UAE - Crybabies

[Moonbox]

So do you think Canada should open up some tundra for the Russians to build bases? Wouldn't cost us anything (apparently) and the benefits would be great!

What a stunningly vapid analogy. Good job. What reason would we have to allow them there? Do we have any mutual enemies to operate against? Are we even allies? No? So why are you asking and pretending this has anything to do with the argument?

I wonder how often Taiwan, South Korea and Japan try to shake the Americans down for allowing them to keep their airbases there?

If they were demanding concessions for Canada using their desert as a base, they should have said so in the first place.

How would you feel if you were sent a coupon/flyer for a free visit to the zoo, and then after you spent the day there they tell you they're going to charge you $50 after the fact to open the gates and let your car out of the parking lot? Pretty scummy right?

[waldo]

I couldn't care less what the UAE does.

Some of you are really having trouble with what we're saying here aren't you? We're not crying about it. Most of us don't give a shit. It's a joke. It's hilarious. They can do whatever they want.

allrightee... oh wait... isn't this the thread you started? Your ongoing, consistent, fevered high-pitched whining betrays your expressed, "couldn't care less" and "they can do whatever they want" back-peddling - hey?

As for what's under negotiation, the UAE didn't really 'provide' anything to Canada other than sand in the desert. Indeed if anything, they probably profited greatly from having us there. Having the base there benefited them. It cost them NOTHING.

Now, 9 years later, nearing the end of our deployment (the most inconvenient of times) the UAE has decided to shake us down. It wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to embarrass us and rip us off into getting what they wanted. Those clowns showed their true colors, and like I said before, we don't need them.

don't hesitate to supply your cost benefit analysis. It's clear you haven't any background understanding as you'd realize it most certainly was a negotiation - one directly ongoing since early spring... UAE actually extended landing rights/use of the base in hopes of realizing a negotiated end that they felt warranted. As I'm aware, Harper Conservatives had offered a single landing slot (and not at Toronto's Pearson airport)... UAE is said to have been negotiating for 3 slots, with at least one at Pearson. And then... Rusty got involved and everything went downhill from there!

If they were demanding concessions for Canada using their desert as a base, they should have said so in the first place.

buddy, you're embarrassing yourself - clearly, you haven't any semblance of understanding the background processes at play and the actual negotiations that did occur. But thanks again for raising 'yesterday's news' and giving an opportunity to highlight the:

- failed Harper Conservative (Rusty Baird) negotiation practice... that ultimately cost, at minimum, $300 million dollars to the taxpayer.

- rift between Baird and McKay and the split within the Harper caucus... the rift that some speculate is what ultimately will see MacKay leave government (ala the Prentice exit route to a plumb industry job).

- Harper Conservative/your hypocrisy in presuming to chastise another government for using Visas as a tactical point of negotiation/appeasement -

Ottawa toyed with visa exemption to appease Czech anger amid trade talks

[Guest American Woman]

I couldn't care less what the UAE does. My OP was to mock them and show my contempt for them. That's all they deserve. They're like the kid on the playground, taking his ball home because he didn't get his own way. It's funny. That's all.

And you're like the kid who's crying because the kid who owns the ball took it home. The lease for the base was up. If the UAE didn't think Canada was being fair to them, they had every right to "take their ball home."

Like I said before, countries impose VISA restrictions wherever and whenever they want. It's their perogative like you said. In the UAE's case, however, it's pretty clear they're doing it because we're not giving them landing rights for their airline. They're punishing us in any way they can. Their perogative, but childish.

It's reality. As I pointed out in regards to Brazil's entry requirements for Americans, for example.

Some of you are really having trouble with what we're saying here aren't you? We're not crying about it. Most of us don't give a shit. It's a joke. It's hilarious. They can do whatever they want.

Riiight. You have the desire to mock them and you feel contempt for them. Your words. Really sounds as if you're finding the whole thing "hilarious."

