Will Iran(again) interfere in the USA election?

[sharkman]

Well isn't that a lot of rightwing US bravado! You can't say for sure if Iran's seeking nuclear weapons or not but I sure hope they are! You're no ME expert for sure but you talk like you think you are. Juan Cole is and he tells it pretty much like it is because he doesn't need to pretend that the US can do what it pleases in the ME anymore. If the US bombs Iran it will be with the UN's blessing and that doesn't come without China and Russia's blessing. And if the US gets China's and Russia's blessing then the US will have no reason to bomb Iran. China and Russia have a stake in not seeing Iran get nukes too, to a lesser extent than the US and so those two will be asking for concessions from the US on the Israel/Palestine issue. The US will. Sorry but your wet dreams of war are not on the table. Isreal won't be starting one either and so that bluff has been called.

So you are still of the opinion that Iran is only developing peaceful nuclear energy? Really? And they are not dreams of war, they are actual events that may take place if Iran blocks the strait.

[sharkman]

....serious sanctions [were] imposed by the United Nations, the U.S. and the European Union.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/iran-initiates-nuclear-talks-world-powers-sanctions-squeeze-ahmadinejad-regime-article-1.999252#ixzz1i9LyXDbc

According to the article cited, "the invite for an international sitdown, issued Saturday by the country’s [iran's] top nuclear negotiator, seems a sign that widespread sanctions against Iran are working."

This sounds like the kind of strategy that Sadam used to employ while he continued to do whatever he wanted. 1) threaten or menace a specific western interest. 2) Offer negotiations of some kind. 3) Keep trying to accomplish your controversial goals in the background.

We'll see what happens I guess.

[Guest American Woman]

This sounds like the kind of strategy that Sadam used to employ while he continued to do whatever he wanted. 1) threaten or menace a specific western interest. 2) Offer negotiations of some kind. 3) Keep trying to accomplish your controversial goals in the background.

We'll see what happens I guess.

I would argue that Saddam didn't continue to do whatever he wanted since there were no WMD and/or nuclear capabilities found in Iraq.

[Wild Bill]

And I truly think that your generalization, far from being accurate, is, in fact, just ignorant.

I meant no malice, AW. I'm going by a lifetime of direct experience which is shared by almost every Canadian. One of the most popular bits by a comedian is that by Rick Mercer of the CBC, where he will go to some American city and ask Americans in the street about some bogus Canadian issues:

"The intent was to satirize perceived American ignorance of Canada and the rest of the world. Examples included:

Rick Mercer ran the Talking to Americans interviews

persuading Americans to congratulate Canada on legalizing VCRs or adopting the 24-hour day (ex-Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack was fooled by this one).

various political controversies involving one or more Canadian provinces.

congratulating the Canadian government on building a dome over its "national igloo" (apparently a downsized version of the United States Capitol made out of ice) to protect it from global warming (one of the interview subjects so fooled was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, whom Mercer later stated had asked off-camera if this was a "controversial igloo").

changing the words in the Canadian Anthem and asking Americans to sing it.

congratulating Canada for officially joining North America.

congratulating Canada for moving the capital city from Kingston, Ontario to Toronto (the actual capital is Ottawa, and then-Vice President Al Gore failed to correct Mercer regarding Toronto being the capital).

asking university students and professors to sign a petition against the Saskatchewan seal hunt and the Toronto polar bear hunt.

asking Americans to condemn Canada's practice of euthanizing senior citizens by setting them adrift on Northern ice floes.

asking Americans how many states Canada has (Canada has provinces and territories, not states).

Saying that global warming is causing Canada's polar ice caps to melt and break in two, resulting in a bipolar Canada, and that the two polar caps can be joined back together with the use of tugboats. He further asks if America would assist in curing bipolar Canada with the use of tugboats, and that Canada will be using a big tugboat named Theodore.

