Bonam Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Well thats fine because you left out ALL of mine in that post The Iranian Embassy here provided services to more than 150 000 Iranians living in Canada, and kept lines of communication open. The fact that theres a possibility of another Iraq style blood-letting over bogus WMD claims makes it diplomatic channels open than ever. A de-escalalation of rhetoric by both sides could save hundreds of thousands of lives, and this was the opposite. But to turn that question around, what possible good can booting out Iranian diplomats do for anyone? I dunno, stop wasting money on a useless embassy? Gotta cut costs somewhere I'd put forward that a lot of embassies around the world don't need to exist physically anyway. We can communicate instantly using the internet, video conferencing, etc. As for "services" to Iranians living in Canada, just what services are these that they can't get through other channels? Wasn't there some recent controversy about the Iranian embassy slipping in pro-Iran/revolutionary propaganda in classes it was sponsoring for Iranian students or something? But to be honest... this in and of itself is not something that worries me too much. What I DO worry about is this another step down the road towards a whole bunch of Iranians and quite possibly a bunch of Canadians dying for no good reason at all. There are yet plenty of opportunities to avoid a military conflict. Quote
dre Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 I dunno, stop wasting money on a useless embassy? Gotta cut costs somewhere I'd put forward that a lot of embassies around the world don't need to exist physically anyway. We can communicate instantly using the internet, video conferencing, etc. As for "services" to Iranians living in Canada, just what services are these that they can't get through other channels? Wasn't there some recent controversy about the Iranian embassy slipping in pro-Iran/revolutionary propaganda in classes it was sponsoring for Iranian students or something? There are yet plenty of opportunities to avoid a military conflict. Right but seems like they are all going to be based on communication... Diplomats and embassies might come in handy for that. But really Its a done deal. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear program, nor should it have to. And Im hearing the same kind of rhetoric and bogus propoganda I heard prior to Iraq. I suppose you are right that Canada could re-evaluate the idea of having a lot of embassies around the world. But to me this is just another case of idiots on all sides shooting their mouths off and I dont think its helpfull. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Right but seems like they are all going to be based on communication... Diplomats and embassies might come in handy for that. Ultimately Canada will be a minor player in that decision, if we are involved at all. The main choice we'll have is whether or not to participate in any international action that may be taken against Iran. Quote
dre Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Ultimately Canada will be a minor player in that decision, if we are involved at all. The main choice we'll have is whether or not to participate in any international action that may be taken against Iran. Which is another stupid thing about this incident. That moron Vic Toews blathered on about how "Canada sees Iran as the biggest threat to global instability blah blah blah". Kinda paints us into a corner a little bit. Couple that with Harpers temper tantrums when we didnt participate in Iraq, its pretty damn clear to me that if we get a chance to go kill some Irans we will. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bleeding heart Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Or maybe the Government realizes that things are getting pretty tense in there and would like to get out before we have to send the Special Forces to rescue the diplomats and the diplomatic staff. That's not what I was responding. I replied to a poster whose "how dare you critique the PM's decisions" theme rubbed me the wrong way. But then, I'm not a Commissar. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 THey play the same games that everyone else does sure. Exactly so. And it's not defending their behaviour to merely point out that they behave, internationally, quite normally (ie somewhat badly); and in fact, they have been less wantonly aggressive than, say...well, everyone gets three guesses, and they'll likely all be correct. What's interesting is the continual double standard at play...hell, I've had a couple of posters (ie more than one) explain to me straight-faced that Western-backed terrorism is generally justifiable, whereas Eastern-backed terrorism is the virtual definition of Evil. Or when, during the Iraq War, we were constantly informed about the "foreign interference" of Iran into Iraqi affairs. A true jaw-dropper, that one. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) I notice you left out a few things from my list in your rebuttal, some of the more relevant ones in fact. Takes a bit of gall to say this, considering you have just ignored Dre's most relevant points first. Lie that, oh, for one example, how the Western allies, most notably the United States in recent decades, have been objectively more destructively belligerant and aggressive than Iran has ever been. Now, you might wish to argue that such behaviour is more justifiable than Iran's...but if you back the more belligerent, destructive and lawless rogue states, then the onus is on you to expand on this and explain why. Edited September 9, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 So is it your view that we should ignore the comment from their leaders about the destruction of Israel? There are well documented comments made about wanting to destroy Israel, we should ignore those. You know what I find really sad? The events of World War Two could have been avoided if somebody had bothered to read the book of a little Austrian Corporal and taken him seriously. He wrote a book and in that book he wrote what he will do if given half a chance, and we saw what happened when nobody bothered to read what he wrote. This guy is making it twice as easy, he is telling us exactly what they want to do to Israel should they get the chance and people don't want to believe that either. I wonder what the next guy will do... You're drastically oversimplifying the events leading up to the attempted extermination of the Jews (and others) and not recognizing the vital importance of national sovereignty in foreign affairs. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 I notice you left out a few things from my list in your rebuttal, some of the more relevant ones in fact. In any case, Iran stands in opposition to Western interests, supports groups that undermine our security, and has posed a danger to Canadians and others. How are our interests served by maintaining diplomatic ties with Iran? You are forgetting that Iran, for all of its religious fundamentalism, is a polity with a wide array of competing interests. Never forget that because it is not all of Iran or even all of their politicians that want these things you claim mark Iran's position. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 I dunno, stop wasting money on a useless embassy? Gotta cut costs somewhere Useless? Now is when the embassy is needed most. This is when they should be going to work trying to de-escalate the situation, but Ottawa isn't interested in that. Stephen Harper doesn't give a crap about de-escalation, discussion, or diplomacy even here within Canada (ie, calling environmentalists enemies of the state, walking off stage during his election campaigns and not taking questions, or shutting down third-sector organizations that come out with competing research to their ideological public policy). Moreover, this very embassy that's being shut down has been effective saving people's lives in the past. Quote
