Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   The Podium (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/)
-   -   Canada closed its embassy in Iran (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/canada-closed-its-embassy-iran-23646.html)

LilRomeo 09-07-2012 09:13 PM

Canada closed its embassy in Iran
 
WWIII is coming?
Quote:

Canada abruptly closed its embassy in Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in Ottawa Friday, citing safety concerns in Tehran and the long-standing view that Iran is a significant threat to global peace.

"The Iranian regime has shown blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention and its guarantee of protection for diplomatic personnel," Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Friday, formally listing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.

"Under the circumstances, Canada can no longer maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran,” he said in a statement. “Our diplomats serve Canada as civilians and their safety is our No. 1 priority."
Read more: Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats | CTVNews

pzabby 09-07-2012 11:01 PM

Ww3 my ass. Those clerics are fucking clowns

dfunkie1 09-08-2012 12:08 AM

gotta get our guys out before the bombs start landing. i don't think WW3 would happen if the world collectively agrees that iran is a massive problem.

pzabby 09-08-2012 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson Filth (Post 681130)
gotta get our guys out before the bombs start landing. i don't think WW3 would happen if the world collectively agrees that iran is a massive problem.

I don't think that'll ever happen due to the existence of china, russia, and others, however I doubt their support for this ludicrous regime will last much longer. they still have an image to maintain on the global front.

a war in Iran? you're delusional, unless of course the clerics drop them onto where ever first

LX 09-08-2012 11:13 AM

This seems like the start of beating war drums, and really unnecessarily. Iran isn't a particularly bigger problem than many others, and you could include Israel in that mix. Our country looks to be in support of one hawkish side at the expense of resolving issues to some degree of manageability and allowing change to continue happening from within Iran. If there are attacks on Iran I don't see the problems getting better, but rather support for the clerics increase.

pzabby 09-08-2012 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LX (Post 681158)
This seems like the start of beating war drums, and really unnecessarily. Iran isn't a particularly bigger problem than many others, and you could include Israel in that mix. Our country looks to be in support of one hawkish side at the expense of resolving issues to some degree of manageability and allowing change to continue happening from within Iran. If there are attacks on Iran I don't see the problems getting better, but rather support for the clerics increase.

Thankyou. Very well said

bjjs 09-14-2012 03:52 PM

Looks like a decision well-made.

Superjudge 09-14-2012 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzabby (Post 681201)
Thankyou. Very well said

Well said?

I get that people are unhappy with many of the decisions that are made globally by ours, and other western governments i.e. the US and the UK, That said, listen,. once those Jackasses create enough of an issue, and create enough or a threat over there with the Middle Eastern Countries they choose to malign, there IS a massive threat to any Diplomats or whoever else who live there or work there. To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

This isn't a discussion about anything other than that simple fact. Time to pull out until the dust settles. Unless of course the theory is that you wait until a few people are murdered to asses the "threat" level. Then hey, sure, go about your philosophical ways and pontificate over a Pabst about who is right and who is wrong. We all know its a mess, pulling people out isn't done to send messages, its done to protect lives.

bjjs 09-14-2012 11:26 PM

Am I wrong for suggesting that the rising, intelligent middle class of these middle-eastern countries that was overthrowing dictators and leading a revolution maybe isn't so intelligent, or atleast heavily outnumbered by others influenced by extremist leadership?

I'm far from well-educated on the subject, but one year ago, the news was painting the general population of these countries in a very positive light. Now they're using a movie as an excuse to be violent.

Are these events masterminded by political groups? What's going on?

SomeDPlease 09-15-2012 12:32 AM

Lets be fair here and acknowledge that the violent Egyptian protesters are in the extreme minority of the general population. So you're still right, the general population of these countries are not violent and want positive change.

What is really disgusting is that the police force did nothing to stop violent protesters from climbing the embassy walls, and Morsi himself showed an extreme lack of leadership by taking too long to respond to the attacks.

And there are just as many crazies in Iran. So yes, I agree with you that it's best to pull out our diplomats out of there before things get worse there.