Professors at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, New York University and Stanford University were consistently fooled by absurdities such as the "Saskatchewan seal hunt". The only Americans who were shown outsmarting Mercer were: a university student who spent her time laughing at him (before finally answering), and a small child who pointed out to his mother, who was also tricked, that Canada had provinces, not states.

The most famous segment, aired in 2000, featured Mercer asking then-presidential candidate George W. Bush – who had previously stated that "you can't stump me on world leaders" – for his reaction to an endorsement by Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine".

Here's the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_to_Americans

There are some hilarious youtube clips if you google "Rick Mercer Talking to Americans"! You can't help but laugh!

Virtually every Canadian has such stories to share, AW. You yourself may be an obvious exception but I think from your side of the fence you just don't have the necessary perspective.

[sharkman]

I would argue that Saddam didn't continue to do whatever he wanted since there were no WMD and/or nuclear capabilities found in Iraq.

That is true, no WMD after the 2003 invasion. I didn't mention a time frame, but I was thinking about Sadam when he was trying to accomplish what Iran is doing now, until Israel bombed his reactors.

Edit: But at least his actions in the 90's, after Desert Storm, were provocative. Denying UN watchers, then allowing them. Shooting at UN mandated jets, bombing the Kurds. He sure looked like he was hiding something. General Georges Sada, a former Air Vice-Marshal in Iraq, said that pilots told him they had flown some WMD stockpiles to Syria under orders from Hussien, just before the 2003 invasion.

Edited December 31, 2011 by sharkman

[monty16]

So you are still of the opinion that Iran is only developing peaceful nuclear energy?

No.

Really?

No.

And they are not dreams of war, they are actual events that may take place if Iran blocks the strait.

Right!

[Guest American Woman]

I meant no malice, AW. I'm going by a lifetime of direct experience which is shared by almost every Canadian. One of the most popular bits by a comedian is that by Rick Mercer of the CBC, where he will go to some American city and ask Americans in the street about some bogus Canadian issues: [....]

Virtually every Canadian has such stories to share, AW. You yourself may be an obvious exception but I think from your side of the fence you just don't have the necessary perspective.

Oh, I do have perspective. I've traveled to every continent except Australia, and that's next on the list. I also know that the Rick Mercer clips are hand-picked; Americans who know the answers aren't going to be on the show. I also know directly first hand through my travels that there are people from every country who are no different from the Americans you speak of, and that includes being ignorant about their own country. I speak to people from whatever county I'm in, and at times I'm quite surprised by the lack of knowledge - and I include Canada in that. Trust me. If an American were so inclined to produce a "Talking to Canadians" show with the sole intent of making Canadians look stupid, they'd have no more problem coming up with 'stupid Canadians' than Rick Mercer has coming up with 'stupid Americans.' The difference, as I see it, is that no American has such a need/desire, and I doubt if Americans would need/have the desire to watch such a show. I have no desire to laugh at the stupidity of Canadians.

There are plenty of Americans with "stories to share" about Canada/Canadians, too, plenty who would personally confirm the stereotypes, but that wouldn't mean they are right; in fact, it very well might be that it tells more about "the people with the stories."

I would like to point out, because I think it's relevant, that the world at large likely knows more about the nations that are most powerful, the nations therefore most often in the news. In other words, I would wager that most people from most nations would know more about the goings on of the U.S. than New Zealand, for example. I would wager that most know more about the U.S. than they do Canada. Does that make them ignoramuses?

[Guest American Woman]

That is true, no WMD after the 2003 invasion. I didn't mention a time frame, but I was thinking about Sadam when he was trying to accomplish what Iran is doing now, until Israel bombed his reactors.

I think the sanctions are credited with Saddam being kept in check, but of course, there was also inspections and the enforcement of the 'no fly zone' by the U.S. and Britain. It's like you said, we'll have to wait and see.....

[monty16]

That is true, no WMD after the 2003 invasion. I didn't mention a time frame, but I was thinking about Sadam when he was trying to accomplish what Iran is doing now, until Israel bombed his reactors.

