Canada boycotts Ahmadinejad's UN speech

[Topaz]

I can understand why the Tories did the boycotting but why didn't Harper give a speech to the UN and include what Harper thinks of Iran. Instead to went to the dinner last night and said that it was the Libs fault for Canada's environment or lack of participaction into Kyoto. The world must know that Harper is against Kyoto in the first place ,but it doesn't him him again to put the blame on someone else. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090923/...cda_ahmadinejad

[M.Dancer]

So is this thread about Canada's position on Iran, Harper's dinner or Canada's position on Kyoto?

The world must know that Harper is against Kyoto in the first place ,but it doesn't him him again to put the blame on someone else.

I applaud your efforts towards mastering the wayword english language, but please feel free to ask for help.

[Moonbox]

Yeah Topaz what the hell?

This is the first time I've ever seen someone derail their own thread in the opening post....

[nicky10013]

The absence of him from climate talks is worht another thread altogether.

In terms of Iran, though this is symbolic, I think leaders not talking to leaders whatever their record may be is the wrong way to go. For those who haven't read it, I recommend, "The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall."

The thesis is completely opposite of how we think the world should be and with good reason. Ian Bremmer, the author of the book argues that even things like this that shuts out the world to authoritarian countries only helps the governments of those countries. The more governments of authoritarian states are able to shut the world out, primarily through sanctions, the easier it is for states to keep their citizens poorer and in the dark. People in North Korea don't know that people have landed on the moon. Would this be different if we actively tried to engage not only the government of Kim Jong Il but it's people? We can't know but no one can deny the chances would be higher. Sanctions hurt the people just as much as the government (if they even hurt the government at all. The government at least usually can get around these sanctions - especially military ones)

Look what's happening in China. Chinese American trade is massive and not surprisingly, in China the government is having an increasing difficulty controlling media (mainly through the internet). Wealth is also growing, mostly through trade, and its not surprising that the number of anti-government protests there are enormous and growing every year (some 70,000 last year, I believe). People are getting richer and instead of feeding their family they can focus on being upset about corruption and lack of basic freedoms.

In stark contrast to that, you have Cuba. 50 years after the embargo, a Castro is still in control.

So, in essence, despite this being just a speech (though it does send a symbol), just not talking to someone isn't the solution to problems of authoritarianism. Active engagement is. The only thing Reagan did that actually precipitated the fall of the USSR was to fund Radio Free Europe. The rest is just talk. If we're disgusted with what happend in Iran (and we should) we need to think outside of the box to start fixing these problems.

Edited September 23, 2009 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

Just caught what looked like a deranged Taxi driver who seemed to habe hijacked the UN speaker's podium to deliver a barely coherent rant about something or other. It appears most of the assembly left the auditoriam in case as often happens, the deranged individual goes postal or that the RCMP are called in to taser him.

I just hope he hasn't double parked his cab, NYC streets are bad enough as it is without a driverless taxi blocking traffic.

[Gabriel]

Hi everyone,

As Moonbox already stated, this thread is a train wreck as of the very first post. There are some interesting things to discuss, namely the Canadian government's decision to boycott Ahmedinejad's speech at the UN (a decision which I support), but it seems to me that this thread touches on several unrelated subjects and is certainly going to end up in disaster.

[Sir Bandelot]

Just caught what looked like a deranged Taxi driver who seemed to habe hijacked the UN speaker's podium to deliver a barely coherent rant about something or other. It appears most of the assembly left the auditoriam in case as often happens, the deranged individual goes postal or that the RCMP are called in to taser him.

I just hope he hasn't double parked his cab, NYC streets are bad enough as it is without a driverless taxi blocking traffic.

Could have been Ghaddafy. He was lookin like a punked out rock star, with the blackened beard and hairdo.

As to walking out on Ahmadinejad, no doubt that it scores good political points on some sort of Israeli business contract. Otherwise, what the hell do we care what this nut job is talking about.

[Oleg Bach]

So the Iranian goes on about the Joooos...oh well and Harper will tow the political and crimminal line. Today I met an older Jewish fellow who has a daughter that is a speech writer for politicals including Harper...I talked with him about the naive white Christian soldiers that were being sacraficed in Afghanistan...He coldly like a racist said..to para pharse - "They are of no use other than for dieing" _ I asked if his daughter believed in God...he said she was a good and friendly person but was an atheist...So this buisness about God's choosen seems in my mind to have worn itself out.

IF you have the daughter of a cruel and brutal man putting words in the mouth of Harper - makes you wonder...just a thought...as for our dear friend I'm a dinner jacket..from Iran --- pesky is a good word...BUT the Lybian leader was astounding - first that he had gotten so ugly in his old age - and that he called the UN a highly organized terror group is probably not far off the mark...Get some genocide in Africa - 10 thousand a week dying - The UN will have a study and make sure that the study lasts for years...that's pretty terrific..and terroristic even though it is unconscious..the end results is the same.

