Iranian Students Storm British Embassy, Raise Palestinian Flag

[min0 lee]

This looks like a job for Jimmy Carter....Wait, wut?

Article not found | AHN | December 30, 2008 Borghese - AHN Editor
Tehran, Iran (AHN) - Iranian students, outraged at the United Kingdom's support for the ongoing Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, briefly stormed the British Embassy in Tehran before police forced them from the residence.

According to Iranian state-run media, several dozen students broke into the compound on Tuesday evening, tearing down the British flag and replacing it with the Palestinian banner.

The rally lasted a little over an hour before authorities restored calm to the embassy.

Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip, Israel on Tuesday continued to reject world appeals for a truce and warned its assault on Gaza could last for weeks.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told President Shimon Peres that the aerial phase of the operation is "the first of several" military operations that have been approved by senior leaders.

 

[maniclion]

Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip, Israel on Tuesday continued to reject world appeals for a truce and warned its assault on Gaza could last for weeks.

Yeah only another 3000 weeks....

 

[IronAddict]

All that part of the world knows is war!

Why are we over there again?

 

[Big Smoothy]

All that part of the world knows is war!

Why are we over there again?

Black Gold.

 

[lnvanry]

Black Gold.

thats a bit over simplified, but its definitely a primary driver

 

[KelJu]

thats a bit over simplified, but its definitely a primary driver

I think it is dead on accurate. There are massive wars, terrorism, genocide taking place all across the world in non oil producing countries. You don't see us getting involved in their shit do you?

 

[DOMS]

I think it is dead on accurate. There are massive wars, terrorism, genocide taking place all across the world in non oil producing countries. You don't see us getting involved in their shit do you?

In the last couple of decades, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Macedonia come to mind as places we've taken action where there was no oil.

 

[danzik17]

In the last couple of decades, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Macedonia come to mind as places we've taken action where there was no oil.

I think it largely depends on the administration. Look who was in control during those and who was in control during the wars in oil rich countries.

 

[KelJu]

I think it largely depends on the administration. Look who was in control during those and who was in control during the wars in oil rich countries.

Beat me to it.

 

[DOMS]

I think it largely depends on the administration. Look who was in control during those and who was in control during the wars in oil rich countries.

Beat me to it.

Bosnia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia were from 2000-2004.

I'm sure Bush and his group had a primary interest in oil, but not everyone in the government made that their top priority.

Feel free to think otherwise...

 

[danzik17]

Bosnia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia were from 2000-2004.

I'm sure Bush and his group had a primary interest in oil, but not everyone in the government made that their top priority.

Feel free to think otherwise...

Um, no they weren't. The only one out of those that were primarily in the 2000s was Haiti due to questionable elections. By that logic, the Iraq war would have been entirely Obama's because they happened to extend into his administration.

The others may have extended into that period, but they were primarily from the Clinton era.

 

[DOMS]

Um, no they weren't. The only one out of those that were primarily in the 2000s was Haiti due to questionable elections. By that logic, the Iraq war would have been entirely Obama's because they happened to extend into his administration.

The others may have extended into that period, but they were primarily from the Clinton era.

True, be continued action, that served no purpose in the quest for oil, were taken.

So, if Obama pulls out of Iraq, that's Bush's doing?

 

[KelJu]

Bosnia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia were from 2000-2004.

I'm sure Bush and his group had a primary interest in oil, but not everyone in the government made that their top priority.

Feel free to think otherwise...

Significant U.S. Conflicts

I fact checked most of the recent dates on this chart and they all checked out against other sources, so I am going to assume that all of these are correct. If you can find an error, post a source. Otherwise, I am going to have to say your are wrong on all three of those conflicts you mentioned.

The first conflict that Bush Jr. actually had his hands in was post 9/11.

 

[DOMS]

Significant U.S. Conflicts

I fact checked most of the recent dates on this chart and they all checked out against other sources, so I am going to assume that all of these are correct. If you can find an error, post a source. Otherwise, I am going to have to say your are wrong on all three of those conflicts you mentioned.

The first conflict that Bush Jr. actually had his hands in was post 9/11.

Sigh... Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004

 

[danzik17]

True, be continued action, that served no purpose in the quest for oil, were taken.

So, if Obama pulls out of Iraq, that's Bush's doing?

