Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Nothing ever comes out in a good way when diplomacy fails.

This government is sending a clear message. Canada does not approve Iran's policies and considers them a threat. By closing the diplomacy bridges, not only do we put ourselves in the same position than those who are waiting to declare open war, but we show to the world that we support military action over talks.

The pawns are slowly being placed across the checkerboard. Unless Iran becomes absolutely transparent regarding their nuclear facilities, which I doubt, war is imminent. Most probably after the U.S. elections.

What bugs the heck out of me, in this situation, is that I don't really comprehend the reasons behind Harper's decision. While it is claimed that is it because Iran is a threat to world peace, I tend to believe that the real agenda is somewhat different and is proactive in its support of the corporate and military industrial complex.

And THAT, is not the Canada I grew up in.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
What's with all the posts asserting diplomacy has failed?

Clearly, diplomacy has swept a hostile force from the North American Continent and Iran's ambitions in the West, specifically with the United States, are impossible and the United States didn't even have to storm the embassy and take hostages.

This is a diplomatic victory with and by Canada as an Iranian Embassy in Canada, with the current regime, is a component of Iran's Nuclear Weapons program; the one they say they don't have. Couple this with an FTO for the Haqqani's, the Sunni groups Iran says they don't work with, and what you have is total victory in Afghanistan and an isolated and weakened Iran.

In the near future Iran will be prisoners to the Chinese and the Russians with little or no real independence.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Agreed on the weakened position of Iran if the Sunni factions take Syria.


The change is emblematic of how the bloody conflict in Syria, now in its 18th month, has brought a shift in the Middle East's sectarian power balance. For much of the past few years, Shiites were surging in power across the region, based on the central alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, with close relations to Shiites who took power in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

But now the region's Sunni-led powers are appearing more confident, encouraged by the prospect that the Sunni-led rebellion could bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, dominated by members of the Shiite offshoot sect of Alawites. Assad's fall would cost Iran a priceless foothold in the heart of the Arab world. Hezbollah would lose a bastion of support and a conduit via Syria for vital Iranian weapon supplies.

www.google.com...


All the more reason for suspecting a future attack on Iran.
edit on 8/9/12 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
As a Canadian, I am ashamed, outraged at our govt. and disappointed at this news. I'd like to see the NDP in power, i think Jack Layton would have made a good Prime Minister. I'm not familiar with the details of this story, but my immediate thought is it looks like we are following the U.S. script on this. Weak.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by olliemc84
 

reply to post by masqua
 



Surely if Israel uses those tailor made bunker busters the US gave them, wouldn't it completely irradiate the area?
edit on 9-9-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Blowing up a nuclear facility would indeed cause widespread radioactive contamination, especially if a reactor was damaged. Chernobyl and Fukushima are testament to that.

There is only one way to avoid that, imo, and that would be a ground assault with troops cutting the facilities off from Iranian control. If there's to be a war, it needs to be quick, professional and decisive. Maybe that is why the west has been slow in actually going ahead with the operation, while telling Israel to back off with its threats.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Harper explains decision to cut ties with Iran

ca.news.yahoo.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runciter33
As a Canadian, I am ashamed, outraged at our govt. and disappointed at this news. I'd like to see the NDP in power, i think Jack Layton would have made a good Prime Minister. I'm not familiar with the details of this story, but my immediate thought is it looks like we are following the U.S. script on this. Weak.


Canada doesn't follow a U.S. script and made this decision after careful thought.

The timing of this with the designation of the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization suggests that Canada has finally seen the light that Iran is the most significant threat to world peace...a terror state and pathological liar.

Canada's decision will hasten the end of conflict in the middle east and save thousands of lives that Iran and its allies Syria, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have no problem sacrificing to create hell on Earth; what they call paradise.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I disagree. If Harper wasn't PM I doubt this action would have been take. He is in the pocket of Washington BY CHOICE. Why should we cut ties with Iran? They are nothing to us and vice versa.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
edit on 9-9-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


The way I see it, Harper is going against the grain per Obama and going with Netanyahu. It's his social conservatism colours flying again.

Woohoo



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 




What's with all the posts asserting diplomacy has failed?


Because it has, Michael.

Cutting ties does not promote peace. Stopping negotiations, stopping talks only ads fuel to the fire. The Iran policies and modus operandi are seen as wrong. That is what Harper is saying. They have nuclear ambitions, they are supporting antisemitism and terrorism. They are the world's greatest threat at the moment.

Talks and diplomacy would be to find the reasons why they think as such, through peaceful exchange.

When we talk about them, so easily we call them radicals. And perhaps they are. Who's to tell? Who would really know if there is no one left around to inquire as to the reasons why?

Don't you think, Michael, that cutting ties is extremely radical?

What benefits is there for Harper to make such a bold move, no, such a bold statement?

Other than supporting the warmongering governments and their machine?

Reality is that this is a preemptive move for war. Nothing more, nothing less. And I surely don't agree with it !



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by intrepid
 


The way I see it, Harper is going against the grain per Obama and going with Netanyahu. It's his social conservatism colours flying again.

Woohoo


I think that Obama isn't going to stay out of Iran, just playing it cool. Or rather the actual powers in Washington will not allow Obama to stay out of Iran.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I've read the pages on this thread, and all are not getting 'it'.

There is more than meets the eye witht the Canadian's govt decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran and expell iranian diplomats, and the govt is not letting on much.