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 I believe you when you say it, but I don't believe any government of any stripe would dare add Saudi Arabia to the mix. Other governments might need their oil. We do not. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Gee, why would I blame the Tories for closing the embassy in Iran when diplomacy has saved people's lives in the past? Why would I blame the Tories for being stupid when there's at least two Canadians caught up in the legal system in Iran as I type this? Why oh why am I blaming the Tories? Because you always do? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 I will only state that you have misread my post. Perhaps you would clarify your position, then. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Because you always do? How can I blame the Tories for closing an embassy that they're closing. It's so outlandish. Quote
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) Yes. I think they can and I have shown you how they have. Which post was that? I don't see that Canada has ever had any influence with Iran, and any diplomats there would be in danger given Iran's lack of respect for international guarantees of diplomatic immunity. Given the barbarism of this government I see no reason we should give them the respect of recognition, much less formal government relations. Edited September 9, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21421&view=findpost&p=827691 I see. We helped by breaking the rules, acting not as diplomats, but as agents, as it were, and then fleeing Iran before they found out. Is that what you believe diplomacy is about? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Raiding an embassy is an open declaration of war that would be instantly condemned by every nation on the planet. Uh huh. And the consequences of this are what, exactly? I mean, they've done it several times already and haven't had any difficulties afterward. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Actually, come to think of it there was some discussion recently about this because authorities were going to raid an embassy to get the WikiLeaks guy. so you should be aware of these things. They were even hesitant to arrest a single person in an embassy. Civilized people respect the laws around diplomacy. The Iranians are not a civilized state. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Which post was that? I don't see that Canada has ever had any influence with Iran, and any diplomats there would be in danger given Iran's lack of respect for international guarantees of diplomatic immunity. Given the barbarism of this government I see no reason we should give them the respect of recognition, much less formal government relations. Because governments change and you too would be well served to recognize that Iran has vast competing interests politically. All of this generalization about Iran, to borrow a phrase from Shady, is "complete nonsense." Protesters died in the streets fighting against the last election results. As was pointed out above by dre, Khameini has put Ahmadinejad in his place more than once. So it's clear that not even the political leadership is on the same page. That means all of your blustering and broadbrushing is for nothing. Quote
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Who says it's for "pleasure"? Say you're a Canadian citizen. You were born in Iran. Your family suffered all kinds of hardships due to political conflicts with the ruling elites. You made it out and made a life for yourself in Canada. Your mother is still in Iran and has fallen ill. She's going to die in a matter of weeks. There's no open violence or conflict in Iran, but Canada tells you you're not allowed to go. What do you do? I think most people tell the Canadian government to f___ off. I have no idea why you believe Canada would have a lot of interest in helping citizens who are imprisoned abroad, for we rarely do, or why you think Iran would give a fig what we thought or wanted or said, for they never have. You appear to be in a special place where noble diplomats intercede with their honourable counterparts to ensure all in life is fair and just. I wish I could do there too, but since I grew up I have this reality thing going which interferes with my fantasies. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 THey play the same games that everyone else does sure. But for the most part they have just defended themselves against brutal invasions and attempts by their neighbors to wipe them out. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Have you ever paused to wonder at the venom and hostility they direct at Israel? I mean, they share no borders, no trade, and no relationship. There's never been war between them, yet the regime in Tehran has been irredeemably hostile towards Israel almost since the day the Ayatollahs took power. There has been nothing but relentless hostility, the venomous spewing of threats and condemnation, and funding for terrorist groups which attack Israel. Or are you going to tell me it was the deep respect the Ayatollahs have for human rights, and their indignation and outrage that Israel wasn't respecting the human rights of Palestinians which drove them to such lengths? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 No but there more peaceful than WE are, thats for god damn sure. And they arent as bad as all the moronic western propoganda makes them out to be either. All that shit is just posturing for the benefit of retards dumb enough to believe it. They are? Have we ever deliberately blown up civilian airliners? Do we attack other nations embassies, both in Canada and abroad? Do we fund terrorist groups which attack civilians? Do we constantly threaten violence against others? Do we beat and torture people to death in prisons and execute little girls for adultery? Do we have troops in Syria helping the regime murder its own people? It's evident that your hatred of western society allows you to simply overlook any amount of violence on the part of your soulmates in Iran. Tell me, have you beaten up any homosexuals lately? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 Why not look at Irans history? A victim of multiple bloody invasions, including chemical/bio attacks, backed by some of the same western powers that want to attack them AGAIN. They been one of the best behaved nation states in the middle east over the last 30 years, and theres no sign of that changing. The WEST is the one killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east, sacking countries based on bogus intelligence, propping up brutal dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, and various diferent autocracies to serve our own interest. The west is also the ones sitting on a massive nuclear arsenal and spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make even more deadly weapons to export around the world. What is to be said about a person like this? There are none so blind as those who will not see, perhaps? Your ignorance is almost beyond belief. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 But to be honest... this in and of itself is not something that worries me too much. What I DO worry about is this another step down the road towards a whole bunch of Iranians and quite possibly a bunch of Canadians dying for no good reason at all. I think that's extraordinarily unlikely, but I can't help wondering if that ever took place which side you'd be on. Somehow, I don't think it would be ours. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 9, 2012 Report Posted September 9, 2012 There are none so blind as those who will not see, perhaps? I need some of your 'seeing help'... what was the, uhhh... straw that broke the Baird/Harper back? Was there a single event that precipitated this blundering move by Baird/Harper? Surely it wasn't timed to coincide with Harper's additional posturing at the recent days Apec summit in Russia... surely? Quote
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.