|
On September 08 2012 11:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 10:52 OsoVega wrote:On September 08 2012 10:35 Dryzt wrote:On September 08 2012 09:51 blinken wrote:On September 08 2012 09:49 StyLeD wrote:
Probably were pushed and heavily rewarded by the US government. They are our biggest trade partner. Harper is a shill for Israeli interests, and I'm sure the only reward Canada got for this was a thank you call from Netanyahu. was going to quote exactly that, this is just proof that Israel has infiltrated Canada as badly as it has the united states. John Bhaird is thee worst foriegn relations minister Canada has ever had, it is painfully obvious where his allegences lie. Netanyahu congradulates Canada: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4278496,00.htmlmake no mistake, the assault on Iran is nothing more than the states protecting their petro dollar and the international bankers destroying the last government controlled central bank in the world. After which all central banks will be in the hands of private interests... Believe it or not, Canada, the United States and Israel are democracies and your conspircy theories are the most anti-intellectual ideas possible. You blame small groups of conspirators who have the magic ability to hijack democracies when it has alwyas been the popular ideas of the people that has decided the fate of countries. Central banks exist because people think they work and even if they are technically private, it is undeniable that they are controlled by government. The USD is doomed (which you probably don't realize) because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and which is controlled by government which is controlled by voters who vote based on their ideas. It is those ideas that matter, not your imaginary conspiracy theories. I don't think you understand how a republic works and that throughout the years the imperfect system of voting has been abused time and time again, now to argue that a "conspiracy" exists without backing proof is about as naive and stupid as arguing that they don't exist or at least are non-likely based off personal assumptions. To go into more detail, I would say that one could connect a few dots here and there over the years and argue that conspiracies "The action of plotting or conspiring" have not only happened on multiple occasions, but are happening frequently. If I want that promotion I may conspire to undermine my colleague in an attempt to elevate my position, a company may conspire with other companies to corner the market and remove a specific organization and a country may conspire with another country to hit an end goal that another country may find unjust or plain wrong and yet they do it everyday. "Small groups of conspirators" When has a large group of conspirators ever existed? Do you think Stalin when he was overthrowing his superiors conspired with the public, or Hitler with his public with regards to conspiring against millions of jews? Conspiracies are always small groups with big plans that play off the naive and they've happened since before Caesar whispered "Et tu, Brutus" (or so the lore goes) "by government which is controlled by voters who vote based on their ideas." Arguably this is a false assumption, what if we have 2 candidates to vote for and we're forced to vote, if our candidates are Hitler and Stalin (used in a previous example, might as well carry it) then when they kill millions of people, was it the people who decided those deaths? Arguably yes yet they were elected to power because of power and propaganda... I doubt many average joes who voted for Hitler's party assumed he'd attempt to exterminate an entire race of people, so it's their fault for not having that assumption. The government may be chosen by the people, but the actions of the government are not always of the people and when this occurs it is the duty of the people to either take back control of the government or overthrow it entirely but in today's world that is a near impossibility so we're stuck between choosing the white cat and the black cat (someone might get that reference ^^)
I know how a Republic works but Canada and America are not Republics. America used to be a Republic, but unfortunately, democracy has taken over and it's not anymore. Imperfections in the voting systems are minor. Flaws in campaign laws are more serious but the effects are still minor compared to the ideas held by the majority.
If you conspire to undermine a colleague, you're not going to have much of an affect on an entire country. A company may conspire to corner a market, but it will only be successful if it has government backing either through direct cronyism/bribery and the lack of a vigilant public or through the use of regulations which the people don't realize lead to monopolies. Stalin might have conspired to take over the USSR but if it wasn't him, it would have been another communist murderer. Hitler may not have informed the public about the Holocaust, but they knew they were voting for and supporting an anti-semetic totaltarian dictator. I don't deny that individuals can have large effects, but it is always the ideas of the general populace which controls the direction of an entire country and this is especially true where there is sustained democracy. The only individuals who have truly drastic effects are the philosophers who come up with and popularize ideas.
