Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"
But even if you want to argue to that extreme, then well, yeah if you consider the USA sent its military into Pakistan without them even knowing. The USA does that kind of stuff all the time and at least in this case, the UK will know about it and is cooperating with Sweden on the issue.
Even further, Sweden has an embassy there already with armed guards that could very well likely beat up Ecuador's armed guards, so no one needs to be sent there -- they are already there.
Do you actually think this is about Sweden wanting to extradite him for accusations of rape? Seriously, compare this to Roman Polanski, who was actually convicted of the crimes and the Swiss still rejected extradition.
And no, for the record, I don't think the UK saying, "Okay Sweden, if you want him, he is in the Ecuadoran Embassy. Our relationship with Ecuador and honoring centuries of diplomatic customs between nations is a bigger deal than your rape case."
Rape is horrible and I acknowledge that. I also see that diplomatic relations are way heavier than crimes of that magnitude -- even greater magnitude -- and are consistently prioritized as such in countless diplomatic immunity cases throughout history.
Frankly I don't care what kind of clout you have around here, your condescending tone is unwarranted. Your superficial comments make you look like an arrogant dolt.
> Also, the Swedes are not Swiss. Europe is tricky, I know.
Let's talk about silly. As of this post, you've commented in this thread 31 times. Just let it go man.
The writing is on the wall.
It's just weird. He's smarter than I am, and I can see bullshit for what it is.