Canada boycotts Ahmadinejad's UN speech

[Sir Bandelot]

If there's one thing we learned from this summer its that the Iranians themselves don't think their own government is legitimate.

Maybe I didn't make this point strong enough in the original argument.

It apears that at least 1/2 of them don't. But for a moment there I thought you were talking about America

[Alex Moore]

It apears that at least 1/2 of them don't. But for a moment there I thought you were talking about America

In the original argument or the current?

[kimmy]

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.

How would sitting through Amajinabinabad's speech help "address Iran's or any other problems"?

Would we later go and say "look, man, you owe us for not walking out on your crappy speech, so release the detained journalists?"

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

In the original argument or the current?

It was a joke... about the reaction of right wingers to Obama. There are many people in the United States who claim that the Dems stole the election, and that Obama is not a legitimate president.

Just ask Shady

[Alex Moore]

It was a joke... about the reaction of right wingers to Obama. There are many people in the United States who claim that the Dems stole the election, and that Obama is not a legitimate president.

Just ask Shady

lol

and that he's not actually american born.

[August1991]

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!

Myata you seem to view this as Pack A vs. Pack B as if there were no difference between the two packs. Such a view is also called "moral relativism" since it implies that no side is right or wrong. To you myata, there is no difference, for example, between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP - In your mind, they are just Pack A vs. Pack B.

Well, I and others here fundamentally disagree. I happen to think that Western Civilization is a good thing, worth defending.

------

How should the West engage Iran? That is a $64,000 question but I generally think that facing despots, our democrats governments should do everything possible to remove the legitimacy of the despot. At the same time, we should do everything possible to maintain contacts with ordinary people and help them keep their sanity and hope despite living under despotism.

When tyrants like Gaddhafi or Ahmadinejad speak at the UN in New York, this gives them legitimacy and the news dominates home media. Most people tune all this out but the the sinking feeling remains that these tyrants will hold power forever - resistance is futile. Tyrants thrive on fear and the perception that the tyrant is all powerful.

Anything Canada does to encourage ordinary Iranians to believe that this regime is not eternal is a step in the right direction. At the very least, when the regime collapses, as it eventually will - then there will still be some Iranians (other than those in the diaspora) who have still their wits about them. People some day in the future will have to make Iran a civilized society.

Edited September 26, 2009 by August1991

[Molly]

It was too convenient by half to snub Ahmadinejad... and to have a snub to the UN and to and collective environmental action both thrown in as freebies.

I find it all very uncomfortable, very disquieting.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To "snub" Iran is a waste of time. Sort of like ignoring Adolf Hitler in the late 30's. I am sure that the bleeding hearts club approves of the gestures used against these lunatic nations such as Iran and North Korea, I believe it is foolish.

[myata]

(Applause) yay! someone else who offer criticisms without actually looking at the argument.

...

No we are not the ones deciding the legitimacy of other people elections. The Iranian are the one deciding the legitimacy of their own. You may have conveniently forgotten but after the fraudulent Iranian elections this summer: there where riots demanding recounts. Followed by a severe beat downs from police and paramilitants. Arrests for being on the same street as a protest/being British or working for a western organisation. followed by the show trial of opposition leaders. I'm not the one saying that's the government isn't legitimate. If there's one thing we learned from this summer its that the Iranians themselves don't think their own government is legitimate.

1) So you already know they were "fradulent", don't you? What would you call the recent Afghan elections then, a triumph of democracy?

2) So you already know what "the Iranians" (in general, one has to assume) think and want?

[myata]

How would sitting through Amajinabinabad's speech help "address Iran's or any other problems"?

Would we later go and say "look, man, you owe us for not walking out on your crappy speech, so release the detained journalists?"

-k

By telling us and everybody that we came to listen and talk, rather than play pack games with predetermined outcome? We don't happen to have another, better humankind, and ourselves, in the reality mirror, and by actual track record, we could hardly pretend to be a better part of it. Re Iraq for example, cost much more in lost lives that "detained journalists" so who exactly are we to teach the others, even nasty and unlikeable ones, what they should do? Wouldn't it be much more convincing to start showing some example, for a change?

[myata]

Myata you seem to view this as Pack A vs. Pack B as if there were no difference between the two packs. Such a view is also called "moral relativism" since it implies that no side is right or wrong. To you myata, there is no difference, for example, between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP - In your mind, they are just Pack A vs. Pack B.

How do you know that, though? Through ingrained staunch and unquestionable belief? Or actual record in the mirror (Hiroshima, Vietnam, Latin American dictators, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East)? Condemning tyrants in Iran and Lybia and encouraging and supporting (how should we call them - freedom apprentices??) in Afghanistan or e.g. Egypt?