The only way that a democracy will ever have two dictators as the only viable candidates, is if the people are in favor of dictatorship. Just look at America. It's not at the point of dictatorship but they are stuck choosing between two statists because the American people are in favor of statism. Third parties exist, but they will never win because they are not in line with mainstream ideology. A country which largely rejects dictatorship can't just have it forced upon itself from within. Remember, no matter how powerful the military, it is still made up of people who will generally share the ideas of the general populace. The only exception would be a foreign take over but that wouldn't be conspiracy, that would be brought about through the ideas of the people of the invading nation.
|
I'm impartial to the merits of this move, but damn it feels like Harper has been in the government for forever.
|
On September 08 2012 10:52 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 10:35 Dryzt wrote:On September 08 2012 09:51 blinken wrote:On September 08 2012 09:49 StyLeD wrote:
Probably were pushed and heavily rewarded by the US government. They are our biggest trade partner. Harper is a shill for Israeli interests, and I'm sure the only reward Canada got for this was a thank you call from Netanyahu. was going to quote exactly that, this is just proof that Israel has infiltrated Canada as badly as it has the united states. John Bhaird is thee worst foriegn relations minister Canada has ever had, it is painfully obvious where his allegences lie. Netanyahu congradulates Canada: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4278496,00.htmlmake no mistake, the assault on Iran is nothing more than the states protecting their petro dollar and the international bankers destroying the last government controlled central bank in the world. After which all central banks will be in the hands of private interests... Believe it or not, Canada, the United States and Israel are democracies and your conspircy theories are the most anti-intellectual ideas possible. You blame small groups of conspirators who have the magic ability to hijack democracies when it has alwyas been the popular ideas of the people that has decided the fate of countries. Central banks exist because people think they work and even if they are technically private, it is undeniable that they are controlled by government. The USD is doomed (which you probably don't realize) because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and which is controlled by government which is controlled by voters who vote based on their ideas. It is those ideas that matter, not your imaginary conspiracy theories.
the Federal Reserve is not at all controlled by the government. You probably havn't watched CSPAN at all during briefings for where the bail out money was going. Bernanke refused to say what the money was going to be used for and where it was going. It has been said in interviews by Alan Greenspan that congress does not control the FED. When was the last time the FED was audited? No government agency can get away with never being audited.
|
On September 08 2012 11:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 11:06 Zooper31 wrote:On September 08 2012 10:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 08 2012 09:53 seiferoth10 wrote:
It's pretty much all of the UN against Iran at this point, barring maybe Russia as I don't know their stance on it yet. UN Goal = Turn the middle east into a smoking crater? Iraq , Afghanistan , Libya , Egypt Mission accomplished.Looks like Syria and Iran are next in the crosshairs. It wouldn't surprise me if this turns into World War 3. I think we can all agree WW3 is gonna originate from the middle east... or Germany lol jk. You can draw very similar comparisons (obviously scaled back) to the Yugoslavic powder keg which eventually lead to the first world war.
no, you can't. there is no system of interlocked alliances, there are no shared borders, there are tensions nowhere the level required to draw in major foreign powers. anyone who thinks China will go to war over Iran is a blithering idiot, and Russia is a non-factor.
war with Iran would be just that- war with Iran, no one else. believing Russia or China would go to WAR over Iran is simply wrong. that's just how it is. the ww1 comparisons are illogical and lacking any real substance when viewed with an analytic mind.
|
On September 08 2012 11:33 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 11:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 08 2012 10:52 OsoVega wrote:On September 08 2012 10:35 Dryzt wrote:On September 08 2012 09:51 blinken wrote:On September 08 2012 09:49 StyLeD wrote:
Probably were pushed and heavily rewarded by the US government. They are our biggest trade partner. Harper is a shill for Israeli interests, and I'm sure the only reward Canada got for this was a thank you call from Netanyahu. was going to quote exactly that, this is just proof that Israel has infiltrated Canada as badly as it has the united states. John Bhaird is thee worst foriegn relations minister Canada has ever had, it is painfully obvious where his allegences lie. Netanyahu congradulates Canada: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4278496,00.htmlmake no mistake, the assault on Iran is nothing more than the states protecting their petro dollar and the international bankers destroying the last government controlled central bank in the world. After which all central banks will be in the hands of private interests... Believe it or not, Canada, the United States and Israel are democracies and your conspircy theories are the most anti-intellectual ideas possible. You blame small groups of conspirators who have the magic ability to hijack democracies when it has alwyas been the popular ideas of the people that has decided the fate of countries. Central banks exist because people think they work and even if they are technically private, it is undeniable that they are controlled by government. The USD is doomed (which you probably don't realize) because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and which is controlled by government which is controlled by voters who vote based on their ideas. It is those ideas that matter, not your imaginary conspiracy theories. I don't think you understand how a republic works and that throughout the years the imperfect system of voting has been abused time and time again, now