Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels diplomats.

[cybercoma]

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.

I like when you have something to offer to discussion and debate. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.

[Argus]

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.

I don't think anyone sane would argue the United States has not, overall, been a force for civilization in the world. This is a world which is not particularly civilized, and filled with rogues who have no compunction in attacking others. The US has been the primary 'policeman' for the West in dealing with such states, both on its own behalf, and on the behalf of a more spineless West, which can't ever seem to get its act together except under American prodding.

Like most on the Left you remember the things that went wrong but never consider anything which went right, never consider what would have happened if the US or the threat of the US had not been there.

I criticize the police in Canada fairly frequently but I wouldn't want to try living in a nation which didn't have any police. That's the kind of world we'd be living in without the US and its threat of action.

As for the Iranian government, they are savages from the sixth century without the slightest respect for human life, honor or basic human decency.

[Argus]

Useless? Now is when the embassy is needed most. This is when they should be going to work trying to de-escalate the situation,

Don't worry. The embassy of the republic of Botswana is still there, and will apply all their considerable influence to do that very thing.

[cybercoma]

Civilized people respect the laws around diplomacy. The Iranians are not a civilized state.

It's good that you come to that opinion based on your opinion that Iranians are not civilized, but have they ever raided an embassy in their country? I think your fantasy about primitive sand people clouds your judgment on anything to do with foreign affairs. You're so xenophobic that any time these topics come up you throw reason by the wayside and resort to the broadest of generalizations, even about people as politically, culturally, and socially diverse as the people of Iran. You condescendingly suggest that I need to grow up in another post, when it is you that has this childish black-and-white us-vs-them mentality about foreigners and foreign affairs.

[Argus]

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.

Given the behaviour of the Iranian government over the past few decades, behaviour you and the other apologists for Iran are fiercely determined to completely ignore, I have less than no faith in anything that government says.

I'm sure there are competing interests. For example, Ahmadinejad won the last election over a candidate who was considered much more moderate.

That was the candidate who said that as soon as Iran gets a nuclear bomb it must use it on Israel.

Ah, if only the 'moderates' could take over...

[Argus]

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?

I assume, without evidence to the contrary, that it was a compilation of events, along with a realization that if things got nasty in Iran over the coming months there would be nothing to protect our diplomats there. It's not like Iran has ever shown much respect for diplomatic immunity, after all.

[cybercoma]

Given the behaviour of the Iranian government over the past few decades, behaviour you and the other apologists for Iran are fiercely determined to completely ignore, I have less than no faith in anything that government says.

When have I ever apologized for Iran? I'm simply against unnecessary interventions that undermine the sovereignty of free states. I'm completely opposed to Iran's human rights abuses and their underhanded tactics funding non-conventional militants to carry out their dirty work. Edited September 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

I like when you have something to offer to discussion and debate. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.

Reality frightens you, doesn't it?

The fact is embassies exist in order to facilitate trade and to engage in international diplomacy. Almost all nations regard the difficulties their own citizens get into abroad as irritants, and of very low importance. If you get arrested abroad that's your problem, not your government's. I know Canadians like you have a child-like belief that the Canadian government is your mommy and is going to come to your rescue but that's jut not the case. They have neither the power, the influence, or, in most cases, the interest in helping Canadians who are arrested abroad. If something gets into the media they will make the proper noises, but don't expect the Canadian government to come to your rescue. Nor the Americans, for all their pompous trumpeting of their virtues. Really, the only nations which have, over the years, shown much interest in helping out their citizens who get arrested abroad are the United Kingdom, and Israel.

I still remember a column by a Canadian journalist who had spent a year in a dungeon in Zambia on some triviality. He was jammed into a lightless room with scores of other Zambians, some as young as ten. Anyway, the Canadian government had no interest in helping. In fact, the Canadian prime minister even traveled to Zambia while he was in this horrific dungeon to congratulate the Zambian government on it's earnest work as a 'front line state' against Rhodesia and South Africa. I can imagine him and the members of Canada's foreign affairs ministry smiling and laughing and sipping wine with their hosts, without the slightest interest in that journalist in his dark cell.

Nothing much has changed from that day. If you get arrested abroad, the only thing the consulate will do is give you a list of local lawyers, and write a protest note if you're being tortured.

[Argus]

When have I ever apologized for Iran? I'm simply against unnecessary interventions that undermine the sovereignty of free states. I'm completely opposed to Iran's human rights abuses and their underhanded tactics funding non-conventional militants to carry out their dirty work.

