Scotty Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 Yes....it is called an embargo. See "Cuba". The same applies for Canada doing it, but you already knew that. I was clearly asking about the morality of doing something simply because you are able to do it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 The lease for the base was up, so the UAE had every right to tell Canada to get out. That's a legal fact. Canada doesn't have a leg to stand on there. The lease expired over three months ago, and the UAE decided they wanted Canada out. The UAE had no more of an obligation to act in Canada's best interest in that regard than Canada had an obligation to act in the UAE's best interest, and Canada didn't. I don't think the UAE even acted in the UAEs best interests. I think they acted out of spite, because the UAE does not actually have a government so much as a ruling family, and one of them got his nose out of joint. I think their spiteful response was silly, childish and crude, and not the way civilized nations behave. As for the visa requirements, every nation has the right to impose whatever conditions they choose regarding entry into their country. In this instance, the UAE thought Canada was making things difficult for them so they decided to make things difficult for Canada in a way that they could. It is, as I've said, the way politics between nations is played. Canada acted in Canada's best interest. I have no criticism for Canada in that regard. The UAE reacted in their best interest, and I have no criticism for them. It might be the way politics is played among banana republics with self-styled dictators for life and bombastic leaders with small-man syndrome, but it isn't the way civilized nations act. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 I was clearly asking about the morality of doing something simply because you are able to do it. Who's morality? Yours? Mine? It has nothing to do with silly notions about morality. Do you think Canadian sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Serbia, etc. were moral? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 ....It might be the way politics is played among banana republics with self-styled dictators for life and bombastic leaders with small-man syndrome, but it isn't the way civilized nations act. Oh sure..."civilized" nations have heads of state determined by the successful mating of designated royal family members. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 Who's morality? Yours? Mine? It has nothing to do with silly notions about morality. Do you think Canadian sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Serbia, etc. were moral? Do you believe there is no common sense of morality in the world, no generally understood concept of what is right and just? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 Do you believe there is no common sense of morality in the world, no generally understood concept of what is right and just? Common sense of morality...no. But I do believe there is a common understanding of power. Power is naked and uncomplicated that way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 Common sense of morality...no. But I do believe there is a common understanding of power. Power is naked and uncomplicated that way. I will grant you the second statement while vigorously disagreeing with your first. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 I will grant you the second statement while vigorously disagreeing with your first. That's OK...I get a lot of that around here, even as the arguments rage from people with a "common sense" of morality. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted January 1, 2011 Report Posted January 1, 2011 UAE - Crybabies? Given the reason for our military presence there, to make countries like the UAE safe from terrorism, crybabies doesn't quite cut it. Ungrateful assholes is more like it. What a bunch of pathetic saps we've become. So this is the global stage? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 I don't think the UAE even acted in the UAEs best interests. The UAE thinks they did, and that's what matters; that's what they're going to base their actions on. I think they acted out of spite, because the UAE does not actually have a government so much as a ruling family, and one of them got his nose out of joint. I think their spiteful response was silly, childish and crude, and not the way civilized nations behave. Spite, anger, whatever. Fact is, it's obvious they didn't like Canada's actions any more than you like theirs. Perhaps they thought Canada's response was ungrateful under the circumstances. Both sides involved in such an issue are going to see things from their point of view. As someone not personally involved, I don't see it as anything other than 'politics as usual.' I don't see what there is to get all hyped up about. It might be the way politics is played among banana republics with self-styled dictators for life and bombastic leaders with small-man syndrome, but it isn't the way civilized nations act. So nations that "[don't] actually have a government so much as a ruling family" fit your definition as "civilized?" What's more civilized about a self-styled royal family for life than a self-styled dictator for life? But for the record, Brazil just swore in their 36th president; so much for your "dictator for life" scenario in regards to making excuses for Brazil's actions. Seems to me your the one whose nose is out of joint because someone had the nerve to do something to Canada. Do you believe there is no common sense of morality in the world, no generally understood concept of what is right and just? What did the UAE do that's immoral?? Wrong and unjust? Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 As someone not personally involved, I don't see it as anything other than 'politics as usual.' I don't see what there is to get all hyped up about. In my opinion, the culprit is patriotism. And while it has been suggested to me that I "oppose" patriotism, that's not true. Rather, I believe patriotism has limited (maybe zero) utility in any political debate. At best. At worst, patriotism gets in the way of any reasoned analysis, making people defensive about their country based on the conflation of personal and national identity. Bah. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 That's OK...I get a lot of that around here, even as the arguments rage from people with a "common sense" of morality. People will argue about a variety of interpreations, but no one actually deviates from the general societal interpretation of moral behaviour here. And that is to treat all others, wherever possible, fairly and justly, as you wish to be yourself. No one here will argue that murder, rape, arson, assault, armed robbery, fraud, etc. should be allowed or is moral. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 What did the UAE do that's immoral?? Wrong and unjust? They are a small, weak patch of dirt on the gulf who are virtually defenseless against anyone else. Al quaeda and islamist terrorists are as much a threat to them, if not more, than to anyone in the West. Their oil fueled lifestyle of glittering wealth, parties, alcohol and women is hardly one Islamists would respect. Our fight against the Islamists is thus just as much in aid of them as it is of the Americans, probably more. So over nine years we supplied the billions of dollars to send troops over there, did the fighting, the bleeding and dying, while they partied. And all they supplied was a patch of dirt on an airfield for our supply base. Not exactly an equal participation in the fight, eh? And now they demand dozens of landing spaces for their burgeoning toy airline, and when the government says no they kick us out? Sorry, but that goes beyond wrong and unjust into breathtaking ingratitude. And I consider ingratitude to be a major moral failing in any person, institution or government. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Moonbox Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Brazil just swore in their 36th president; so much for your "dictator for life" scenario in regards to making excuses for Brazil's actions. Why do you keep bringing Brazil into the discussion? It's a completely different situation and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Brazil imposes VISA restrictions just like Canada and the US do. Big deal. They didn't do it because they demanded landing strips and didn't get them. They didn't try to bully and embarrass either the US or Canada into making economic concessions. That's the definition of a red herring. Give it up. Seems to me your the one whose nose is out of joint because someone had the nerve to do something to Canada. Grow up. It's the UAE. Nobody cares in the grand scheme of things. It's something in the news to talk about and in this case a lot of us are finding it pretty laughable that a bunch of diva princes are wetting their pants because we're not caving in to their demands. Again though, keep telling us how we all feel. Maybe eventually you'll get a rise out of one of us. :lol: What did the UAE do that's immoral?? Wrong and unjust? I think that immoral and injust might be a little dramatic for the situation, but contemptible, childish and sly. They tried to shake Canada down for trade concessions and couldn't, so they kicked us out of their base. That's fine. I don't see anything terribly wrong about that. The retaliatory VISA move, however, is a pretty funny. When one side has something the other wants, you negotiate for it. If the negotiations break down and you don't get what you want, you don't penalize the other side in addition to that. That's more akin to blackmail/bullying, and there's really nothing upstanding about that. Edited January 2, 2011 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 ...Grow up. It's the UAE. Nobody cares in the grand scheme of things. It's something in the news to talk about and in this case a lot of us are finding it pretty laughable that a bunch of diva princes are wetting their pants because we're not caving in to their demands... Really? Then why did Big and Powerful Canada enter into such terms to begin with? Were there no other "diva princes" or "third world" nations to provide forward basing for Canada's mighty war machine? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 Why do you keep bringing Brazil into the discussion? It's a completely different situation and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Brazil imposes VISA restrictions just like Canada and the US do. Big deal. They didn't do it because they demanded landing strips and didn't get them. They didn't try to bully and embarrass either the US or Canada into making economic concessions. That's the definition of a red herring. Give it up. Nope, I won't be giving it up, because it's a very relevant comparison. I don't blame you for wanting me to give it up, though, as there's nothing you can say in response. Brazil imposes different visa/entry requirement for Americans as payback for US requirements for Brazilians. The U.S. has the requirements because of the danger of terrorism; Brazil has the requirements as payback. The UAE has imposed different requirements for Canadians for the same reason -- payback. As for the UAE 'trying to bully or embarrass' Canada, they were involved in a business deal. If you're embarrassed because you were asked to leave a base when the lease was up, if you're embarrassed because you have to pay a higher Visa fee to enter the UAE, I suggest you grow a thicker skin. It's life, it's politics, and if Canada wants to be a player in the world, you best realize you're not going to like everything that happens any more than everyone else is always going to like what Canada does. Grow up. :lol: You're the one complaining, and you're telling me to grow up? That's priceless. It's the UAE. Nobody cares in the grand scheme of things. Evidently you care. A lot. I'm the one saying it's not a big deal. It's something in the news to talk about and in this case a lot of us are finding it pretty laughable that a bunch of diva princes are wetting their pants because we're not caving in to their demands. You're finding it much more than "laughable." Normally one isn't "embarrassed" by the "laughable." Again though, keep telling us how we all feel. Maybe eventually you'll get a rise out of one of us. I obviously got a big rise out of you. I think that immoral and injust might be a little dramatic for the situation, but contemptible, childish and sly. Ya think? Just a little dramatic, eh? But make up your mind -- "contemptible" or "laughable?" They tried to shake Canada down for trade concessions and couldn't, so they kicked us out of their base. That's fine. I don't see anything terribly wrong about that. The retaliatory VISA move, however, is a pretty funny.When one side has something the other wants, you negotiate for it. If the negotiations break down and you don't get what you want, you don't penalize the other side in addition to that. That's more akin to blackmail/bullying, and there's really nothing upstanding about that. There's nothing akin to "blackmailing/bullying" in the UAE's actions, but I have to say, since you see their actions that way, I find it difficult to understand how you can find it "laughable." Generally one doesn't perceive "blackmail" and "bullying" as "laughable." Quote
Moonbox Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Posted January 2, 2011 Really? Then why did Big and Powerful Canada enter into such terms to begin with? Were there no other "diva princes" or "third world" nations to provide forward basing for Canada's mighty war machine? What terms are you talking about? You're right, the UAE isn't third world at all, but I'm not sure what else to call their leaders. As an aside, it truly is no wonder why the US gets such lukewarm commitments from its allies. I'll certainly be glad when our troops are out of Afghanistan. It's almost like we're ridiculed more for what we did send there than not sending anyone at all. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 As an aside, it truly is no wonder why the US gets such lukewarm commitments from its allies. I'll certainly be glad when our troops are out of Afghanistan. It's almost like we're ridiculed more for what we did send there than not sending anyone at all. Riiight. Because bush_cheney2004 speaks for the United States. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) What terms are you talking about? You're right, the UAE isn't third world at all, but I'm not sure what else to call their leaders. The same thing we call Canadian or American leaders. As an aside, it truly is no wonder why the US gets such lukewarm commitments from its allies. I'll certainly be glad when our troops are out of Afghanistan. It's almost like we're ridiculed more for what we did send there than not sending anyone at all. I think you are ridiculed more domestically by Canadians who wanted a sure thing and quickly soured on the mission. In any event, that isn't the UAE's concern. Edited January 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 Riiight. Because bush_cheney2004 speaks for the United States. I thought that an odd response as well. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Moonbox Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Posted January 2, 2011 Nope, I won't be giving it up, because it's a very relevant comparison. It's a terrible comparison. The fact that you can't see the difference is unsurprising. If we were talking simple reciprocal law then the UAE would have imposed VISA restrictions a long time ago - as in when Canada imposed their own. That's not what happened. In this case, the UAE got frustrated with the breakdown of a negotiation, and added a penalty for not getting their own way that was never part of the negotiations in the first place. As for the UAE 'trying to bully or embarrass' Canada, they were involved in a business deal. A business deal which had nothing to do with VISAs. If you're embarrassed because you were asked to leave a base when the lease was up, if you're embarrassed because you have to pay a higher Visa fee to enter the UAE, I suggest you grow a thicker skin. I'm not embarrassed. I'm proud. I don't think the government is terribly embarrassed either, because they're clearly not backing down. What do I have to be embarrassed about? I think the UAE misjudged the reaction they'd get. You're the one complaining, and you're telling me to grow up? That's priceless. I haven't complained about a thing. I've done nothing but make fun of the UAE's leaders. I'm telling you to grow up because you look like you're trolling. I've mocked and