[Alex Moore]

1) So you already know they were "fradulent", don't you? What would you call the recent Afghan elections then, a triumph of democracy?

2) So you already know what "the Iranians" (in general, one has to assume) think and want?

1) Well I tend to agree with oversight committees like you know the UN election observers who all said that this election was fraudulent. The only people who actually do think it was are you and the ahmadinejad groupies

What would I call the afghan elections? a fucking disaster

2)To be honest your right I do not know what the Iranians think and want. But you cannot claim the same thing. What I do is what I have read on the subject. And when you have MONTH ALONG RIOTS. followed by you know THE VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT.you really have to question how legitimate the government is and how the people respect the government.but you know you and the Ahmedinejad groupies can conveniently forget this fact just like you know the holocaust.

3) READ THE PAPER AND STAY INFORMED. Just because you approach a subject with a moderate liberal opinion does not make it correct. Your forgetting (so I will remind you) that there was a very strong reform movement in Iran before Bush came into power. Bush in declaring Iran and axis of evil, gave rise to the conservatives like Ahmedinejad. but since bush left office the country has returned to favor the reform movement (this has been confirmed by oversight commitees). Before the election projection where that yes Ahmedinejad would return to office but with a slim lead(2% ish) over opposition parties. Weakening his position considerably. instead we see a complete reversal of this and that he actually comes out stronger. Odd don't you think? (of course not you and the Ahmedinejad groupies just pretend this didn't happen). Opposition parties then ask for a recount which is promptly rejected by the supreme autocrat Ayatollah Ali Khammenei. Because the dirty little secret that everyone knows (except you of course) is that Ahmedinejad and Ali Khammenei are in bed together (metaphorically I hope). their policies of anti Americanism has become so intertwined with each other. That basically the two are inseparable. The fraudulent nature of this become apparent to the opposition causing mass protest. Which is violently suppress through both the police and pro-government militias causing riots and further protests. The government then suppresses any dissent and finally violently squashes the protests.

Please do the one thing you have failed thus far and explain to me that after independent observers have claimed this election to be fraudulent. That after are mass protests and a violent suppression of them. That their election was fair and legitimate and that Ahmedinejad is not another bat-fucking crazy dictator.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Alex Moore

[myata]

1) Well I tend to agree with oversight committees like you know the UN election observers who all said that this election was fraudulent. The only people who actually do think it was are you and the ahmadinejad groupies

Those would be quite generic statements, of the kind "if you don't see it the way I am, you must be, that".

BTW you happen to have a reference handy (of those UN observers all saying the entire election was "fradulent"), people sometimes back their words with some sort of factual evidence? I'm not aware such conclusion existed but I would certainly be interested to see it, and it'd certainly influence how I see that election. Which is, more or less, that people should be able to run their country the way they see fit, and we have no f... business telling them how they should be doing it, until at least we cleared our own act.

2)To be honest your right I do not know what the Iranians think and want. But you cannot claim the same thing. What I do is what I have read on the subject. And when you have MONTH ALONG RIOTS. followed by you know THE VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT.you really have to question how legitimate the government is and how the people respect the government.but you know you and the Ahmedinejad groupies can conveniently forget this fact just like you know the holocaust.

Why do I have to question it? Do I have enough knowledge of what the people (all people) in the country think?

How violent btw? Any more violent than our recent democratization of Iraq? Much more violent than incidents at some recent GX summits?

3) ... the country has returned to favor the reform movement (this has been confirmed by oversight commitees). Before the election projection where that yes Ahmedinejad would return to office but with a slim lead(2% ish) over opposition parties. Weakening his position considerably. instead we see a complete reversal of this and that he actually comes out stronger. Odd don't you think? (of course not you and the Ahmedinejad groupies just pretend this didn't happen). Opposition parties then ask for a recount which is promptly rejected by the supreme autocrat Ayatollah Ali Khammenei.

Are you sure your record is correct? In my undestanding, the recounts were conducted, and it's another election that has been denied. If I'm wrong on that (which could be, I only followed these events on mainstream media) I'll be much grateful for the update.

Because the dirty little secret that everyone knows (except you of course) is that Ahmedinejad and Ali Khammenei are in bed together (metaphorically I hope). their policies of anti Americanism has become so intertwined with each other. That basically the two are inseparable. The fraudulent nature of this become apparent to the opposition causing mass protest. Which is violently suppress through both the police and pro-government militias causing riots and further protests. The government then suppresses any dissent and finally violently squashes the protests.

