kactus

Have great respect and admiration for this prime minister. Many try to dismiss him for his dislike for Trump and blame him for domestic policies....The reality is he is more respected and has more gravitas than Trump on any day in his presidency. Mr Trudeau has played it tactfully well to 'contain' Trump. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/16/justin-trudeau-european-parliament-whole-world-benefits-from-a-strong-eu

And there is a possibility that Trump may have pissed off the Mexicans carrying on with such rhetorics as we build the wall and you pay for it. How about there may be truth in that poll taken from Canadians and something is wrong in your belief or perhaps the way you are looking at this? Have you looked at it that way. So far any interactions I have seen from Trump with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts was to dominate the agenda and run the show. Well too bad! It didn't go well with the Mexican president (understandably) I also don't think Trudeau agrees with much of his policies.

The premise of this argument that I do agree with is this. People are speculating that Iran (at the moment with no nuclear weapon) will attack Israel that has 200+ nuclear warheads. This speculation is baseless since these two countries have never directly attacked each other in the past. Benjamin Netanyahu has clearly threatened Iran with an attack. Iran will not attack if unprovoked and there is no basis for Iran to attack the US except that it is sold as project fear....

It's rather a complex situation with different stakeholders having different agenda in Syria. Saudi Arabia is widely supported by the US financially and militarily. They have supported ISIS in fight against Assad in Syria and so did Turkey although they shift the blame on Kurd's intrusion into Turkey....Russians and Iranians are fighting the rebels and militias supported by Sunni Saudi Arabia to protect President Assad... These policies are multi dimensional and need to be looked at objectives. Bottom line a stable Syria with a proper constitution serves nothing for these stakeholders. You could argue that at least Russians, Iranians and Turks are clearer in their objectives evident in their meetings in Kazakhstan....It's regrettable but it seems the West mainly US arming the ISIS and Russians protecting Assad is only gonna create chaos and mayhem and prolong the war.... Remember project fear?

Ain't gonna happen unless Trump literally is signing his death warrant to implement such executive order...

At last after some good sportsmanship there is some good news between Iran and the US. The US wrestlers received a warm reception from fans and media when they visited Iran. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/usa-iran-wrestling-jordan-burroughs

My reply quite relevant to this topic...The poll in in Huffington Post shows a different picture about Trudeau. In actual fact it shows that he is very popular. Is that not so?

84% of Canadians disapprove of Trump. That is quite a high proportion based on this survey. It appears Trump has really angered the neighbouring Canada and Mexico to a level not seen for many years...

They do eat foods in China that requires a certain taste bud. You have been brave though. I don't think I could eat a scorpion. I did however see live fish that is pinched by chopsticks in South Korea by locals and bits of the flesh taken out and eaten raw. Somehow it put me off Sushi...

I have heard about this soup. Some say eating it is good for your joints. I don't know if there is a medical evidence. The smell is very strong....

Most nonproliferation experts would say Iran certainly defied the spirit of the U.N. resolution, but technically didn't violate it — because it contains no prohibition against such testing, as one of its predecessors, passed in 2010, specifically did. Here's what the two resolutions say on the subject, with highlighting added: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, from 2010, says the Security Council "decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities." http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/03/513229839/did-irans-ballistic-missile-test-violate-a-u-n-resolution

It does and is not in violation of nuclear agreement as you indicated...

Let's be clear that the recent missile test by Iran is NOT ICBM as has been suggested....

You would find that the testing of those medium range missiles are calculated to send a message to Washington that Iran is ready to DEFEND itself when Trump puts the citizens of that country on ban and is very unpredictable about his intentions on Iran....I don't think anyone would have a problem to use those missiles to defend their country...

Clearly you have misread what I have written and I have no time to explain it to you again....

There has not been much coverage about this and at the moment it is based on an opinion. However, given the recent tensions and rhetoric of war of words following Muslim ban from those 7 countries there is one hypothesis that determines the shape of the long term US strategy in the Middle East. IMO the banning of Iranians to US is not a coincident and is something that has been planned by Trump... Furthermore, no Iranian has ever attacked US soil in the past and to ban its citizens from entering the country for 3 months could mean one possibility.... The Trump administration is planning to attack Iran regardless if the Iranians comply or not. That decision has already been made and to ban Iranians from going to US is top preempt any attack that Iran can implicate on US soil. I think if this scenario is true the Trump is doing a grave mistake involving a protracted war on no solid grounds.

Agreed!t Britain along with other countries are happy with this controversial agreement. Theresa May in her visit to US has also expressed that Iran has fulfilled the nuclear agreement. It is only the US under the pressure from Bibi that is forcing for US to take this action unilaterally....No other country holds the same view.

The statement has no basis as the nuclear watchdog has confirmed there is no nuclear threat from Iran since P+5 agreement and Iran has complied. I agree with that doctrine as I have not seen any evidence that suggests otherwise...

This conversation moved on. What you are referring to was discussed much earlier and to be able to follow it you need to read the subsequent posts... There is no point being selective and hung up one post when so much more has been discussed since...

IMO in their briefing Justin Trudeau held himself really well and composed considering he is almost half the age of President Trump. I am not trying to sound political to take sides but just an observation on the conversation that took place between the two men. It may be seen that Trump came across as aggressive telling Trudeau how it is. Perhaps he feels that being the president of the most powerful country gives him the right to get people to his way of thinking. Whether this is right I don't know. There is just simply too much politics behind the doors....

Because Argus has said he finds Trump's policies stupid. That's why I would like to know where he stands on Trump. I wasn't talking about Obama. Personally, I don't think speculating what Obama would have done is the right approach since he is not the president now and this would be pointless. Obama is not the president and we should look at the policies of the current administration objectively and not make comparisons to previous administration.

There are several issues in this way of thinking I believe. 1- You don't want to know the facts and discredit everything others tell you. You were provided with several sources and discredited them all. 2- You have already made up your mind to have the argument for the sake of winning no matter what. If so, go ahead but do not expect a response... 3- You do have a point in which case will be happy to hear it.

Have been told by a moderator that revision of history is "off topic" as it is not a competition in history lesson and get a warning for that...This is totally uncalled for as some of the debates here is trying to revise the history even though evidence has been provided...

Get back to me when you have understood that it wasn't Mossadegh that employed those riots...lol The rest is just drivel...

This is the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état So it wasn't Mossadegh after all who jailed his opponents, employing street thugs according to CIA classified documents...Hmmmm!