ridiculed the UAE's leaders, and your response was to mock and ridicule me personally. That's fine, I can handle it, but your pretense of maturity is priceless. Evidently you care. A lot. I'm the one saying it's not a big deal. Read back a little bit. I agreed. It's not a big deal. I still think it's funny how the UAE's leaders reacted. So do a lot of people here. I obviously got a big rise out of you. News to me. There's nothing akin to "blackmailing/bullying" in the UAE's actions, but I have to say, since you see their actions that way, I find it difficult to understand how you can find it "laughable." Generally one doesn't perceive "blackmail" and "bullying" as "laughable." Blackmail was probably a bad term. Coercion would be better. "Shaking down" would be too. Any such activity, however negative it be, is actually QUITE laughable when the party you're trying to bully/coerce/shake down/blackmail doesn't care and isn't afraid of the consequences you are threatening. It's one of THE MOST satisfying things in the world to stand firm against it and laugh in its face. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I think you are ridiculed more domestically by Canadians who wanted a sure thing and quickly soured on the mission. In any event, that isn't the UAE's concern. I think Canadians soured on the mission when they realized it was unwinnable. The United States did an outstanding job in the opening phases, using air power and the CIA to help locals unseat the Taliban. Then they screwed up horribly. They backed the wrong guy to take over, and then abandoned their efforts there to attack mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like an infection left untreated, the situation only got worse and worse to the point there is no way to win now other than to unseat the present and allow a new, harshly repressive one which has local backing to take control. Edited January 3, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Nope, I won't be giving it up, because it's a very relevant comparison. I don't blame you for wanting me to give it up, though, as there's nothing you can say in response. Brazil imposes different visa/entry requirement for Americans as payback for US requirements for Brazilians. The U.S. has the requirements because of the danger of terrorism; Brazil has the requirements as payback. The UAE has imposed different requirements for Canadians for the same reason -- payback. Something like those nations Canada imposes visa requirements on also imposing visa requirements on Canadians. That sort of thing is understandable. Booting out a military camp which essentially supplies people fighting to protect the UAE is ridiculous, and then denying overflight privilages to Canadian politicians and imposing ridiculous $1000 visa costs is simply childish and sullen. As for the UAE 'trying to bully or embarrass' Canada, As he said, the UAE is simply not important enough to cause any embarrassment to Canada. However, the effort was to embarrass the government and provide tools for the ammuniation to attack it. The opposition certainly took up the offer and did their best, but most Canadians have shrugged it off as the government doing the right thing. That doesn't mean we don't look at the UAE with contempt, however. You're the one complaining, and you're telling me to grow up? That's priceless.Evidently you care. A lot. I'm the one saying it's not a big deal. You're finding it much more than "laughable." Normally one isn't "embarrassed" by the "laughable." I obviously got a big rise out of you. Ya think? Just a little dramatic, eh? In my opinion, all of the foregoing is disrepsectful. It is the kind of attitude which causes threads to degenerate into open insults. Is that what you're looking for here? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Paulistano Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Nope, I won't be giving it up, because it's a very relevant comparison. I don't blame you for wanting me to give it up, though, as there's nothing you can say in response. Brazil imposes different visa/entry requirement for Americans as payback for US requirements for Brazilians. The U.S. has the requirements because of the danger of terrorism; Brazil has the requirements as payback. The UAE has imposed different requirements for Canadians for the same reason -- payback. I know I'm late to the party and this is my first post but the reasons behind Brazil's visa/entry requirement on Americans is not simply payback, but also to combat terrorism and sex tourists. I wish they would separate the Americans in the Immigration line earlier though.... It's a pain for us Foreign Nationals that are required to wait for the Americans to be processed... A hint for Americans, when being photographed give the camera the "OK" sign, it will be greatly appreciated :-) But back to OT... This is the only issue I have supported the Harper Gov't on.... Don't back down, I might just vote for a Consevative next spring. Quote
eyeball Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 In my opinion, the culprit is patriotism. And while it has been suggested to me that I "oppose" patriotism, that's not true. Rather, I believe patriotism has limited (maybe zero) utility in any political debate. At best. At worst, patriotism gets in the way of any reasoned analysis, making people defensive about their country based on the conflation of personal and national identity. Bah. It's when it makes people/countries aggressive that it's utility really shines don't you think? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.