Edit: But at least his actions in the 90's, after Desert Storm, were provocative. Denying UN watchers, then allowing them. Shooting at UN mandated jets, bombing the Kurds. He sure looked like he was hiding something. General Georges Sada, a former Air Vice-Marshal in Iraq, said that pilots told him they had flown some WMD stockpiles to Syria under orders from Hussien, just before the 2003 invasion.

Either you need to read more carefully or you need to stop lying. Above you will find a post of yours where you do the same thing to me. You come to wrong conclusions on what I said because of one or the other.

As for pilots (some pilots?) telling Sada, that sounds like more hearsay that has never been proven to be correct. In fact it's been shown to be highly unlikely.

You're not doing very well with your gung-ho flagwaving, sabre rattling so why not back off a little and get some facts for a change.

[Wild Bill]

I would like to point out, because I think it's relevant, that the world at large likely knows more about the nations that are most powerful, the nations therefore most often in the news. In other words, I would wager that most people from most nations would know more about the goings on of the U.S. than New Zealand, for example. I would wager that most know more about the U.S. than they do Canada. Does that make them ignoramuses?

There's some truth to that, AW. I would also agree that no country has a monopoly on ignoramuses. However, there is a difference with the American perspective. As you yourself have said, people worldwide tend to notice the happenings of the more important and bigger nations first. Why would you then not expect that to apply to yourselves, the biggest nation on Earth?

One telling trait might simply be the way television news is presented in our two countries. Where I live Canadians have grown up with access to the main American networks out of Buffalo, NY. For years and years one joke has been a staple here about American tv news. You see, the standard Canadian format is to lead with world news, then national and end with local. What we've seen from the American channels is exactly the opposite. Local news was always the priority.

So the joke was "This is Irv Weinstein from WKBW-TV in Buffalo, NY! Saddam has nuked Tel Aviv! An asteroid has completely devasted the entire continent of South America! But first...there's been a fire in Tonawanda!"

Sometimes we need our friends to help us see our own humorous foibles, since it's impossible to turn around fast enough to see them for ourselves!

[dre]

So you are still of the opinion that Iran is only developing peaceful nuclear energy?

Well we just dont know either way. The assertion has become a sort of popular conventional wisdom, where people like you just go "Of course they are!". But thats what people like you said about Iraqs gigantic WMD and nuclear programs as well.

But after the last wild goose chase cost Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, hopefully people will question that "conventional wisdom".

[Guest American Woman]

There's some truth to that, AW. I would also agree that no country has a monopoly on ignoramuses. However, there is a difference with the American perspective. As you yourself have said, people worldwide tend to notice the happenings of the more important and bigger nations first. Why would you then not expect that to apply to yourselves, the biggest nation on Earth?

What I'm saying is, just because people know more about the U.S. than all Americans do about theirs doesn't make Americans ignoramuses - it would stand to reason that they would know more about ours, being exposed to it more. Canadians here say their interest in the U.S. is due to the fact that our politics affects them so greatly - affects the world so greatly. It's not that Canadians are so much more worldly or so much more interested in other countries than we are - it's that it affects you. The interest is in how it affects you.

So why are Americans ignoramuses for not knowing what they aren't bombarded with or not caring about what doesn't affect them? But again, many Americans are very knowledgeable. I would say that a nation of 300+ million people would statistically have a higher number of 'stupid people' than much smaller nations, but again, that does not a nation of ignoramuses make. The fact that Canada has a show that feels the need to present us as such makes me wonder why.

One telling trait might simply be the way television news is presented in our two countries. Where I live Canadians have grown up with access to the main American networks out of Buffalo, NY. For years and years one joke has been a staple here about American tv news. You see, the standard Canadian format is to lead with world news, then national and end with local. What we've seen from the American channels is exactly the opposite. Local news was always the priority.

Why would presenting the news in a different order than Canadians be "a joke??" Seriously. We choose to present our news in a different order than you do, so that makes us not only wrong, but a joke? Just because the local news is presented first on some stations doesn't mean that it's "the priority."