I'm quite happy with the way Canada handled things, and I'm just as happy to have nothing to do with the UAE.

So what's the problem? Why the contempt?

Edited December 31, 2010 by American Woman

[Wilber]

My problem isn't with the UAE, they can do what they want. My problem is with Canadians who think it is wrong for Canada to stand up for itself and its own.

[msj]

I think the points are these:

1) Politics is being played by the UAE and Canada.

2) Both sides have every right to play politics.

3) We are arguing over to the extent that it makes sense for the UAE to use the base to press landing rights for their government controlled airline.

4) Whether or not it is appropriate to do this as compared to other methods.

5) Whether or not the UAE's response to not getting landing rights (i.e. closing the base, visa requirements) is a disproportionate use of "diplomacy" or "politics."

Sure, we could sit at our laptops all day pretending we're so profound stating that both sides have a right to play politics.

Like no sh!t Sherlock.

It ain't profound.

The interesting part is why we think points #4 and #5 are right/wrong - and these have pretty much been answered already.

[Moonbox]

allrightee... oh wait... isn't this the thread you started? Your ongoing, consistent, fevered high-pitched whining betrays your expressed, "couldn't care less" and "they can do whatever they want" back-peddling - hey?

Fever pitched? LoL! Aren't you the clown wetting your pants and calling people twats? Yeah. I'm pretty sure that was you.

buddy, you're embarrassing yourself - clearly, you haven't any semblance of understanding the background processes at play and the actual negotiations that did occur.

If the UAE was dealing in good faith these negotiations would have been started back when Canada was looking for a logistics base, not 9 years into the mission. Get real. That's not how business is done anywhere.

[waldo]

allrightee... oh wait... isn't this the thread you started? Your ongoing, consistent, fevered high-pitched whining betrays your expressed, "couldn't care less" and "they can do whatever they want" back-peddling - hey?

Fever pitched? LoL! Aren't you the clown wetting your pants and calling people twats? Yeah. I'm pretty sure that was you.

you're pretty sure... why not make doubly sure - hey? Of course, this, your resorting to making up shit, is quite telling. If you can't take a lil' rubbin, best you avoid the big dogs!

buddy, you're embarrassing yourself - clearly, you haven't any semblance of understanding the background processes at play and the actual negotiations that did occur. But thanks again for raising 'yesterday's news' and giving an opportunity to highlight the:

- failed Harper Conservative (Rusty Baird) negotiation practice... that ultimately cost, at minimum, $300 million dollars to the taxpayer.

- rift between Baird and McKay and the split within the Harper caucus... the rift that some speculate is what ultimately will see MacKay leave government (ala the Prentice exit route to a plumb industry job).

- Harper Conservative/your hypocrisy in presuming to chastise another government for using Visas as a tactical point of negotiation/appeasement -

Ottawa toyed with visa exemption to appease Czech anger amid trade talks

If the UAE was dealing in good faith these negotiations would have been started back when Canada was looking for a logistics base, not 9 years into the mission. Get real. That's not how business is done anywhere.

duh! Did you miss the point that the lease was expired... that UAE had granted Canada continued use of the base and landing rights while negotiations were in progress (from early Spring). Buddy, you should invest a few cycles into actually reviewing the background details - save yourself further/continued embarrassment.

[Moonbox]

And you're like the kid who's crying because the kid who owns the ball took it home. The lease for the base was up. If the UAE didn't think Canada was being fair to them, they had every right to "take their ball home."

I can still laugh at them and consider them and consider them crybabies.

It's reality. As I pointed out in regards to Brazil's entry requirements for Americans, for example.

Again, I can still have a laugh about it and feel satisfied that we didn't let them have their way.

Riiight. You have the desire to mock them and you feel contempt for them. Your words. Really sounds as if you're finding the whole thing "hilarious."

Tell me how I feel some more. Please. I'm FASCINATED!

So what's the problem? Why the contempt?

There is no problem. Where are you getting that from?