to argue that a "conspiracy" exists without backing proof is about as naive and stupid as arguing that they don't exist or at least are non-likely based off personal assumptions. To go into more detail, I would say that one could connect a few dots here and there over the years and argue that conspiracies "The action of plotting or conspiring" have not only happened on multiple occasions, but are happening frequently. If I want that promotion I may conspire to undermine my colleague in an attempt to elevate my position, a company may conspire with other companies to corner the market and remove a specific organization and a country may conspire with another country to hit an end goal that another country may find unjust or plain wrong and yet they do it everyday. "Small groups of conspirators" When has a large group of conspirators ever existed? Do you think Stalin when he was overthrowing his superiors conspired with the public, or Hitler with his public with regards to conspiring against millions of jews? Conspiracies are always small groups with big plans that play off the naive and they've happened since before Caesar whispered "Et tu, Brutus" (or so the lore goes) "by government which is controlled by voters who vote based on their ideas." Arguably this is a false assumption, what if we have 2 candidates to vote for and we're forced to vote, if our candidates are Hitler and Stalin (used in a previous example, might as well carry it) then when they kill millions of people, was it the people who decided those deaths? Arguably yes yet they were elected to power because of power and propaganda... I doubt many average joes who voted for Hitler's party assumed he'd attempt to exterminate an entire race of people, so it's their fault for not having that assumption. The government may be chosen by the people, but the actions of the government are not always of the people and when this occurs it is the duty of the people to either take back control of the government or overthrow it entirely but in today's world that is a near impossibility so we're stuck between choosing the white cat and the black cat (someone might get that reference ^^) I know how a Republic works but Canada and America are not Republics. America used to be a Republic, but unfortunately, democracy has taken over and it's not anymore. Imperfections in the voting systems are minor. Flaws in campaign laws are more serious but the effects are still minor compared to the ideas held by the majority. If you conspire to undermine a colleague, you're not going to have much of an affect on an entire country. A company may conspire to corner a market, but it will only be successful if it has government backing either through direct cronyism/bribery and the lack of a vigilant public or through the use of regulations which the people don't realize lead to monopolies. Stalin might have conspired to take over the USSR but if it wasn't him, it would have been another communist murderer. Hitler may not have informed the public about the Holocaust, but they knew they were voting for and supporting a totaltarian dictator. I don't deny that individuals can have large effects, but it is always the ideas of the general populace which controls the direction and this is especially true where there is sustained democracy. The only individuals who have truly drastic effects are the philosophers who come up with and popularize ideas. The only way that a democracy will ever have two dictators as the only viable candidates to vote for, is if the people are in favor of dictators. Just look at America. It's not at the point of dictatorship but they are stuck choosing between two statists because the American people are in favor of statism. Third parties exist, but they will never win because they are not in line with mainstream ideology. A country which largely rejects dictatorship can't just have it forced upon itself from within. Remember, no matter how powerful the military, it is still made up of people who will generally share the ideas of the general populace. The only exception would be a foreign take over but that wouldn't be conspiracy, that would be brought about through the ideas of the people of the invading nation.
I would like to make a point to note you really didn't argue anything in this ... rebuttal? but I will bite anyway as this is TL and posting standards can be low at times.
"I know how a Republic works but Canada and America are not Republics."
Actually it is a constitutional Republic or is being heralded as one more frequently (Utah, which passed a bill to teach that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy, although they can be closely related, The House voted 57-17)+ Show Spoiler +http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51248409-76/government-republic-bill-rep.html.csp
So firstly your initial comment is either wrong or such a small truth that using it as a statement is arguably misleading.
I would like to split your next few sentences up although they all related to my comparison between people/companies/nations.
" you conspire to undermine a colleague, you're not going to have much of an affect on an entire country."
Firstly the text I wrote was used to show the escalation of possibilities with regards to how anyone (or anything be it company/country) can and usually will conspire to get ahead.
Secondly you agree that conspiring against a colleague is a possibility thus your next statement holds no merit in the conversation thus let's just say "We can conspire on a personal level (between people)"
"A company may conspire to corner a market, but it will only be successful if it has government backing either through direct cronyism/bribery and the lack of a vigilant public or through the use of regulations which the people don't realize lead to monopolies."
Firstly again, you say a company "may" conspire to corner a market so without government involvement you agree that the possibility of companies conspiring exists which leads us to the next level, and we'll simplify it to "We can conspire on monopolistic ideals, such as companies attempting to corner a market"
To continue into your counter argument you state that it "will only be successful",which note agrees that the possibility again exists, "if it has government backing either through direct bribery (lobbying) and/or (paraphrased) the lack of a vigilant public or through regulations which the people don't realize lead to monopolies."