Then why do you think we should treat them as civilized fellow states and give have a formal relationship with them? I'm for closing two thirds of our embassies abroad. I see no reason to have diplomatic relations with barbarous dictatorships except in the few cases where their importance, ie, Russia and China, make it necessary.

And yes, I consider Russia a barbarous dictatorship. The fact it's people get to vote for its dictator is beside the point. It is a lawless state with no human rights.

[bleeding heart]

I don't think anyone sane would argue the United States has not, overall, been a force for civilization in the world. This is a world which is not particularly civilized, and filled with rogues who have no compunction in attacking others. The US has been the primary 'policeman' for the West in dealing with such states, both on its own behalf, and on the behalf of a more spineless West, which can't ever seem to get its act together except under American prodding.

The United States has in many ways been a force for good, not least in its difficult-to-quantify but very real cultural effects in the realm of freedom of expression and stated opposition to tyranny...which I think have had practical positive effects.

But when it, and we, directly oppose these tendencies, there is a need for an accounting of it--based on precisely the princiiples which underline your argument here.

So when the US and its "spineless" allies commit to subverting demcoracy (which is not unusual) or when they resort to semi-clandestine support for terrorist groups, or commit explicitly to wholesale slaughter, it can't be excused on any grounds, certianly not on some "on the whole" approach; like with the other point I made, the "on the whole" approach is, first, impossible to measure, and second (and more importantly) contradicted by the states' own behaviours.

Cuba has occasionally performed some distinct international good, including medical help for ravaged regions, and even an intervention in Angola to protect democratic forces agaisnt brutal invasions from (US-backed) South Africa and Zaire. And while I admit it's wise to recognize these facts, it doesn't, for me, ameliorate Cuba's repression, its historical attacks on basic freedoms and so on.

For a coalition of democratic states who have recently conducted a savage and destabilizing attack on Iraq--and which a newly-released CIA report now contends that the anti-war folks were correct, astonishingly (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/06/inside-the-cia-dossier-on-iraq/), there are both heartening and disheartening truths that are self-evident: it's heartening that we can now see the CIA admitting that those opposing the war were correct; but it's disheartening that such behaviours, which are often as bad as anything our enemies can conjure, are not unusual deviations, but institutional parts of international policy.

I'm not even 100% clear on why people object to hearing the facts. It doesn't reflect on them personally, unless they're wholly invested in self-aggandizing myths that have affected their personal identity...indoctrination, in shorthand. And the hostility is never about the facts, anyway, but rather about some perceived overarching approach to the subject(s), which on the whole is a pretty trivial complaint.

[Argus]

It's good that you come to that opinion based on your opinion that Iranians are not civilized, but have they ever raided an embassy in their country?[

Uhm, yes. You've forgotten the American embassy incident already? You've forgotten they burned down the British embassy?

Or are you really so naive to believe that 'students' could do any of that without the organization and assistance of the Iranian government? This is an absolutely brutal dictatorship, after all.

I think your fantasy about primitive sand people clouds your judgment on anything to do with foreign affairs.

I do have a certain standard, and nations which hang 13 year old girls after they are raped don't quite come up to them. Nations which have 'police' beating women on the street that they catch showing bits of hair or makeup, which arrest those women, drag them to prison, and beat and rape them are just a tad shy of meeting my standards too. Religious fanatics rarely seem capable of civilized conduct, and Iran is government by religious fanatics.

You're so xenophobic that any time these topics come up you throw reason by the wayside and resort to the broadest of generalizations,

I don't need to generalize given I have been speaking about the Iranian government, not its people.

But as I said, the real issue between us is I have standards of conduct to which I hold all individuals and entities.

Your standards of conduct, like most of those on the Left, vary according to the degree of skin pigmentation people have. It's a uniquely liberal bigotry which exempts 'brown people' from having to live up to the same high standards you hold western nations to.

[cybercoma]

I do have a certain standard, and nations which hang 13 year old girls after they are raped don't quite come up to them. Nations which have 'police' beating women on the street that they catch showing bits of hair or makeup, which arrest those women, drag them to prison, and beat and rape them are just a tad shy of meeting my standards too. Religious fanatics rarely seem capable of civilized conduct, and Iran is government by religious fanatics.

This is what I'm talking about. You say "nations," as though every last person in Iran is part of these actions. It just doesn't get through to you that there are competing interests in Iran politically like everywhere else. There are savages that support the hangman and there are people that are willing to die to oppose him.

I don't need to generalize given I have been speaking about the Iranian government, not its people.