[Moonbox]

you're pretty sure... why not make doubly sure - hey? Of course, this, your resorting to making up shit, is quite telling. If you can't take a lil' rubbin, best you avoid the big dogs!

It was wyly. My bad. Sorry waldo. It's hard to keep you guys apart.

duh! Did you miss the point that the lease was expired... that UAE had granted Canada continued use of the base and landing rights while negotiations were in progress (from early Spring). Buddy, you should invest a few cycles into actually reviewing the background details - save yourself further/continued embarrassment.

Okay fair enough but it doesn't make any difference either way. Kick us out of the base. That's done. That's not what the thread was about anyways. It was about the VISA restrictions, which came out of nowhere. Was that part of the negotiation too waldo?????

[waldo]

duh! Did you miss the point that the lease was expired... that UAE had granted Canada continued use of the base and landing rights while negotiations were in progress (from early Spring). Buddy, you should invest a few cycles into actually reviewing the background details - save yourself further/continued embarrassment.

Okay fair enough but it doesn't make any difference either way. Kick us out of the base. That's done. That's not what the thread was about anyways. It was about the VISA restrictions, which came out of nowhere. Was that part of the negotiation too waldo?????

why yes... I do believe they reflect upon the failed part of the negotiations, particularly those related to the later involvements of master negotiator, Rusty Baird!

you seem to have no problems with Canada's actual Visa restrictions placed upon the Czech Republic and Mexico... if I recall correctly the reference being used was in relation to ~600 refugee claims from citizens of the Czech Republic and ~3000 refugee claims from citizens of Mexico. Were there abuses in that mix? I still haven't seen any government details supporting fraudulent refugee claims from those 2 countries. Surely, Harper Conservatives should be able to provide some degree of substantiation on why they placed Visa restrictions upon the respective countries entire citizenry... wouldn't you think?

I also provided you a link that shows Harper Conservatives having no qualms in using Visa allowances/restrictions for Canada's self interest... apparently, you also have no problems with this. However, UAE leveraging Visas is quite another thing... to you - hey?

[William Ashley]

Apparently the VISA's were not only "done" to Canada... there were 30 countries that changed status.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101230/uae-visa-fees-101230/20101230/?hub=TorontoNewHome

So it is easy to think Canada is solely being targetted when in fact it is in a class of fees that 29 other nations also face.

[waldo]

Apparently the VISA's were not only "done" to Canada... there were 30 countries that changed status.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101230/uae-visa-fees-101230/20101230/?hub=TorontoNewHome

So it is easy to think Canada is solely being targetted when in fact it is in a class of fees that 29 other nations also face.

now that certainly is a most timely current update... perhaps we can have Moonbeam offer comment. I'm particularly taken with a couple of statements:

Canada had been one of more than 30 countries whose citizens could travel to the U.A.E. on a free one-month visa. Under a new fee structure, Canadian travellers will pay $250 for a 30-day visa, $500 for a three-month visa and $1,000 for a six-month, multiple-entry visa.

At the time the U.A.E.'s ambassador to Canada, Mohamed Abdulla Al Ghafli, told the Canadian Press that the decision to institute fees was "based on a policy of reciprocity." He cited Canada's own fees for Emirati travellers, which range from $75 to $150.

The U.A.E. is Canada's largest trading partner in the Arab world according to Al Ghafli. More than 25,000 Canadian live and work there.

well done Rusty Baird... master negotiator - bar none! $300 million is but mere peanuts to Harper fiscal conservatives

[Guest American Woman]

I think the points are these:

1) Politics is being played by the UAE and Canada.

2) Both sides have every right to play politics.

3) We are arguing over to the extent that it makes sense for the UAE to use the base to press landing rights for their government controlled airline.

4) Whether or not it is appropriate to do this as compared to other methods.

5) Whether or not the UAE's response to not getting landing rights (i.e. closing the base, visa requirements) is a disproportionate use of "diplomacy" or "politics."

