologists on here and in the US government were proven wrong.
Biden should never have done this:
In foreign policy shift, Biden lifts terrorist designation for Houthis in Yemen
Derec
Contributor
Not allowing Iranian regime control over a part of the Arabian peninsula was most definitely in US national interest.
Also, Saudis are our ally. Iran is our enemy.
Better a small war now, than WWIII when Iran gets the bomb and their empire stretches from the Arabian Peninsula to Lebanon.
Derec
Contributor
Allowing Iran a beachhead on the Arabian Peninsula is not in US national national interest in any case.
Also, the Houthis, whose aggression in Yemen and whose piracy against shipping vessels you now seem to support, has always hated US and Israel. Their motto is: "Allah Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam".
So emblazoned on their flag:
Derec
Contributor
Nothing that theocratic regime does is "self defense". Is arming Hezbollah, Houthis, Islamic Jihad and Hamas "self-defense"? Is occupying Lebanon and Yemen though their proxies (Hezbollah and Houthis respectively) "self-defense"? Was taking our embassy hostage "self-defense"? Were the bombings in Beirut and Khobar "self-defense"? Give me a break!
Derec
Contributor
Strategy is different, but that's a distinction without a difference. Besides, Nazi Germany supported proxies as well, like Vichy France, "independent" Croatia or Norway under Quisling.
UN has become useless. The general assembly passing a so-called "ceasefire" resolution but rejecting amendments condemning Hamas massacre and calling for release of hostages is case in point.
It's becoming more and more dystopian, in fact.
Why would either Russia or China help Iran? And a war with Iran may become necessary. Better to fight them now then when they get the bomb and become even more ensconced from Yemen to Lebanon.
World did not want to stop Hitler when he reoccupied Rhineland, took over Austria or marched into part of Czechoslovakia. Not even marching into all of Czechoslovakia woke people up. And by the time he marched into Poland he was strong enough for the war to last six years and cost 10s of millions of lives.
Bullshit. Ending Houthi invasion in Yemen would not have cost "millions" and would have checked Iranian expansionism.