I would not try to argue that you're wrong, I would simply state that in all three of your examples (I will use America as the prime example since it is really the head of any debate with regards to conspiracies) America has hit the head on the nail with failing to stop such things from happening by having lobbying (bribing), a non vigilant public (allowing multiple occasions of "security over freedom" style acts etc etc and a community of peoples who simply don't follow politics closely enough (not that it matters since they don't vote on every issue, just who can decide upon that issue) to be able to defend or approve of a regulation that would lead or stop monopolies.
"Stalin might have conspired to take over the USSR but if it wasn't him, it would have been another communist murderer. Hitler may not have informed the public about the Holocaust, but they knew they were voting for and supporting a totaltarian dictator. I don't deny that individuals can have large effects, but it is always the ideas of the general populace which controls the direction and this is especially true where there is sustained democracy. The only individuals who have truly drastic effects are the philosophers who come up with and popularize ideas."
This entire statement is completely opinionated based, you state how if Stalin didn't exist another one would fill his place and that the German people "knew they were voting for and supporting a totalitarian dictator" which again is another opinion based off zero proof other then your own reasoning such that I can't argue if this is true or not because most Germans voted for charisma, not dictatorship and the "National Socialist" party really doesn't come off as Ghengis Khan to me, would you think that? Hitler was voted in for saying he'd bring them out of one of the (if not the) greatest depression Germany ever had, not ruling the world or killing jews.
"The only way that a democracy will ever have two dictators as the only viable candidates to vote for, is if the people are in favor of dictators. Just look at America. It's not at the point of dictatorship but they are stuck choosing between two statists because the American people are in favor of statism. Third parties exist, but they will never win because they are not in line with mainstream ideology. A country which largely rejects dictatorship can't just have it forced upon itself from within. Remember, no matter how powerful the military, it is still made up of people who will generally share the ideas of the general populace. The only exception would be a foreign take over but that wouldn't be conspiracy, that would be brought about through the ideas of the people of the invading nation."
So I quoted the above, but frankly you go from accusing America of being a statism (which frankly could be true but it seems to be an opinion to stating how the only way two dictators can be the only viable candidates (often times only one has to be while showing off good charisma) is wrong as well because again using the hitler example a single dictator who hid under being for "socialism" was elected, not by dictator supporters but everyday people trying to get their four square meals.
I hope this helps clear up some of your comments, again it was hard to go through.
|
On September 08 2012 11:45 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 11:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 08 2012 11:06 Zooper31 wrote:On September 08 2012 10:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 08 2012 09:53 seiferoth10 wrote:
It's pretty much all of the UN against Iran at this point, barring maybe Russia as I don't know their stance on it yet. UN Goal = Turn the middle east into a smoking crater? Iraq , Afghanistan , Libya , Egypt Mission accomplished.Looks like Syria and Iran are next in the crosshairs. It wouldn't surprise me if this turns into World War 3. I think we can all agree WW3 is gonna originate from the middle east... or Germany lol jk. You can draw very similar comparisons (obviously scaled back) to the Yugoslavic powder keg which eventually lead to the first world war. no, you can't. there is no system of interlocked alliances, there are no shared borders, there are tensions nowhere the level required to draw in major foreign powers. anyone who thinks China will go to war over Iran is a blithering idiot, and Russia is a non-factor. war with Iran would be just that- war with Iran, no one else. believing Russia or China would go to WAR over Iran is simply wrong. that's just how it is. the ww1 comparisons are illogical and lacking any real substance when viewed with an analytic mind.
I never equated that it would occur, but saying that "no system of interlocked alliances" when systems of interlocking alliances exist, just much more simply is a fallacy imo And no, how wars like this start is through escalation and pushing/shoving matches. Also growing tensions across the world are rising at frankly an unpredictable level and since the last time Iran was threatened to be attacked Putin put his ICBMS on highalert (those missles that fire and, with today's technology, have no specific way of being accurately shot down) I wouldn't say Russia isn't going to take notice nor lead to something more severe.
Since it is months old this was the only link I could find (I had one based off another site previously take it for what you see or don't, I won't be offended since I also would say it's a rather bias source)
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/war/us_-_russia/news.php?q=1257015541
the specific missile system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M
|
Canada8028 Posts
On September 08 2012 11:24 Sofestafont wrote:
Can anyone explain Canada's rationale for doing this (Besides the huge Israeli conspiracy or the Illuminati)? Did Iran do something recently to spark this? Is the jury back regarding Iran's nuclear intentions?