You didn't mention point #6, which is whether or not some Canadians' response to the UAE's response are disproportionate.

The lease for the base was up in June, and the extension was up the end of September. The lease was rent free. The UAE telling Canada to get out under the circumstances is pretty much the way the game of politics is played. As I said, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." The visa requirements, singling out Canada, is also the way politics is played, and again, I gave the example of Brazil singling out Americans. It's life in the world of politics. In other words, not that big a deal.

Tell me how I feel some more. Please. I'm FASCINATED!

Why should I tell you how you feel when you're doing such a great job at telling us? I suggest you take a deep breath and get over it.

Apparently the VISA's were not only "done" to Canada... there were 30 countries that changed status.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101230/uae-visa-fees-101230/20101230/?hub=TorontoNewHome

So it is easy to think Canada is solely being targetted when in fact it is in a class of fees that 29 other nations also face.

It appears as if Canada is the only one being charged the fee in U.S. dollars.

In effect, while Canadians would pay beginning Jan. 2, 2011, $1,000 for a 6-month visa, $500 for a 3-month visa and $250 for a 1-month visa, national of other countries would actually pay only $272 (AED 1,000), $136 (AED 500) and $68 (AED 250) for the same types of visas.

The fees for other nationalities would be consistent with the $75 to $85 fee charged by UAE-based air carriers to facilitate securing a visa to enter and stay in the Middle Eastern country for 30 days.

Canada has been charging UAE nationals visa fees ranging from $75 to $150, long before the diplomatic row between Ottawa and Dubai erupted.

link

[Moonbox]

why yes... I do believe they reflect upon the failed part of the negotiations, particularly those related to the later involvements of master negotiator, Rusty Baird!

Show me a link where it was indicated this was part of the negotiations, instead of a penalty imposed against us for not giving the UAE what they wanted. I'm betting you can't.

you seem to have no problems with Canada's actual Visa restrictions placed upon the Czech Republic and Mexico... if I recall correctly the reference being used was in relation to ~600 refugee claims from citizens of the Czech Republic and ~3000 refugee claims from citizens of Mexico. Were there abuses in that mix? I still haven't seen any government details supporting fraudulent refugee claims from those 2 countries.

Yeah waldo...I'm sure you're right. The Harper government imposed the visa restrictions against the Czechs and Mexicans just to be mean....

I also provided you a link that shows Harper Conservatives having no qualms in using Visa allowances/restrictions for Canada's self interest... apparently, you also have no problems with this. However, UAE leveraging Visas is quite another thing... to you - hey?

Except Harper isn't 'leveraging' anything with his VISA restrictions. What is he trying to get out of it? Less Czech and Mexican refugee claims. Is he pressuring the Mexican or Czech government for anything? How many landing spots has he asked them for? This is like talking to a wall.

[sunman]

Does anyone have a link to a neutral source that outlines both sides of the dispute? I really don't understand why it is such a big issue. Is UAE refusing to grant Canadian carriers reciprocal access to UAE airports? Is it really nothing more than protecting Air Canada'a turf?

edit: It is appears that Canada is looking for a quid quo pro and UAE can't provide it because most of the business would come from people connecting through Dubai (i.e. Air Canada can't benefit from this business because it has no partner agreements that would allow people to connect to a destination other than Dubai). There is also a concern that the UAE state owned company is subsidized.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/10/16/europes-flag-carriers-attack-emirates-expansion-canada-blocks-uae-airlines-and-dispute-escalates/page1

[/quot

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/canadian-visitors-pay-up--1-000-for-uae-visa-370023.html?tab=Article[/size][/size]

[Scotty]

don't hesitate to supply your cost benefit analysis. It's clear you haven't any background understanding as you'd realize it most certainly was a negotiation - one directly ongoing since early spring... UAE actually extended landing rights/use of the base in hopes of realizing a negotiated end that they felt warranted. As I'm aware, Harper Conservatives had offered a single landing slot (and not at Toronto's Pearson airport)... UAE is said to have been negotiating for 3 slots, with at least one at Pearson. And then... Rusty got involved and everything went downhill from there!