So the joke was "This is Irv Weinstein from WKBW-TV in Buffalo, NY! Saddam has nuked Tel Aviv! An asteroid has completely devasted the entire continent of South America! But first...there's been a fire in Tonawanda!"

Did you ever stop to think that they presented it that way to keep people tuned in?? That's the way I've always perceived it. They lead in with the big story, and then save it for last. Since the idea is to keep the audience tuned in, it's not exactly a stupid way to present it, eh?

Sometimes we need our friends to help us see our own humorous foibles, since it's impossible to turn around fast enough to see them for ourselves!

And sometimes one wonders at why one's "friends" feel the need to "help [them]" see what they consider "humorous." Seriously. Americans do not laugh at Canadians this way, and it's not for lack of 'stupid Canadians.'

[sharkman]

Either you need to read more carefully or you need to stop lying. Above you will find a post of yours where you do the same thing to me. You come to wrong conclusions on what I said because of one or the other.

As for pilots (some pilots?) telling Sada, that sounds like more hearsay that has never been proven to be correct. In fact it's been shown to be highly unlikely.

You're not doing very well with your gung-ho flagwaving, sabre rattling so why not back off a little and get some facts for a change.

Look. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when interacting in these threads, but you've been nothing but rude, overbearing and tiresome. Don't bother responding to my posts anymore when I'm clearly talking to someone else. Go read about Georges Sada and then call me a liar, pal.

Edited January 1, 2012 by sharkman

[Wild Bill]

And sometimes one wonders at why one's "friends" feel the need to "help [them]" see what they consider "humorous." Seriously. Americans do not laugh at Canadians this way, and it's not for lack of 'stupid Canadians.'

Sorry AW. I've got your feathers ruffled and I think we just can't get past that.

I agree with you that within your own borders Americans have no need to learn about other countries. Yet you cannot deny that the resentment against "the ugly American" is real, not just in Canada but in many other countries, especially Europe.

Why? Because people in these countries don't see Americans in their own country. They see TOURISTS in THEIR country! And because these tourists tend to be much less educated about the country they're visiting than the people in those countries are about the USA, they stand out as an admittedly false example of Americans in general.

You see, you are quite right that because America is bigger and stronger it gets more attention. What you may not see so easily is that when you are smaller and weaker you are naturally defensive about it! By being unaware of this, Americans tend to ruffle OTHER countries feathers!

I'm surprised that all this seems to both surprise and offend you so much, AW. To me, it has been such an obvious fact all my life as to exact no comment! It's like the sun rising in the east - a fact so mundane as to be unremarked.

You folks should count yourselves fortunate, AW. What do you think is the popular conception of Canadians in YOUR country?

350 lb French Canadians on your Florida beaches, wearing thong bathing suits! That's what!

You have no right to complain!

Remember, despite this misconception we Canadians still love you! We've proved that time and time again in our mutual history, most recently with getting your hostages out of Iran and lately in Gander, NFLD when all the planes were grounded during 9/1/11.

We're sorry we sent you Justin Bieber! Honest!

Edited January 1, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jbg]

I have much respect for our American neighbours. They are in the main an honourable people with much to admire in their values. Even amongst their ordinary people we see more generosity than Canadians, as witnessed by their MUCH higher percentage of donations to charity than the average Canadian!

However, they an be an insular people, like Hobbits in the Shire. They know their own history back for generations but anything outside their own borders is "queer as news from Bree!"

This cosmopolitan ignorance cuts across the entire gamut of their society. Levels of education seem irrelevant. I still recall being in Dallas on business and having another salesman ask me "Oh, you're a Canadian? You're from Ontario? I have a cousin in Winnepeg. Perhaps you would know him?"

Quite true of all Americans, including me.

My donation generosity is illustrated by my largesse towards organizations fighting the massacre of seal cubs on ice floes off Saskatchewan every spring. Next year, on to Alberta's coast to photograph and document the awful slaughter.