That's the thing. This action came completely out of left field. Hell, I didn't even know they were considering severing ties with Iran before I read this article. We can only speculate about the real rationale.
Hell, Canada's not even that big of a player on the international stage. Iran probably doesn't even care that we're gone. I honestly don't know how this move benefits us.
|
On September 08 2012 09:47 blinken wrote:
John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister has labelled Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
Can someone tell me precisely why ?
Is Iran secretly actively attacking someone ? Are they threatening to nuke people ? Are they actively preparing for some sort of offensive action ?
I'm honestly pretty confused as to why Iran is such a "threat".
Or is Israel just mad and everyone does what Israel wants ?
|
On September 08 2012 12:21 tyr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 09:47 blinken wrote:
John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister has labelled Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.” Can someone tell me precisely why ? Is Iran secretly actively attacking someone ? Are they threatening to nuke people ? Are they actively preparing for some sort of offensive action ? I'm honestly pretty confused as to why Iran is such a "threat". Or is Israel just mad and everyone does what Israel wants ?
1. They're in an oil rich region of the world and any conflict will have major ramifications on the world economy.
2. They're working to proliferate nuclear weapons and giving everyone the heeby jeebies.
3. We can't control them with our "throw money at the problem" influence.
4. They don't drink the kool-aid of the other nations, whose asses we shove our hands up and use as puppets.
|
Canada is a cool country, they are pretty good at Starcraft too.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 08 2012 09:47 blinken wrote:
John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister has labelled Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
Does this statement not infuriate anyone else?
The greatest threat to peace is probably my America...
|
We're supposed to be the peace loving country of the world, peace keepers, and negotiators. Not the get the fuck out of here because our neighbours don't like it country. I don't condone the whole Iranian situation or their regime, but I also don't think that jumping ship and kicking out their diplomats will help rectify the situation.
Ok, pull out our embassy if it looks like its about to get hairy, or our people are in danger, but I don't think either one of those is imminent in any way shape or form. And at least keep their diplomats. That's about as helpful as sticking our fingers in our fears and yelling, "LA LA LA LA LA!"
If war IS coming, you're sending those poor saps to their deaths.
We need to get off Americas lap.
|
On September 08 2012 10:10 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 10:00 OsoVega wrote:
Canada is finally starting to do what is right for Canada and that includes supporting the only country of Western values in an area which is the center of the Jihad against us and our Western allies. For too long all of our military expeditions were self-sacrifical. Peace keeping was a worthless sham and the War in Afhganistan, while initially legitimate, turned into an altruistic nation-building mission which only helped our enemies. Unapologetically ending states who sponsor terrorism against us, attacks on our soldiers over seas and outright proxy wars against our allies is the most rational, selfish thing we can do. What are you even saying, you're obviously adding a facetious tone but I just... I just constantly facepalm, please clarify maybe? Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 10:09 Shiragaku wrote:
Wow...I despise the State of Iran but some of the rhetoric is Israeli and Imperialist propaganda.
“most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
“It routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide; it is among the world’s worst violators of human rights,”
Iran has not invaded other nations in like...forever. It is not a threat, it spends most of its military spending on defense, and they even got attacked by Stuxnet, and they do invest in terrorism but has it done that much harm compared to what America and Israel has done? And we have sent an embargo on Iran. Despite the horrors of the Iranian government, I am sure there is more to fear about the West than there is about the State on its own people.
If there is going to be a war, it is going to happen on Iranian soil. Arguably the United States is the biggest funding partner to most terrorist organizations although what they define as "terrorism" and "freedom fighters" often tread a fine line such that we get things like Saddam Hussein who is at one point funded by the States and then another condemned for arguably being the same principle with the difference of charging more for oil.
We basically gave Osama Bin Laden all his power when we tried to beef up Afghani extremists to resist potential "Soviet threat" in the '80s. Many of the worlds problems are traced to overpowered nations interfering where they ought not to at some point.
|
On September 08 2012 13:07 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 09:47 blinken wrote:
John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister has labelled Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
Does this statement not infuriate anyone else? The greatest threat to peace is probably my America... You should see some of the Facebook statuses my buddies in political studies have said with regards to Baird. They hate him with a passion. I personally am not too far behind them. He's a complete idiot and he and the rest of the Conservative party are ruining all of the goodwill Canada has built up with the rest of the world. I feel ashamed to be a Canadian at times now because of what our government does. They aren't representing their people at all, just embarrassing them.