From what I've read the UAE was negotiating for dozens of landing slots across the country.

Clear something up for me, Waldo. You have taken the unequvical position that the Conservatives were wrong here. Yet you don't appear to have any knowledge of what the discussions entailed, the personalities involved, or the cost benefit analyeses or principles the government would certainly have engaged in. Therefore you can't really have any idea whether the UAEs decision was justified or not.

Isn't your position based entirely on your dislike of the Conservatives, and not at all on the actual facts of the matter?

[msj]

You didn't mention point #6, which is whether or not some Canadians' response to the UAE's response are disproportionate.

The lease for the base was up in June, and the extension was up the end of September. The lease was rent free. The UAE telling Canada to get out under the circumstances is pretty much the way the game of politics is played.

Reeeeeeally? Like, no sh!t sherlock!

As I said, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." The visa requirements, singling out Canada, is also the way politics is played, and again, I gave the example of Brazil singling out Americans. It's life in the world of politics. In other words, not that big a deal.

Reeeeeaaaalllly? Like, no sh!t sherlock.

The lease came up and negotiations commenced.

One would expect negotiations with respect to some kind of fee or some other tit for tat.

Landing rights is not a normal part of this type of process. There are other avenues for that.

Canada's response has been pretty good in my books (and I don't even like our conservative government - but even a clock can be right twice a day).

As for threads about it on this forum: the hyperbole has been kept to a minimum compared to many other, and rather stupid, threads which seem to populate these forums about 98% of the time.

And, once again, it is where the negotiations went and whether or not they ought to have gone that way that is interesting.

Like, duh, of course, it's politics.

[Scotty]

And you're like the kid who's crying because the kid who owns the ball took it home. The lease for the base was up. If the UAE didn't think Canada was being fair to them, they had every right to "take their ball home."

By saying "they had every right" you imply a level of support for their actions. Is that correct? Does anyone who has "every right" to do something meet with similar approval?

For example, if I discover a technical trick of the law which allows me to evict a family from the home they bought, take it over, and sell it, do I "have every right" to do so?

If the United States wishes to blackmail a poor, third world country by threatening to halt its imports into the United States and block assistance to it from the IMF in order to achieve some minor political end, does it have "every right" to do so?

I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at with this statement because it sound suspiciously like "if you feel its in your interests, then do it, and don't worry about morality, ethics or anything else". And I'm sure that's not what position you would actually support.

[Scotty]

Apparently the VISA's were not only "done" to Canada... there were 30 countries that changed status.

They didn't change status. They are unwelcome. The UAE imposes visas with their high fees in order to stop people from travelling to their fabulously wealthy little strip of desert in search of jobs. If it didn't have them then the place would soon be overrun with Palestinians and Yemenis and Egyptians etc. etc. The visas cost so much so that their fellow Arabs and the people from poorer nations can't afford them.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the United States wishes to blackmail a poor, third world country by threatening to halt its imports into the United States and block assistance to it from the IMF in order to achieve some minor political end, does it have "every right" to do so?

Yes....it is called an embargo. See "Cuba". The same applies for Canada doing it, but you already knew that.

[sunman]

I just read this article a few minutes ago and I can only shake my head at these morons. Because Canada wouldn't allow their carrier additional routes for their airlines, the UAE kicked Canada out of its base in the UAE, imposed visa restrictions on Canadians, and is now forcing them to pay $1000 to get a visa to go there?

People are trying to make this out to be a diplomatic boondoggle on the government's part, but the way I see it is that we're not going to get bullied into something by a bunch of crybaby idiots who are going to fuss whenever we won't let them have their way.

I can't wait until we don't need oil anymore. Then these idiots can sit on their sand and eat it.

This is a childish act of revenge or a way of blackmailing Canadian.

Dont you think we shoud boycott UAE airlines?