[jbg]

I would argue that Saddam didn't continue to do whatever he wanted since there were no WMD and/or nuclear capabilities found in Iraq.

His lying about them brought a response, albeit not what Saddam Hussein had in mind.

[punked]

That is true, no WMD after the 2003 invasion. I didn't mention a time frame, but I was thinking about Sadam when he was trying to accomplish what Iran is doing now, until Israel bombed his reactors.

Edit: But at least his actions in the 90's, after Desert Storm, were provocative. Denying UN watchers, then allowing them. Shooting at UN mandated jets, bombing the Kurds. He sure looked like he was hiding something. General Georges Sada, a former Air Vice-Marshal in Iraq, said that pilots told him they had flown some WMD stockpiles to Syria under orders from Hussien, just before the 2003 invasion.

Yah nope I think after what they found in 2003 when they went in and saw that Iraq didn't have and materials (because of sanctions) to create a a serious WMD opinions like yours were pretty much discounted. Sanctions stopped the production mostly not bombs.

[monty16]

Look. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when interacting in these threads, but you've been nothing but rude, overbearing and tiresome. Don't bother responding to my posts anymore when I'm clearly talking to someone else. Go read about Georges Sada and then call me a liar, pal.

When you post evil american lies I'm one to pick up on them. It's bad enough that your country slaughtered millions of Iraqis on false pretenses, and now you try to perpetuate the lies with excuses. Is it any wonder the rest of the world sees the US as the modern day Nazi aggressor state.

Regardless of whether you are talking to someone else, I'll always pick up on your lies when I see them. That's the way it works around here and you have no power to change it. What are you going to do, bomb me from 30,000'?

[sharkman]

When you post evil american lies I'm one to pick up on them. It's bad enough that your country slaughtered millions of Iraqis on false pretenses, and now you try to perpetuate the lies with excuses. Is it any wonder the rest of the world sees the US as the modern day Nazi aggressor state.

Regardless of whether you are talking to someone else, I'll always pick up on your lies when I see them. That's the way it works around here and you have no power to change it. What are you going to do, bomb me from 30,000'?

You really need to chill out there, friend.

First of all, I am Canadian, and live in BC. And since you are so quick to make the accusation of liar, please tell me what lies I am telling?

[monty16]

Oh, I do have perspective. I've traveled to every continent except Australia, and that's next on the list. I also know that the Rick Mercer clips are hand-picked; Americans who know the answers aren't going to be on the show. I also know directly first hand through my travels that there are people from every country who are no different from the Americans you speak of, and that includes being ignorant about their own country. I speak to people from whatever county I'm in, and at times I'm quite surprised by the lack of knowledge - and I include Canada in that. Trust me. If an American were so inclined to produce a "Talking to Canadians" show with the sole intent of making Canadians look stupid, they'd have no more problem coming up with 'stupid Canadians' than Rick Mercer has coming up with 'stupid Americans.' The difference, as I see it, is that no American has such a need/desire, and I doubt if Americans would need/have the desire to watch such a show. I have no desire to laugh at the stupidity of Canadians.

There are plenty of Americans with "stories to share" about Canada/Canadians, too, plenty who would personally confirm the stereotypes, but that wouldn't mean they are right; in fact, it very well might be that it tells more about "the people with the stories."

I would like to point out, because I think it's relevant, that the world at large likely knows more about the nations that are most powerful, the nations therefore most often in the news. In other words, I would wager that most people from most nations would know more about the goings on of the U.S. than New Zealand, for example. I would wager that most know more about the U.S. than they do Canada. Does that make them ignoramuses?