Sorry, I don't normally get mad in posts but what the Conservative Party has been doing is ruining Canada. All they do at home is cut spending on social and scientific programs while helping oil companies, attempt to infringe on our rights and then when they go abroad they embarrass us repeatedly on the world stage. They have no reason to cut ties with Iran other than to appease the Americans and Israelis. It gains us nothing and makes us look bad to everyone that isn't those two countries. What happened to us being a country of peacekeepers?
Edit: @fire_brand I see I'm not alone in this.
|
On September 08 2012 13:24 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 13:07 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On September 08 2012 09:47 blinken wrote:
John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister has labelled Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
Does this statement not infuriate anyone else? The greatest threat to peace is probably my America... You should see some of the Facebook statuses my buddies in political studies have said with regards to Baird. They hate him with a passion. I personally am not too far behind them. He's a complete idiot and he and the rest of the Conservative party are ruining all of the goodwill Canada has built up with the rest of the world. I feel ashamed to be a Canadian at times now because of what our government does. They aren't representing their people at all, just embarrassing them. Sorry, I don't normally get mad in posts but what the Conservative Party has been doing is ruining Canada. All they do at home is cut spending on social programs while helping oil companies, attempt to infringe on our rights and then when they go abroad they embarrass us repeatedly on the world stage. They have no reason to cut ties with Iran other than to appease the Americans and Israelis. It gains us nothing and makes us look bad to everyone that isn't those two countries. What happened to us being a country of peacekeepers? Edit: @fire_brand I see I'm not alone in this.
I think Serj said it best: "The bottom line is money; nobody gives a fuck." I mean, maybe you or I do individually, but the people we passively put in power? The are dancing to whomever has "employed" them. Just as we are dancing to them.
|
|
|
On September 08 2012 12:06 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 11:24 Sofestafont wrote:
Can anyone explain Canada's rationale for doing this (Besides the huge Israeli conspiracy or the Illuminati)? Did Iran do something recently to spark this? Is the jury back regarding Iran's nuclear intentions? That's the thing. This action came completely out of left field. Hell, I didn't even know they were considering severing ties with Iran before I read this article. We can only speculate about the real rationale. Hell, Canada's not even that big of a player on the international stage. Iran probably doesn't even care that we're gone. I honestly don't know how this move benefits us.
My thoughts exactly. In the big picture Canada has very little influence on what is going to be done with Iran. I have no idea what kind of communications have been going back and forth between us and Iran lately. I imagine they have been completely useless for some time. The Iranian government doesn't rub me as the type of rational people to deal with. Still, what we have to gain by cutting off official diplomatic ties? Just doing a solid for Uncle Sam I guess.
There's so much stuff going on behind closed doors that none of us can do much more than speculate at this point.
|
On September 08 2012 13:31 Mid[N]ight- wrote:
HUGE move by Canada... not really no one in the world cares
I think you are agreeing with me but I will assume you didn't mean to.
I don't normally bother people with Canadian politics but I feel that this situation has broad implications on the global stage.
Canada has typically taken the moral highground in international affairs and kept to peacekeeping, and most of the world would acknowledge that. The fact that Canada is the first to do this is implying that essentially, the West is "right" and anyone else can go to hell. We are implying that it is up to the world to stop these awful Iranians.
The message Canada should be sending, what its people actually want, is to get the hell out of the middle east. We aren't god, and should have no desire to change people's culture for the "better".
When former Prime Minister Jean Chretien said no to the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq, the opposition opposed. You can guess who was leader of the oppositionat the time... that's right, Stephen Harper. Had Harper been Prime Minister at that time, Canada would have joined the war in Iraq. Most Canadians I know are proud we had nothing to do with that mess.
What we are doing with this idiotic gesture is setting ourselves up as a target. Maybe that's what TPTB want, a terrorist attack in Canada. That would really get us on board.
|
I think it's hilarious how the media always covers Iran, who aren't even flaunting ANYTHING - trying to paint them so badly that they want everyone to go to war with them, but then you have North Korea who are like "HEY GUYS LOOK WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE NUKES, HELL WE'RE EVEN GONNA TEST THEM OUT SO EVERYONE CAN SEE! LOOK OVER HERE" but everyone just says "Lol nope".
It's either completely obvious that Iran gets special coverage for "special reasons" *cough Israel cough* or a complete god damn coincidence.
|
So... what did Iran do again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