So too does the government have competing interests, which is why diplomacy matters.

But as I said, the real issue between us is I have standards of conduct to which I hold all individuals and entities.

Your standards of conduct, like most of those on the Left, vary according to the degree of skin pigmentation people have. It's a uniquely liberal bigotry which exempts 'brown people' from having to live up to the same high standards you hold western nations to.

After criticizing Shady for building up caricatures of people, you turn around and do the exact same thing. Good job, Argus. As usual in discussions of foreign affairs, you prove yourself to be no better than the laughing stocks of the forum because your bigotry takes away an subtlety your arguments would otherwise have in domestic affairs. You're so emotionally clouded in your opinions about this that you're stupid enough to think that anyone actually supports stoning women that are raped, hanging 13 year olds, or any of the myriad other human rights abuses that go on in Iran. You refuse to even acknowledge the sovereignty of nations and the competing interests that seek to govern them. I really should learn not to expect any more from you on these topics because you're firmly set in your way of thinking about "those people" in the broadest of terms that completely overlooks any sort of variation in them as a group. This makes any military action over there entirely pointless, since that sort of thinking means you can write them all off as a lost cause, which is also why you refuse to accept them as immigrants and refugees. So don't condescend to me that I'm the bigot here. Edited September 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

The United States has in many ways been a force for good, not least in its difficult-to-quantify but very real cultural effects in the realm of freedom of expression and stated opposition to tyranny...which I think have had practical positive effects.

But when it, and we, directly oppose these tendencies, there is a need for an accounting of it--based on precisely the princiiples which underline your argument here.

I think the problem with this argument is that it holds the US to supporting the letter as opposed to the intent of their own stated good intentions. As you might have read from my past postings I've been fairly consistent in respecting fundamental justice as opposed to law, so that is not something I would generally condemn the Americans for.

So when the US and its "spineless" allies commit to subverting demcoracy (which is not unusual

)

In those cases where they have resorted to 'subverting' democracy I'm quite sure that they did so out of the belief that without that subversion the government which would come into effect would be one which was neither good for its own people, or for the general peace and health of the local area. As an example, would you find it wrong to subvert democracy in Russia to try and get Putin out of power? What about an election in some mideast country, which was looking like it was going to put in power a hostile, anti-western collection of religious fanatics with no respect for human rights?

I know. I know. To you, democracy is the be-all and end-all. But as I've also previously written, I don't particularly respect democracy any more than I particularly respect certain laws. The only purpose democracy serves is to put in place a reasonable collection of temporary rulers. If it fails in that then it fails utterly. If democracy returns people like Putin to power then what purpose does it ultimately serve? In other words, I respect the end results, and not so much the process. I'd be quite okay with a dictatorship, as long as it was efficient, effective, relatively honest, and served the overall interest of its people with a minimum of violence and brutality, and didn't poke at other nations. I've never actually heard of one like that, but I'd be okay with it.

or when they resort to semi-clandestine support for terrorist groups, or commit explicitly to wholesale slaughter,

I don't know. I could foresee contingencies where such would be acceptable 'for the greater good'. If you're referring to the US support of the Contras, then no, that was a mistake, and inexcusable. But I make no claim the US or West is always right or moral. I think, though, that it always thinks it's doing the right thing, even if wrong. If you were to buy in that the Nicaraguan government was a threat to the whole region and would destabilize everyone else, well, I don't agree, but I believe that was what they thought at the time.

For a coalition of democratic states who have recently conducted a savage and destabilizing attack on Iraq--

Yes, well, I supported that attack, and still do. It was carried out poorly, and the administrative actions which followed were childishly naive and foolish, but I believe the intent was good. As I wrote at that time. My support was not contingent upon finding weapons of mass destruction. I simply wanted a brutal regime overturned and replaced with something better. And most of the violence in Iraq didn't come from the Americans but from internal divisions among religious extremists. That violence would have come out anyway as soon as Hussein died, by the way, much as the civil war in old Yugoslavia happened shortly after Tito passed away. At least Iraq got to run through its civil war with a large body of peacekeepers already there to put something of a lid on it.

[Signals.Cpl]

No in my view that comment was taken out of context. Do you even know which people you are talking about?

I don't know, there are a number of such comments from a number of different speeches to different audiences. You are trying to justify that it was one time only, to me one time only is one time to much when it deals with wiping out a nation you can justify it any way you want at the end of the day it was not one comment it is a policy seeing as the Iranian Leadership keeps repeating it.

Most of the bluster on Israel has come from Ahmadinejad who has not power to wipe anybody what-so-ever off of any map.