That may be so, from some point of view at least, but, the question is, do people of that country, any country have th right to vote for an anti-American president? How many did actually vote for Ahmedinejad? What evidence do you hav that the actual result of this election would have been different?

They didn't run another election in the US a few years back (there recount indeed has not been allowed, if I remember correctly), nor would they in Afghanistan. Why should they go out of their way to meet your concerns then?

[Sir Bandelot]

Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33065418/ns/wo...new_york_times/

Just a little snippet to throw in here... the assessment by their own intell.

But of course only in "closed-door discussions".

[bush_cheney2004]

Just a little snippet to throw in here... the assessment by their own intell.

But of course only in "closed-door discussions".

No matter...since when have you put all your faith into American "intel" ? When it suits your purpose?

[Sir Bandelot]

No matter...since when have you put all your faith into American "intel" ? When it suits your purpose?

No, I would never do that.

Now that you've stopped snickering, the point of my post is to raise the question, why don't they have faith in their own intel? Or maybe they actually do, and this is all just a charade.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now that you've stopped snickering, the point of my post is to raise the question, why don't they have faith in their own intel? Or maybe they actually do, and this is all just a charade.

It's always just a charade...that's part of the fun.

But either way, don't ever confuse intelligence gathering and analysis with policy.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's always just a charade...that's part of the fun.

But either way, don't ever confuse intelligence gathering and analysis with policy.

Sage words from a wise man.

[Alex Moore]

Those would be quite generic statements, of the kind "if you don't see it the way I am, you must be, that".

BTW you happen to have a reference handy (of those UN observers all saying the entire election was "fradulent"), people sometimes back their words with some sort of factual evidence? I'm not aware such conclusion existed but I would certainly be interested to see it, and it'd certainly influence how I see that election. Which is, more or less, that people should be able to run their country the way they see fit, and we have no f... business telling them how they should be doing it, until at least we cleared our own act.

Why do I have to question it? Do I have enough knowledge of what the people (all people) in the country think?

How violent btw? Any more violent than our recent democratization of Iraq? Much more violent than incidents at some recent GX summits?

Are you sure your record is correct? In my undestanding, the recounts were conducted, and it's another election that has been denied. If I'm wrong on that (which could be, I only followed these events on mainstream media) I'll be much grateful for the update.

That may be so, from some point of view at least, but, the question is, do people of that country, any country have th right to vote for an anti-American president? How many did actually vote for Ahmedinejad? What evidence do you hav that the actual result of this election would have been different?

They didn't run another election in the US a few years back (there recount indeed has not been allowed, if I remember correctly), nor would they in Afghanistan. Why should they go out of their way to meet your concerns then?

You still have yet to offer any evidence the contrary of my argument which I explicitly asked in the last post. I'm not even really sure how answer you with out repeating myself. but fear not i will try.

1) your right I should back my statements with factual information but i'm a lazy asshole and this isn't the house of commons so i just don't care to. If your really disappointed in this you could always try and find proper sources that say otherwise. as i said early you have in the entire of this discussion ignored offering ANY evidence to the contrary

If you'd read my initial argument its not that we should tell the iranian how they should run their country. It was that Canada was right in boycotting Ahmedinejad's speech because WE should not in any sense accept this man as a legitimate leader. (Do you actually accept him as the legitimate leader?) We as a country cannot for two reasons. One is that the election this summer was at the very least poorly handled and the evidence points towards a fraudulent election, the violence the ensued cannot be accepted by the global community and every action must be taken to peacefully condemn it (this includes boycotting his crazy speeches). Two (i'm adding this to my original argument) that we cannot accept him and his message because it is counter factual (denying the holocaust), deceitful(no we're not developing nuclear weapons) and just plain revolting. Once again we must condemn these actions by giving them no pretext to be viewed as legitimate. to your final point was that we should leave a country rule by its people to act on their own will sure why not. but when you have a clear suppression of dissent and the presence of a dictator. We have an obligation to say hey that's not right.

2) why do you have to question it? Because questioning is the route to finding truth, accepting things at face value is accepting ignorance and disillusionment. If you'd prefer the latter. GET OUT. By the way bringing up abstract points like hey remember Iraq isn't an argument its really just annoying. because now i have explain something THAT HAS NOTHING to do with the argument. now lets get crack'n. Iraq the democratization of Iraq was the only way to sell the iraq war as legitimate to america and the world. it remains the only accomplishment to date of the iraq war. Iraq now exists as a democracy and interestingly a secular middle east nation. was achieving this violent? yup! should this have happened? probably not. Is it functioning? wait 50 years and then ask the same question. but this retrospect and it meaningless to comment on it in relation to iran. GX summits qu'es que fuck? your not trying to resurrect seattle 98' are you?