Consider these,
Why the action now if it is over a canadian citizen manhandled in Iran years ago?
Canada is a sovereign state. If it supported USA wholeheartedly, they would have booted out the iranian diplomats long ago. So why now?
Canada may be conservative, but is the cool tempered cousin of USA and not driven to act hastily, but why the sudden action that had taken not only canadians by surprise, it took even the world's. So why?

One only need to look at what happened most recently. A canadian shot dead 2 innocent citizens during the separatist Quebec political party's victory party, a shocking event unhead of gentlemanly peaceful Canada.

Extremists exists in all societies. Although they may espouse different agendas, their common aim lays in their insanity to take human life. And within that belief lays the key to be manipulated by others whom sought to destablize nations.

Iran had already been discovered to send such agents - hizbollahs and revolultionary guard officers - on such missions, to destabilze states and, widely admitted by them, to usher in their supposed 'Mahdi', not only in the middle east nations, but worldwide as well. Kenya, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines are the more recent ones when those agents with vast supplies of bomb material were found.

So, what and who were the links to the Canadian gunman?

Canada has its own intelligence agency, and may had found out something startling, whereby quiet removal of the threat is paramount for the safety of the nation.
edit on 9-9-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I disagree. If Harper wasn't PM I doubt this action would have been take. He is in the pocket of Washington BY CHOICE. Why should we cut ties with Iran? They are nothing to us and vice versa.



Iran is more to Canada than is apparent but just to be clear it is about the current regime in Iran, its recent behavior and its inability to ever alter the course it is on that's gotten it kicked out of Canada and other nations. Canada won't be the last country over the next few weeks and months that will come to the conclusion Iran is about to blow up.

Canada noted that Iran 'routinely' threatens the destruction of Israel in both casual and formal communications...and in response to Canada ordering Iran's diplomats out of the country...Iran threatened Canada with additional measures, as removing their own diplomats from Iran was not enough. There is a serious psychological disconnect going on in Iran...unless you think threatening people with death on a daily basis is normal.

Does Canada support the bloodbath in Syria; perpetrated by Assad against Syrians and possibly aided by Iranian weapons, support and fighters? Russia and China may prevent western intervention...its not the right time anyway...but the existence of a Syria run by Assad is a strategic imperative for the regime in Iran and Assad is about to fall harder than Qaddafi...

Its only a matter of time before the regime in Iran implodes and no country in the West will need to attack it...Canada probably sees this clearly now and wants its citizens out of that country over the short term.

besides, Iran has been using Canada as a platform to attack the United States since 1988...they are the reason our border with you isn't as open as it once was. Perhaps the average Canadian doesn't realize that Canada had come to a Crossroads.

Choose the United States or Choose Iran and Syria.

Canada made its choice...



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
reply to post by michaelbrux
 




What's with all the posts asserting diplomacy has failed?


Because it has, Michael.

Cutting ties does not promote peace. Stopping negotiations, stopping talks only ads fuel to the fire. The Iran policies and modus operandi are seen as wrong. That is what Harper is saying. They have nuclear ambitions, they are supporting antisemitism and terrorism. They are the world's greatest threat at the moment.

Talks and diplomacy would be to find the reasons why they think as such, through peaceful exchange.

When we talk about them, so easily we call them radicals. And perhaps they are. Who's to tell? Who would really know if there is no one left around to inquire as to the reasons why?

Don't you think, Michael, that cutting ties is extremely radical?

What benefits is there for Harper to make such a bold move, no, such a bold statement?

Other than supporting the warmongering governments and their machine?

Reality is that this is a preemptive move for war. Nothing more, nothing less. And I surely don't agree with it !


Diplomacy has succeeded in this case...the regime in Iran must be isolated. Canada acted in a responsible way...they want Iran out!

Iran has decided that it doesn't have to negotiate with anyone in much the same way Assad has decided that 10s of millions of Syrians have no right to self-determination and Iran supports Assad's assertion in both words and actions for his people and their own.

Does or has Canada ever believed in what Assad and Iran believe in with relation to Canadians' if no one else?

How can they allow Iran to remain a presence in their country? Why should they?

Yesterday, the Huffington Post published a joke article about how Canada is an embarrassment in the area of human rights:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think the world is about to be amazed as events unfold...people's credibility is seriously on the line.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Because it's common sense to the region at hand. They're surrounded by nukes and have none, how would you feel? Especially when muslim's find themselves superior to others.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl


A helicopter is the easiest target for ground missiles. Shoulder fired rockets. Put a circle of men in 360 degree pattern each with a shoulder fired rocket aimed at the target, and tell me how that Apache will respond to the simultaneous firing of ground rockets from all directions. You have to assume that the enemy will approach in a particular linear way, for the Apache to have the advantage. You're dealing with an enemy that is willing to commit suicide to achieve it's objective, and relying on a machine to identify and respond to that enemy in time, to keep you alive. The slightest mechanical failure or computer timing error and you're a sitting duck for a lucky shot.




What you say is true, but statistically speaking, it would seem that the risks you mention are rather outweighed by the evidence. The machines are bloody impressive, and the Prince is safe as can be, when in a war zone at least.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Thats a pretty broad brush you are swinging around. Thats like saying every Christian tries to cram the word of God down your neck all day, or that Hindus cannot stand cottage cheese. Its generalised out of all reality. You may have MET Muslims who thought a little to much of themselves, but I have met people from every religion, and a great many people who have NONE, who were much the same.

That particular disease is no more prevalent in any one set of people than another.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


By a rule of thumb most religious people do, some don't but yeah I'm talking majority. Read the Quran my friend all it talks about is Muslim superiority, just like every other religious book. So if I said most Christian's think there better then every one else, would that make it better for you? Because yeah most of them do too.





top topics
 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join