And he is the person who speaks for the Leadership of Iran, do you honestly believe that any politician in his position would have freedom to say anything outside of the party line? Wether or not he has power is irrelevant, he is the president of Iran and he speaks based on the leadership policy.

Have you read anything at all about these "well documented comments?

Yes, there are numerous newspaper articles, documentaries, and videos that show his love for Israel.

What guy? What the hell are you talking about? And why do you cherry pick quotes from Ahmadinejad who has no real power, and ignore statements from Khamenei, who unequivocally says Iran will never attack any country, and that nuclear weapons are contrary to his religion.

Hitler never wanted war...or at least that is what he said for most of the 1930's until he was ready for war.

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.

Really? They have? I mean its not like they were killing their own citizens who wanted a change in government, or support organizations that have an aim to destroy Israel.

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.

And yet the west has not used that massive nuclear arsenal for war aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there are no indications of using said weapons unless provoked.

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

Thats because it is a simple concept.

[bleeding heart]

I think the problem with this argument is that it holds the US to supporting the letter as opposed to the intent of their own stated good intentions.

There has to be some latitude for lots of human behaviour, which is never perfect...but that is not my argument. My argument is that "stated good intentions" can be sometimes nothing more than statements. Platitudes.

Every leader of every country, with precisely zero exceptions, to my knowledge, pronounces high moral purposes behind everything they do...and this doubles up under matters of war. Such statements carry very little factual information.

Occasionally they are likely quite accurate. But to assume it's always the case seems to me unwise, to put it gently.

Interestingly, the truism--which our children understand as well as we do--that politicians frequently lie....well, we take that as a given....

...Until matters of war become the topic.

That is, at the precise moment where lies are most likely is the instant that a number of people decide that, well, they must be telling the truth...because they must have "good intentions."

Why?

No one has ever said why.

In those cases where they have resorted to 'subverting' democracy I'm quite sure that they did so out of the belief that without that subversion the government which would come into effect would be one which was neither good for its own people, or for the general peace and health of the local area.

Look at the US-backed democratic subversions that have taken place in Latin America over the decades. And look at the common thread of leaders who have usually not been overthrown by the US, its allies and proxies: right-wing dictatorships.

That's no coincidence; and neither is it remiss to suggest that the brutal proto-fascist regimes were not "good for [their] own people."

If the argument is that the lefty regimes were worse (or might be worse...a waffling which itself begs serious questions), then each has to be discussed on its own merits.

The Chilean socialist was in no demonstrable way "worse" than his US-backed replacement, Pinochet. And few people have the stupidity or moral cowardice to argue otherwise. (Thatcher excluded, but then, Augusto was her buddy.)

Nor was Haiti's replacement an improvement over Aristide (Canada's involvement in that particular fiasco should make us proud)...nor was it supposed he would be superior...not to the Haitian people; thus your argument about "the good of the people" and the "health" of the local area doesn't hold water, at least not in many cases.

Further, no doubt you'd support and defend a US regime change in Canada, to replace the too-liberal and too-nationalistic Harper with someone more suitably fascist in tendencies...and more obedient to Washington.

(By the way, see my signature quote from Bill Graham...he seems to understand, thanks to personal experience, just how things work.)

I don't know. I could foresee contingencies where such would be acceptable 'for the greater good'. If you're referring to the US support of the Contras, then no, that was a mistake, and inexcusable.

A "mistake"? How was it a "mistake"?

It was no more a mistake than Iran's "mistake" of funding Hezbollah.

An unfair analogy, however...unfair to Iran. Hezbollah are nowhere near as brutal as the Contras, whose infamy derived solely from its torture and murder of innocent peasants.

But I find your double standard here quite fascinating.

I think, though, that it always thinks it's doing the right thing, even if wrong.

Maybe in the manner of Orwell's doublethink, in which one kills the South Vietnamese (yes: South) in order to save them from their own bad decisions.

More to our point here, that one fights the brutality of the Sandanistas by training, funding, and arming people who are ten times worse.

If you were to buy in that the Nicaraguan government was a threat to the whole region and would destabilize everyone else, well, I don't agree, but I believe that was what they thought at the time.

They claimed it was a threat to the whole region, but that doesn't mean that they actually thought so. No more than Tony Blair really believed Saddam could (and would) attack England in 45 minutes, as per his preposterous claim.

In fact, Reagan ominously warned that the Sandanistas, a terrible threat to the United States, were "two hours driving time from Arlington, Texas."