3) Ali Khammenei offered to support recounts in some of the areas that were obvious cases of fraud, (like you know 90% for ahmed! its all too stalinesc to be taken as legitimate). the reform said no we would a full recount and a investigation as to whether of not there was cases of government fraud. Ali Khammenei was then like" that's the final offer" and withdrew any support for recounts. so there have not been any to date and probably will not be any.

4) Yes they have the right to vote for an anti-american president just so long as he never holds true to his promise of wiping out america and israel. There has been no recount so the factual results cannot confirmed. what is fact is that a significant portion of the Iranian people rallied against him believing as i do that the results of the elections were fraudulent. the manner. that these where violently suppressed a way most nation don't dare try. which show a Stalin like resolve for power.

You did it again bringing up abstract points that have nothing to do with the argument. In cases of uncertainty in a election a government should always do a recount. in our country its constitutional. in other like the US its dependent on the state where the ballots where cast (I don't know anything about the afghan system). I believe you're referring to bush v gore of 2000 where there were some obscurities in the election that should have justified a recount. I' don't want to summarize this beyond that HBO did an interesting docudrama featuring Kevin Spacey on this election and that I believe it to be fairly accurate in their description.

[myata]

1) your right I should back my statements with factual information but i'm a lazy asshole and this isn't the house of commons so i just don't care to.

Then you can certainly hold them as your private beliefs, but hardly more than that till the time you have some factual information to confirm your words.

WE should not in any sense accept this man as a legitimate leader. (Do you actually accept him as the legitimate leader?) We as a country cannot for two reasons. One is that the election this summer was at the very least poorly handled

Every leader coming out of a "poorly handled" (for whatever it means) election is illegitimate? Like G.W. Bush? whoever it is in China? Medvedev in Russia? Like a half of the world have "illegitimate" leaders? As decided by who? Its better 10%?

and the evidence points towards a fraudulent election,

the same one you haven't provided, so please qualify it with at least "I believe" or something like that.

the violence the ensued cannot be accepted by the global community and every action must be taken to peacefully

Would that same principle also apply to violence at e.g. G7 summits? I'm not condoning violence, but any such reaction must be qualified by a close and detailed investigation, that simply havent' happened here.

but when you have a clear suppression of dissent and the presence of a dictator. We have an obligation to say hey that's not right.

Any suppression of dissent means "illegitimate" government? Like Canada's G7 in Vancouver and Quebec?

No I don't mind getting out at all. According to the information I'm hearing and reading, the regime in Iran, certainly unlikeable from any Western point of view, is still supported by majority. And I'm certainly open to discussion of any information that could suggest otherwise, and also open to changing my point of view as a result of this discussion. Needless to say that we still have to see anything resembling it.

Iraq now exists as a democracy and interestingly a secular middle east nation. was achieving this violent? yup! should this have happened? probably not. Is it functioning? wait 50 years and then ask the same question. but this retrospect and it meaningless to comment on it in relation to iran. GX summits qu'es que fuck? your not trying to resurrect seattle 98' are you?

Why not, though (and many others btw)? How do you decide which kind of violence (and by who) is legitimate, and which - is not? If violence against more or less peaceful protest is inacceptable in principle, you'll find many, many governments in this world that should be illegitimate. If you have some fine criteria for deciding, you forgot to share it with us.

3) Ali Khammenei offered to support recounts in some of the areas that were obvious cases of fraud, (like you know 90% for ahmed! its all too stalinesc to be taken as legitimate). the reform said no we would a full recount and a investigation as to whether of not there was cases of government fraud. Ali Khammenei was then like" that's the final offer" and withdrew any support for recounts. so there have not been any to date and probably will not be any.

I can't comment on your take of events because it's different from mine and I can't say which one is closer to reality without rereading the facts. That I have little interest in doing. However if you still have the evidence of "observers" declaring the entire election "falcified" (as seems to be implied in the earlier post), you're very welcome to post it.

4) Yes they have the right to vote for an anti-american president just so long as he never holds true to his promise of wiping out america and israel.

Again, we can't just take you on your word here. If you can show that such promises existed, as direct threats to attack any one country, it would certainly be an example of aggressive behaviour that has to be condemned.

You did it again bringing up abstract points that have nothing to do with the argument.

Not at all abstract, only that there isn't one common and obvious standard of legitimacy in the world, and therefore one should at least come with serious and proven arguments before declaring anybody they don't like (I may not like them either) as "illegitimate". Loose words can only lead to loose meanings and loose meanings well do not mean much.