[Visionseeker]

Lets polish this post here.

So Canada boycotted Ahmadinejad's speech, as did a number of other countries. Good move. I think few could legitimately criticize it. But I will.

Sure a boycott sends a message. But I think the Conservatives lost a symbolic opportunity here. We all know that the environment file is not one that incites excitement among the tory ranks and, given the opportunity to speak of anything else, they'd gladly oblige. They just lost one such opportunity. Why? Because Cannon doesn't speak until Friday.

Had Cannon sat through the whole address, he could've used that fact to downplay any environmental comments in order to address a much higher conern: Ahmadinejad's insanity and illigitimacy. He could've proded and turned his anti-semitism diatribe and compared his statements to his deeds against his own people. He could've suggested that some in the room are understandably required to stick to the business of the environment and play polite, and keep silent on Iran's domestic troubles and then declared that Canada will not be silent nor polite to a man who butchers his young. He could've said much for which his country, Iranian reformists and the free world could be proud.

But the Conservatives don't work towards a higher purpose, they work towards an agenda. And that is why I could never support the party.

[Oleg Bach]

The Iranian leader is a clone of Bush..same level of smarts..at least in the west we can replace our Bushes...There they kill you if you try to get rid of the ruling mob.

[Sir Bandelot]

Had Cannon sat through the whole address, he could've used that fact to downplay any environmental comments in order to address a much higher conern: Ahmadinejad's insanity and illigitimacy. He could've proded and turned his anti-semitism diatribe and compared his statements to his deeds against his own people. He could've suggested that some in the room are understandably required to stick to the business of the environment and play polite, and keep silent on Iran's domestic troubles and then declared that Canada will not be silent nor polite to a man who butchers his young. He could've said much for which his country, Iranian reformists and the free world could be proud.

He could have, but then he would probably have to point the same criticisms to some other people who are attending, and that would sort of put a damper on the party. Canada is capable of being silent and polite... if the price is right.

[M.Dancer]

Otherwise, what the hell do we care what this nut job is talking about.

Because the nut job has the capability and probably the will to close the straits of Hormuz to shipping. The effect would propel Europe back into an renewed economic crisis, not to mention a military repsonse.

[Sir Bandelot]

Because the nut job has the capability and probably the will to close the straits of Hormuz to shipping. The effect would propel Europe back into an renewed economic crisis, not to mention a military repsonse.

Why would he do that? Such an act would probably be suicide. I have read some of Ahmadinejads blogs, and he is not a stupid person. But he is an intelligent and dangerous person, shrewd. He uses his propaganda well. I suspect that much of this coming from him too, is mostly theatre.

Ahmadinejad is a threat to our leaders, not because he says bad things about Israel but because he has the power to damage our economy. Or is there something else?

The media picked up on this saying all he was ranting on about was Israel.

I have read the text of the speech he gave in the UN. I think it should be read by anyone who posts in this thread-

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/septemb..._un_9-23-09.php

These are things they don't want you to read. And if he was so important, or so dangerous, why hasn't Iran attacked other countries in a long time? Because Ahmadinejad himself is the threat... much more than Iran.

[M.Dancer]

Why would he do that? Such an act would probably be suicide.

Coming froma region where suicide attacks are considered okay....besides, Iran has tried to close the strait before so doing it again must be seen in that context.

And if he was so important, or so dangerous, why hasn't Iran attacked other countries in a long time? Because Ahmadinejad himself is the threat... much more than Iran.

They have attacked other countries, asymetrically and by proxy.

[Sir Bandelot]

Coming froma region where suicide attacks are considered okay....besides, Iran has tried to close the strait before so doing it again must be seen in that context.

They have attacked other countries, asymetrically and by proxy.

But so has practically everybody else, right? And some of our other trading partners might not think suicide attaks are bad... Iran is no world leader in this either.

Maybe it is the threat of closing the straight, or maybe a genuine fear of making nukes.

So hard to tell when our leaders are being genuine.

[Moonbox]

Coming froma region where suicide attacks are considered okay....besides, Iran has tried to close the strait before so doing it again must be seen in that context.

Closing the straits would turn the world against him. China and Russia would both turn against him, the West would retaliate. He has nothing to gain by doing this and he knows this. It's not going to happen, and even if it did, he wouldn't be able to keep it closed.

They have attacked other countries, asymetrically and by proxy.

Yeah they have a pretty long history of this.

[fellowtraveller]

Closing the straits would turn the world against him. China and Russia would both turn against him, the West would retaliate. He has nothing to gain by doing this and he knows this. It's not going to happen, and even if it did, he wouldn't be able to keep it closed.

More importantly, it would turn much of the Iranian population against him.