Ligeia 09-15-2012 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 681966)
Am I wrong for suggesting that the rising, intelligent middle class of these middle-eastern countries that was overthrowing dictators and leading a revolution maybe isn't so intelligent, or atleast heavily outnumbered by others influenced by extremist leadership?

I'm far from well-educated on the subject, but one year ago, the news was painting the general population of these countries in a very positive light. Now they're using a movie as an excuse to be violent.

Are these events masterminded by political groups? What's going on?

I don't have much expertise in the region, but going off of the comments of pundits who appear well-informed, much of the reaction is being encouraged or instigated by those on the extreme right of politics in these countries (Islamist fundamentalists). There may also be some confusion as some residents of the Middle East believe that it is within the power of the US to block publications like this, so when the videos do come out, they interpret the US government as complicit in the offense.

However, the broader point that you make is a relevant and interesting one, and one that the US has had to face for decades now. If they are the liberators that they claim, why are they not viewed as liberators, and why is their influence so limited among the public?

Something to be said for empathy here. I don't mean to say that any of the attacks can (or should) be justified; my point is that we approach these events and politics with our perspective, forgetting how utterly foreign it may be to the countries in which we try to foster the values that we believe to be superior (for example, liberal democracy).

Also, keep in mind that for all of the supposed superiority of The West, it is clear that there are an awful lot of failures here, and that's after how many years of experimenting with the political and social infrastructure....We shouldn't expect that exporting this to other countries is a sure-fire win.

pzabby 09-15-2012 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superjudge (Post 681908)
Well said?

I get that people are unhappy with many of the decisions that are made globally by ours, and other western governments i.e. the US and the UK, That said, listen,. once those Jackasses create enough of an issue, and create enough or a threat over there with the Middle Eastern Countries they choose to malign, there IS a massive threat to any Diplomats or whoever else who live there or work there. To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

This isn't a discussion about anything other than that simple fact. Time to pull out until the dust settles. Unless of course the theory is that you wait until a few people are murdered to asses the "threat" level. Then hey, sure, go about your philosophical ways and pontificate over a Pabst about who is right and who is wrong. We all know its a mess, pulling people out isn't done to send messages, its done to protect lives.

Lx wasnt reffering specifically to the pulling out, or at least i dont think. He was saying that it signifies the beginning of war and THAT wont solve anything. Which is why i said well said. Theres nothing wrong with pulling out and not interfering with violence, but if it is the signal for it then it's wrong. The clerics want war as with war they can feed propoganda into the public to decrease their opposition and war also gives them a reason to wrongfully imprison , rape, torture, and kill many others as any opposition can be written off as support for the "enemy". War is NOT the answer here. In all honesty i dont know what is at this point. These clerics are some of the most ruthless people in the world and will stop at nothing to retain power. If they do see their departure is immenent they will destroy iran and leave it nothing. All our wealth, history, education, all will be taken away. Disgusting human beings. Disgusting ideologies. Goodness religion agitates me.

'trane 09-15-2012 12:09 PM

andrew coyne wrote a good piece about this:

Andrew Coyne: What does Canada achieve with its largely symbolic snub of Iran? | Full Comment | National Post

Quote:

But if all of these are true today, they were equally true six months ago, or a year, or five years, for that matter. If they make the case for cutting off diplomatic relations now, why did they not then? What has changed in the interim? If, additionally, the government was concerned about the safety of Canadian diplomats in Tehran, why should that concern have suddenly become so urgent? Were they in any greater danger as of last week than they were in the past? If so, how?