Now, there's no way the US believed that this "threat" from the Sandanistas. That government wasn't very good guys, true, but they sure as hell weren't going to attack the United States...Reagan's declared State of Emergency (a promiscuous misuse of Presidential power, by the way) notwithstanding.

(The Mexican president made some remark, complaining about Reagan potentially causing the entire country to "die laughing." )

Yes, well, I supported that attack, and still do. It was carried out poorly, and the administrative actions which followed were childishly naive and foolish, but I believe the intent was good.

Believe away. I personally assume there was a confluence of intentions, good mixed with bad, as is the case in most large-scale human endeavours.

But in the case of war, where the consequences are so massive, special consideration and care needs to be taken.

These effete little Leninists running the Administration at the time famously did not give a good goddamn about care or consideration. Or honesty.

Or tyrants...as we know, uncontroversially, that they have no issue, none whatsoever, with tyrants.

Their performance there makes them directly and unequivocally culpable for the mess that's ensued.

And most of the violence in Iraq didn't come from the Americans but from internal divisions among religious extremists.

Yes...and that was a predictable consequence (we know this, because it was widely predicted, and not only by peaceniks).

The United States and its cute little lacky coalition specifically precipitated what happened afterwards, and so share direct responsibility with the extremists themselves.

That violence would have come out anyway as soon as Hussein died, by the way, much as the civil war in old Yugoslavia happened shortly after Tito passed away. At least Iraq got to run through its civil war with a large body of peacekeepers already there to put something of a lid on it.

You don't know this; it's a (self-serving) assumption; interestingly, it almost undermines a major part of your thesis; the US, you are implying, is scarcely an agent at all; it reacts to crazy world events...uselessly, incidentally, and without any ill effect worth considering.

Edited September 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

Interestingly, the truism--which our children understand as well as we do--that politicians frequently lie....well, we take that as a given....

...Until matters of war become the topic.

That is, at the precise moment where lies are most likely is the instant that a number of people decide that, well, they must be telling the truth...because they must have "good intentions."

What's really interesting is how after having distrusted and mocked virtually every other single thing they said or did, any perceived pronouncements of the enemy to wipe out and obliterate us are received with even more gospel like rapture.

[bleeding heart]

What's really interesting is how after having distrusted and mocked virtually every other single thing they said or did, any perceived pronouncements of the enemy to wipe out and obliterate us are received with even more gospel like rapture.

Some folks just looove having a scary enemy...I imagine it gives them an excuse to practice the servility-to-power which they so very much wish to exercise.

[cybercoma]

As for those principles, Argus, it looks like Harper closing the embassy in Iran was pretty awesome smokescreen for Harper also relaxing accountability rules for China's use of uranium.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-relaxes-accountability-rules-for-chinas-use-of-uranium/article2333398/?service=mobile

[GostHacked]

As for those principles, Argus, it looks like Harper closing the embassy in Iran was pretty awesome smokescreen for Harper also relaxing accountability rules for China's use of uranium.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-relaxes-accountability-rules-for-chinas-use-of-uranium/article2333398/?service=mobile

And yet we are worried about Iran getting a bomb when we are practically GIVING it to the Chinese. /facepalm

[Bonam]

And yet we are worried about Iran getting a bomb when we are practically GIVING it to the Chinese. /facepalm

In case you aren't aware, "the Chinese" already have the bomb, have had it since 1964, and furthermore are one of the five recognized nuclear weapon states under the NPT.

[cybercoma]

And yet we are worried about Iran getting a bomb when we are practically GIVING it to the Chinese. /facepalm

Exactly.

Let's just couple that with the most recent KAL Cartoon in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562272

Happy nuking!

[eyeball]

In case you aren't aware, "the Chinese" already have the bomb, have had it since 1964, and furthermore are one of the five recognized nuclear weapon states under the NPT.

They're also the biggest dictatorship in the known universe, our newest bff and one of Iran's oldest.

I'd like to say it just doesn't get anymore perverse than that but I suspect we haven't seen anything yet.

[dre]

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.

Every single thing I said in the post you quoted is a pretty easily verified fact.

[dre]

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.

Thats absolutely correct. I wont support the government of Canada in any such adventures at all. Why on earth would I if I think Canadian kids fighting Iranian kids for no good reason is a stupid idea?

I should take "our side" out of a sense of Nationalism? Patriotism? Is that what you are getting at?

I dont have those things.

If such idiocy were to occur Id basically just shake my head, and hope as few people on both sides die as possible.

Edited September 10, 2012 by dre