No, but you know that you're twisting this logic. When Obama takes office, it's not like he can snap his fingers and have troops out. The same went for Bush, it's not like he could just snap his fingers and pull troops out of places that Clinton had committed them too. They could theoretically, but the backlash from such an abrupt pullout would have been devastating.

Very few encounters of any significance that were initiated by the Bush administration were in non-oil rich countries.

 

[DOMS]

No, but you know that you're twisting this logic. When Obama takes office, it's not like he can snap his fingers and have troops out. The same went for Bush, it's not like he could just snap his fingers and pull troops out of places that Clinton had committed them too. They could theoretically, but the backlash from such an abrupt pullout would have been devastating.

Very few encounters of any significance that were initiated by the Bush administration were in non-oil rich countries.

Your getting your panties knotted because you think I'm saying something nice about Bush. I'm not, so get over it.

My point is that not everything our government does abroad is done in the pursuit of oil, and that sometimes we take an action because we think that it'll help.

 

[KelJu]

Sigh... Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004

To "get" involved one must not already "be" involved. I'm looking at dates of entry into the conflicts, not exit dates. He was simply agreeing not to undo what Clinton did.

Like Danzik said, If Obama doesn't pull US forces out of Iraq in January, you can't say Obama invaded Iraq. It doesn't work that way.

 

[DOMS]

To "get" involved one must not already "be" involved. I'm looking at dates of entry into the conflicts, not exit dates. He was simply agreeing not to undo what Clinton did.

Like Danzik said, If Obama doesn't pull US forces out of Iraq in January, you can't say Obama invaded Iraq. It doesn't work that way.

But if his administration continues, and more importantly adds to the conflict, then it does count.

For the love of god, you and Danzik are so uptight about Bush that you can't see past him.

 

[danzik17]

But if his administration continues, and more importantly adds to the conflict, then it does count.

For the love of god, you and Danzik are so uptight about Bush that you can't see past him.

Believe what you want. I can see past him just fine, I just disagree with nearly everything he has done, I also disagreed with most of Clinton's work, and Bush Sr.'s work.

Realize that I am a traditional Republican and I don't believe that we should be involved in any of these conflicts. We should not be trying to be the policeman of the world.

 

[DOMS]

Believe what you want. I can see past him just fine, I just disagree with nearly everything he has done, I also disagreed with most of Clinton's work, and Bush Sr.'s work.

Realize that I am a traditional Republican and I don't believe that we should be involved in any of these conflicts. We should not be trying to be the policeman of the world.

I don't believe that you do.

Yeah, Bush is an asshat at best, but there are still other people in that administration (perhaps left over from other administrations) that don't make oil their number purpose.

 

[KelJu]

But if his administration continues, and more importantly adds to the conflict, then it does count.

For the love of god, you and Danzik are so uptight about Bush that you can't see past him.

Up tight? This is a friendly conversation I thought. You guys know me well enough to know when I'm irritated.

 

[danzik17]

I don't believe that you do.

Yeah, Bush is an asshat at best, but there are still other people in that administration (perhaps left over from other administrations) that don't make oil their number purpose.

It's a moot point since I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but chances are I disagree with them too. You think I'm only focusing on Bush when in fact I'm not, he is just the most well known public face of the administration.

The vast majority of the government is unconstitutional at this point, therefore I agree with only the part that is constitutional. By extension, that means that I will disagree with probably every administration that will exist period unless by some miracle we start following the Constitution again.

 

[DOMS]

Up tight? This is a friendly conversation I thought. You guys know me well enough to know when I'm irritated.

I didn't mean that in regards to your attitude. I meant it in regards to our government.

I may suck, I but I don't believe it's 100% evil.

 

[DOMS]

It's a moot point since I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but chances are I disagree with them too. You think I'm only focusing on Bush when in fact I'm not, he is just the most well known public face of the administration.

The vast majority of the government is unconstitutional at this point, therefore I agree with only the part that is constitutional. By extension, that means that I will disagree with probably every administration that will exist period unless by some miracle we start following the Constitution again.

Fair enough, but do read my previous post. That was my point all along.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy
Black Gold.

thats a bit over simplified, but its definitely a primary driver

Oil is the primary driver.

The issue in Iran goes back to 1953, when the British and the US overthrew a democratically elected President names Dr. Mohamed Mossadegh over over profit sharing.

Reva Shah (The Shah) was placed in power.

Add the Pro-Zionist policy of the US,

And you have the Iranian position, and the political structure that Iran has today.