Canadian passport is a symbol of Canadian pride and their freedom of movement, thats why they choose to hit on it, they want to hit hard on our pride.

[The_Squid]

It's a sovereign nation folks.... they can choose to charge Canadians whatever they wish to enter their sovereign country. Reasonable or not is really irrelevant.

They asked for something we weren't willing to provide. They kicked us out of their sovereign country which is their right to do, whether we think it reasonable or not. Me saying the UAE have a right to do so does not imply support.

It implies that I can look at this in a sober, thoughtful way and respect the sovereign rights of a country to do whatever they wish with respect to military operations within their borders especially with respect to a foreign power operating within their borders. Canada has no rights to anything here...

What a stunningly vapid analogy.

Let's use a different analogy. Should Canada allow military bases to be built within our borders by Great Britain? Australia? How about an arctic military base run by the Americans? They can help us assert our sovereignty over the arctic... ok, maybe they would assert their own sovereignty.... but hey, they're our closest friends and allies and people up there would benefit from an American military base!

Edited December 31, 2010 by The_Squid

[Moonbox]

Let's use a different analogy. Should Canada allow military bases to be built within our borders by Great Britain? Australia? How about an arctic military base run by the Americans? They can help us assert our sovereignty over the arctic... ok, maybe they would assert their own sovereignty.... but hey, they're our closest friends and allies and people up there would benefit from an American military base!

If we were fighting a mutual enemy? Yeah sure. Kind of like the British allowed American military bases over there in WWII right?

Analogy is the worst form of argument, but it's especially bad when you do it as stupidly as some of the ones we've seen here.

[bloodyminded]

If we were fighting a mutual enemy? Yeah sure. Kind of like the British allowed American military bases over there in WWII right?

Analogy is the worst form of argument, but it's especially bad when you do it as stupidly as some of the ones we've seen here.

Nope. Bad analogy is bad analogy (not commenting on this particular dispute, but speaking generally).

But where did you hear that "analogy is the worst form of argument"?

If used correctly, it can be an excellent way to shine light upon ill-considered or thoughtless premises.

[Guest American Woman]

By saying "they had every right" you imply a level of support for their actions. Is that correct? Does anyone who has "every right" to do something meet with similar approval?

I'll answer that with a question of my own: do you apply the same standards to every situation? I'm hoping the answer is no.

For example, if I discover a technical trick of the law which allows me to evict a family from the home they bought, take it over, and sell it, do I "have every right" to do so?

Since that has nothing to do with the situation under discussion in this thread, I'd apply different, ie: appropriate, standards to that scenario.

If the United States wishes to blackmail a poor, third world country by threatening to halt its imports into the United States and block assistance to it from the IMF in order to achieve some minor political end, does it have "every right" to do so?

First of all, the situation you describe is not "blackmail." Secondly, that scenario also has nothing to do with the situation under discussion in this thread. There are no similarities between the two situations.

I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at with this statement because it sound suspiciously like "if you feel its in your interests, then do it, and don't worry about morality, ethics or anything else". And I'm sure that's not what position you would actually support.

What I'm getting at is quite clear and applies to this situation, the situation under discussion, not every situation you'd care to create.

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.

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.

What they did was not horribly extreme; crippling to Canada/Canadians. I gave the comparison involving Brazil and Americans. Brazil, in response to our entry requirements, charges Americans more to enter Brazil and also requires Americans to be photographed and fingerprinted, even if they are only entering for one day. The U.S. has a reason for having those requirements (terrorism), while Brazil's reason is purely payback. Yet I have no problem with it, and I haven't heard any criticism from anyone else in this thread regarding their requirements since I first pointed it out. Clearly as an American I don't "support" Brazil's decision, but that doesn't mean I'm going to harbor anger or criticism over it either. I accept it and understand the motivation behind the requirement. (And for the record, "accepting" and "supporting" aren't synonymous).

Edited January 1, 2011 by American Woman