It is easy to underestimate the influence and power of Iran in the region. They are the financiers and puppetmasters of Hezbollah and Hamas, to name just two groups of loons. They have plenty of money and plenty of reach, and little interest in stability, because out of stability comes power to others. The last thing they want though is their own popualtion abandoning or even questioning the 'Islamic revoluttion' that Ahminejehad represents. Closing Hormuz would mean cutting off their own lifeblood of money, and that would be felt on the streets quickly. Won't happen.

[myata]

In terms of Iran, though this is symbolic, I think leaders not talking to leaders whatever their record may be is the wrong way to go. For those who haven't read it, I recommend, "The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall."

I agree. Canada's walkout only tells everybody that it now can be counted on to be a member of the pack. It does nothing to address Iran's or any other problems.

[Alex Moore]

I agree. Canada's walkout only tells everybody that it now can be counted on to be a member of the pack. It does nothing to address Iran's or any other problems.

I disagree. We cannot lend any legitimacy to the Iranian regime after the clearly fraudulent election this year. Listening to that crazy crazy man talk means two things: one that we accept him as the leader of Iran. Two that he has something worthwhile to say. Neither of which are correct. Ahmadinejad has already made it clear that diplomacy is not the option with him. War isn't an option. The only chance we have to get rid of this guy is through the Iranian people. therefore we cannot under any circumstances make this guy even appear legitimate/respected.

[Argus]

Just caught what looked like a deranged Taxi driver who seemed to habe hijacked the UN speaker's podium to deliver a barely coherent rant about something or other. It appears most of the assembly left the auditoriam in case as often happens, the deranged individual goes postal or that the RCMP are called in to taser him.

I just hope he hasn't double parked his cab, NYC streets are bad enough as it is without a driverless taxi blocking traffic.

Are you suggesting Topaz and Khadafy are the same person?

[wyly]

Why would he do that? Such an act would probably be suicide. I have read some of Ahmadinejads blogs, and he is not a stupid person. But he is an intelligent and dangerous person, shrewd. He uses his propaganda well. I suspect that much of this coming from him too, is mostly theatre.

Ahmadinejad is a threat to our leaders, not because he says bad things about Israel but because he has the power to damage our economy. Or is there something else?

The media picked up on this saying all he was ranting on about was Israel.

I have read the text of the speech he gave in the UN. I think it should be read by anyone who posts in this thread-

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/septemb..._un_9-23-09.php

These are things they don't want you to read. And if he was so important, or so dangerous, why hasn't Iran attacked other countries in a long time? Because Ahmadinejad himself is the threat... much more than Iran.

Iran closing the straight? they won't, even if they claimed half of the straight and it was accepted as legal, shipping could go through the other half belonging to Oman and the UAE...and they don't have the capability to close it as they would they risk a confrontation with the west by invading UAE and Omani territorial waters...

all this war and invasion stuff are fantasies that gets righties stroking their guns...

[Wild Bill]

Iran closing the straight? they won't, even if they claimed half of the straight and it was accepted as legal, shipping could go through the other half belonging to Oman and the UAE...and they don't have the capability to close it as they would they risk a confrontation with the west by invading UAE and Omani territorial waters...

all this war and invasion stuff are fantasies that gets righties stroking their guns...

Your argument assumes the leaders of Iran are rational. In effect, you are describing yet another flavour of the old "Mutual Assured Destruction" Doctrine, in that if you start it you will receive at least as much as you dish out.

With fundamentalist religions, Islamic, Christian or whatever, all such bets are off.

[myata]

I disagree. We cannot lend any legitimacy to the Iranian regime after the clearly fraudulent election this year. Listening to that crazy crazy man talk means two things: one that we accept him as the leader of Iran. Two that he has something worthwhile to say. Neither of which are correct. Ahmadinejad has already made it clear that diplomacy is not the option with him. War isn't an option. The only chance we have to get rid of this guy is through the Iranian people. therefore we cannot under any circumstances make this guy even appear legitimate/respected.

Of course, we simply have to be the ones deciding the legitimacy of others elections, governments, ways to run the country, laws, beliefs, and so on. And if we don't like them, we'll walk out, proudly. Such a novel recipe for the world in the new millenia!

[M.Dancer]

Iran closing the straight? they won't, even if they claimed half of the straight and it was accepted as legal, shipping could go through the other half belonging to Oman and the UAE...and they don't have the capability to close it as they would they risk a confrontation with the west by invading UAE and Omani territorial waters...

all this war and invasion stuff are fantasies that gets righties stroking their guns...

Gosh, was the tanker war so long ago that it is out of reach of those who claim such a vast knowledge of history? (U of Google)

[M.Dancer]

Are you suggesting Topaz and Khadafy are the same person?

For what it's worth, I like Topaz and find her posts amusing.