You're trying to apologize for American stupidity but you're also trying to excuse arrogance. Americans really don't care all that much about the rest of the world. Many even proclaim that openly. Hence, comedians like Rick Mercer have a ready made source for material. Arrogance with your religious beliefs and combative of others who don't accept your religious fantasies. Arrogance toward others who believe in different relgions and toward atheists who believe in none, even to the point of advocating causing bodily harm toward them in your own country. Murderers of doctors who perform abortions on women due to the arrogance of accepting no varying opinions on the question. So arrogant that you don't even recognize those heinous crimes as murder. Arrogance in being excluding of other languages than English. Arrogance in being excluding of Hispanics. Accepting of the arrogance against blacks in the southern states. Arrogance in thinking that proactive wars can be passed off as legitimate. And arrogant toward those who expose your ugliness, ignorance, and stupidity.

Now don't get me wrong and accuse me of being an American hater. Try to understand that we've just got your number now. I mean, there's lots to hate after the slaughter of over a million Iraqi people but we are looking to the future with some caution and giving you another chance. Even though we suspect you'll disappoint again because we know that nothing stops a fascit bully but the bully's own comeuppance.

[sharkman]

Wow, rant much monty? So you are a racist bigot,eh? Too bad for you.

[monty16]

Wow, rant much monty? So you are a racist bigot,eh? Too bad for you.

Funny thing is sharkman, I have just been accused of trolling by a moderator. Whatever trolling means? The I get this from you which surely qualifies as namecalling and surely qualifies as eliciting a response from me to address your abuse of the rules. I'm not really sure what 'trolling' is but it seems to me this post of yours could apply to the term. I mean, what's it's purpose other than to elicit a response in kind? I think you are trying to elicit a response that would be outside the rules of this forum.

I'll decline the offer this one time but report the post in the hopes that it will do some good. Some useful purpose other than crying to the moderators which I really don't relish doing when there are other remedies. A remedy such as simply reminding you that you are acting like a frustrated troublemaker?

[punked]

Funny thing is sharkman, I have just been accused of trolling by a moderator. Whatever trolling means? The I get this from you which surely qualifies as namecalling and surely qualifies as eliciting a response from me to address your abuse of the rules. I'm not really sure what 'trolling' is but it seems to me this post of yours could apply to the term. I mean, what's it's purpose other than to elicit a response in kind? I think you are trying to elicit a response that would be outside the rules of this forum.

I'll decline the offer this one time but report the post in the hopes that it will do some good. Some useful purpose other than crying to the moderators which I really don't relish doing when there are other remedies. A remedy such as simply reminding you that you are acting like a frustrated troublemaker?

Trolling, Ie you are looking for a fight and you don't care what about. You say things to get a response then take an extreme and often confrontational stance against that response no matter what it is. Trolling.

[monty16]

Trolling, Ie you are looking for a fight and you don't care what about. You say things to get a response then take an extreme and often confrontational stance against that response no matter what it is. Trolling.

In my opinion it's really just being lazy to try to pin that charge on anyone. It's invariably used on the recipient by his political foes because your explanation is how foes see it. Those in agreement with the recipient of the charge will rarely be in agreement with the charge of trolling.

A thorough discussion on the term 'trolling would be a worthwhile exercise on any forum. I think it would be instructive and useful to moderators and give direction to them on how to handle what they see as forum abuse.

I would never make the charge to a moderator unless is was to question the tactic in return to a like charge against me. More appropriately, I would try to be specific and make the charge in line with the rules of the forum. Forum rules where the term 'trolling' is used are really only relying on a copout for being less specific.

Now why don't you see if you can do that? Or start a new thread to serve the purpose. the question I would like to ask of you, what is your purpose in bringing it up?

Edited January 1, 2012 by monty1

[sharkman]

Either you need to read more carefully or you need to stop lying. Above you will find a post of yours where you do the same thing to me. You come to wrong conclusions on what I said because of one or the other.

As for pilots (some pilots?) telling Sada, that sounds like more hearsay that has never been proven to be correct. In fact it's been shown to be highly unlikely.

You're not doing very well with your gung-ho flagwaving, sabre rattling so why not back off a little and get some facts for a change.

So anyway, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim of lying, no doubt you are taking so long only because there is so much evidence.