And what, beyond spiriting our diplomats out of the country, is to be achieved by this largely symbolic snub? To be sure, symbolism counts in international relations, and if any regime merits such treatment, it is surely Iran’s. But, at both the symbolic and practical level, Iran is already the target of a far more stringent expression of international disapproval, the system of economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

The efficacy of those sanctions may be debated, as indeed may be the underlying question of whether the world can tolerate a nuclear Iran. But if you believe, as the government of Canada plainly does, that such an outcome is unthinkable, and if you believe sanctions are likely to prove inadequate to prevent it, that surely calls for more drastic measures, not less: military strikes, not withdrawing their ambassador’s credentials.

pzabby 09-15-2012 01:13 PM

if there is a war, i will put whatever amount of money saying it won't be canada starting it. they might join sure, but to initiate it? no chance

then again harper is bat shit crazy

LX 09-15-2012 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 681966)
Am I wrong for suggesting that the rising, intelligent middle class of these middle-eastern countries that was overthrowing dictators and leading a revolution maybe isn't so intelligent, or atleast heavily outnumbered by others influenced by extremist leadership?

I'm far from well-educated on the subject, but one year ago, the news was painting the general population of these countries in a very positive light. Now they're using a movie as an excuse to be violent.

Are these events masterminded by political groups? What's going on?

There have been reports that the demonstrations in Egypt began mostly among competing soccer fans, used to going at it and then fighting off the police. There was also thuggery amongst the usual extremists. The numbers are not anywhere near as great as those demanding democratic measures in any of the countries involved. At the same time there are not the kinds of controls and institutions in place, and that is being exploited by a relatively small number.

There are still some real problems between various middle eastern populations and the west, due to things like the occupation of the palestinians by Israel and the steady use of drones by the US. But by and large there is much more of a convergence than there was in the past, and a good measure of that comes from a rejection of the sorts of actions on display by the extremists that we've seen this past week.

The Arab Spring does not represent a monolithic advance. Each country has been very different. And there are groups within groups that vary from one to another, as well as Al Qaeda spinoffs that are willing to move from one place to another to cause trouble. There are way too many weapons that were let loose, and not enough civil society built up as of yet. So it's entirely a work in progress. The whole thing was depicted as good overcoming evil, but what really needs to take place, I think, is to see the effects of colonialism gradually dissipated throughout the region. The events of a year ago were a good step towards that, but there is still a long ways to go, and there could be more violence to come before they get there.

LX 09-17-2012 12:04 PM

Coyne's piece is good, but he goes way too easy on Israel, as he tends to do, and gives Harper a free pass on what can be a legitimate perception of lending support to Netanyahu's meddling and cynical angling. That's not to say that it couldn't have been simply a principled stand, and a correct measure. But Bibi's delight and immediate backing up of the move, along with Harper's hawkish support for Bibi and connections to neocons in the past, makes it hard to see it in that light.

Joe Klein discusses Bibi and Iran in a way that seldom gets any oxygen, in this clip. I think he's correct in his assessment of Netanyahu.


LX 09-17-2012 12:47 PM

Another nice viewpoint from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the muslim woman who won a seat in the Dutch parliament and helped Theo Van Gogh with his documentary that resulted in a backlash that was fatal to him.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Islamists? Final Stand - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Quote:

As the latest wave of indignation sweeps across the Muslim world, we should not be despondent. Yes, this is a setback for the Arab Spring. Yes, it is bloody, dangerous, and chaotic on the streets. Yes, innocent people are dying and their governments are powerless. But this too shall pass.

Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions.

After the disillusion and bitterness will come a painful lesson: that it is foolish to derive laws for human affairs from gods and prophets. Just like the Iranian people have begun to, the Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and perhaps Syrians and others will come to this realization. In one or two or three decades we will see the masses in these countries take to the streets—and perhaps call for American help—to liberate them from the governments they elected. This process will be faster in some places than others, but in all of them it will be bloody and painful. If we take the long view, America and other Western countries can help make this happen in the same way we helped bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union.

We must be patient. America needs to empower those individuals and groups who are already disenchanted with political Islam by helping find and develop an alternative. At the heart of that alternative are the ideals of the rule of law and freedom of thought, worship, and expression. For these values there can and should be no apologies, no groveling, no hesitation.

It was Voltaire who once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” As Salman Rushdie discovered, as we are reminded again as the Arab street burns, that sentiment is seldom heard in our time. Once I was ready to burn The Satanic Verses. Now I know that his right to publish it was a more sacred thing than any religion.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24