Edited October 1, 2009 by myata

[Alex Moore]

Then you can certainly hold them as your private beliefs, but hardly more than that till the time you have some factual information to confirm your words.

Every leader coming out of a "poorly handled" (for whatever it means) election is illegitimate? Like G.W. Bush? whoever it is in China? Medvedev in Russia? Like a half of the world have "illegitimate" leaders? As decided by who? Its better 10%?

the same one you haven't provided, so please qualify it with at least "I believe" or something like that.

Would that same principle also apply to violence at e.g. G7 summits? I'm not condoning violence, but any such reaction must be qualified by a close and detailed investigation, that simply havent' happened here.

Any suppression of dissent means "illegitimate" government? Like Canada's G7 in Vancouver and Quebec?

No I don't mind getting out at all. According to the information I'm hearing and reading, the regime in Iran, certainly unlikeable from any Western point of view, is still supported by majority. And I'm certainly open to discussion of any information that could suggest otherwise, and also open to changing my point of view as a result of this discussion. Needless to say that we still have to see anything resembling it.

Why not, though (and many others btw)? How do you decide which kind of violence (and by who) is legitimate, and which - is not? If violence against more or less peaceful protest is inacceptable in principle, you'll find many, many governments in this world that should be illegitimate. If you have some fine criteria for deciding, you forgot to share it with us.

I can't comment on your take of events because it's different from mine and I can't say which one is closer to reality without rereading the facts. That I have little interest in doing. However if you still have the evidence of "observers" declaring the entire election "falcified" (as seems to be implied in the earlier post), you're very welcome to post it.

Again, we can't just take you on your word here. If you can show that such promises existed, as direct threats to attack any one country, it would certainly be an example of aggressive behaviour that has to be condemned.

Not at all abstract, only that there isn't one common and obvious standard of legitimacy in the world, and therefore one should at least come with serious and proven arguments before declaring anybody they don't like (I may not like them either) as "illegitimate". Loose words can only lead to loose meanings and loose meanings well do not mean much.

Death to America isn't enough for you? That's in the prayers of Ali Khamenei

We've gone so far of track here we're not even arguing anything with substance. While I'm not even sure what your arguing for but rather just trying to paint me as the asshole as I am. So if you wouldn't mind I'm going back to the roots of our argument. You have argued for What I believe is Absolute sovereignty and respect for it (or at least I'm concluding this from what your arguing against). I believe this to be an Idealistic philosophy but fundamentally naive. In the modern world Nations have become interwoven through economic and political ties, the importance of sovereignty has been reduced considerably. Of course nations still pose threats to each

while unable to act unilaterally on their behalf the must be able to defend themselves. The solution has been condemnation through the international community aka the UN. So when a nation Like Iran starts building nuclear weapons the impose embargoes to slow their progress as significantly as possible while negotiating a settlement. Or when a election is questionable we have a body of people who question it. Boycotting speeches is method of doing so.

just out of curiosity would you have actually wanted our representatives to have sat their and listened to the rhetoric he spewed?

[normanchateau]

1) Well I tend to agree with oversight committees like you know the UN election observers who all said that this election was fraudulent. The only people who actually do think it was are you and the ahmadinejad groupies

What would I call the afghan elections? a fucking disaster

2)To be honest your right I do not know what the Iranians think and want. But you cannot claim the same thing. What I do is what I have read on the subject. And when you have MONTH ALONG RIOTS. followed by you know THE VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT.you really have to question how legitimate the government is and how the people respect the government.but you know you and the Ahmedinejad groupies can conveniently forget this fact just like you know the holocaust.

As much as I despise the Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad, it does appear that most Iranians believe that he was legitimately re-elected:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture...a30de1?lnk=raot

For all we know, Holocaust denial, condemnation of Israel and anti-semitism might very well be a vote getter in Iran.

[Mr.Canada]

PM Harper has once again proven he is a strong leader by choosing to buycott his speech. Oh and look and who else boycotted the speech and walked out of it....

Listening to a person with such vile and disgusting things to say about our Israeli friends and Jewish allies is illegal here in Canada. If some Nazi had said these things in Downtown Toronto he would have been arrested for promoting hate speech.

Ernst Zundel was booted from Canada for saying very similar things so I don't get how the Left can think it to be a good idea to give this man a stage to spew his venom from...boggles my mind honestly.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't get how the Left can think it to be a good idea to give this man a stage to spew his venom from

Maybe the left doesn't believe in that law.