|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats |
 |
|
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Canada has suspended diplomatic relations with Iran and is expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced in a statement today.
Speaking to reporters in Russia, where he's attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-Operation summit, Baird said the government is formally listing Iran today as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorist Act. That will theoretically allow Canadians affected by terrorism supported by the Iranian regime to sue.
"Iran is among the world's worst violators of human rights. It shelters and materially supports terrorist groups," Baird said.
"Unequivocally, we have no information about a military strike on Iran," he added.
In the statement, Baird said Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada. Those diplomats must leave within five days. All Canadian diplomats have already left Iran.
"Canada�s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," he said in the statement.
The statement cited Iran's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, its failure to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and its threats against Israel.
The statement also makes reference to Iran's "blatant disregard" of the Vienna Convention that guarantees the protection of diplomatic personnel.
Last November, Iranian students stormed the British embassy in Tehran, the country's capital, and ransacked its offices. Britain's foreign office summoned an Iranian diplomat in London, amid complaints that Iran failed to provide proper security to the embassy and didn't do enough in response to the attack.
|
Full Article
If Israel and the United States both declare war on Israel I'm afraid the current Canadian government will only be too eager to tag along. |
declare war on Iran you mean? I realize there are social problems in Israel right now, but I don't think they're getting to a point where there will be a civil war anytime soon  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://original.antiwar.com/robert-bruce-ware/2012/09/12/iran-attack-could-spark-caucasus-war-and-economic-trouble/
| Quote: |
Russia�s Kavkaz-2012 strategic military training exercise later this month in the North Caucasus region may portend economic problems for the West. This is because the exercise is strategically linked to Russian expectations that Iran will be destabilized by the end of this year. If Iran is destabilized, Russia will uphold its obligations to Armenia under the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russia could cut a military corridor through the center of Georgia, taking control of all oil and gas lines leading westward from the rich fields of the Caspian Sea. If this is combined with fighting in the Persian Gulf, energy prices may spike.
While some Russian training exercises have preceded major combat operations (Chechnya 1999, Georgia 2008), they are routinely conducted in order to test ongoing reforms. Kavkaz-2012 is the first major exercise to be held in Russia�s Southern Military District since December 2010, when Russia introduced fundamental changes to its Ministry of Defense and joint strategic commands. Georgian officials are protesting that the exercise is intended to influence their parliamentary elections on Oct. 1. Less than a month after Kavkaz-2008, Russian troops fought a five-day war in Georgia. Russia recognized the independence of two Georgian breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, immediately after that August 2008 war.
Russian officials insist that Kavkaz-2012 is a routine exercise, unrelated to events in other countries. They emphasize that the exercise will occur entirely on Russian territory and that they deliberately excluded units from Russian military bases in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Armenia. Armenia is a member of the CSTO along with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. In Armenia, from Sept. 3-8, the CSTO will hold its own Rapid Reaction exercise dubbed �Interaction-2012.�
According to Col.-Gen. Alexander Postnikov, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Interaction-2012 is entirely separate from Kavkaz-2012, despite the fact that they are being held barely a week apart on opposite sides of Georgia. During Interaction-2012, representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross will participate in a CSTO exercise for the first time. According to Postnikov, their role will be to �work out issues related to humanitarian assistance in areas where, according to the plan of exercise, a conflict situation will appear.�
Russian officials anticipate that Iran�s nuclear program will be attacked by Israel or the United States prior to the end of 2012. Last winter, Russia evacuated civilians from its 102nd military base near the Turkish border in Armenia. Because it has poor relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, Armenia depends upon Iran for energy and other basic supplies. Since Russia�s 2008 war with Georgia, Russia has supplied its 102nd base by air.
A sustained Israeli or American attack will lead to serious instability south of Armenia�s border. Armenian supplies likely will be cut, and Armenia may see an influx of refugees. Russian military officials doubt that a swift Israeli strike can eliminate Iran�s nuclear facilities.
An attack on Iran probably will be followed by provocations in areas disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Since the early 1990s, the two countries have been engaged in a �frozen conflict� in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The Azerbaijani government is increasingly aligned with both Israel and the United States, apprehensive about Moscow, and covetous of traditional Azeri territory in northern Iran along with Armenian-controlled territory to the west.
In the event of fighting in Iran or Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani refugees probably will move northward to Russia. In March, Russia moved over 20,000 troops to positions within 100 miles of its border with Azerbaijan.
In the event of instability in Iran, a Russian push to Armenia could be motivated partially by CSTO obligations, along with humanitarian concerns. Nevertheless, this would give Russia control of the Baku-Ceyhan energy corridor, bringing oil and gas from the Caspian region to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Because Russia controls the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline, the West�s only other energy corridor from rich Caspian hydrocarbon fields, Russian control of nearly all Caspian energy, together with fighting in the Persian Gulf, could lead to unprecedented energy costs and economic instability in the West. |
I am very happy to see Obama has pushed back against the mongers and also that he's likely to win the election. We do not need a major war involving Iran and Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama basically telling Netanyhu to stfu was one of the few occasions upon which I could find any merit in his presidency.
I guess it won't divert the inexorable march to ruin (we won't until we will), but it was a welcome gesture nonetheless.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-26/what-do-these-beautiful-people-have-common
Am I the only one besides Ahmedinejad (who I know is somewhat off-kilter but often makes sense) tired of the Israeli gov't's pretentiousness?
Tel Aviv needs to pipe down and let the US run its own show (holding my breath starting .......NOW!!....) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was just about to post that video myself. His name is Patrick Clawson, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and previously an economist at the IMF and adviser at the World Bank. He's openly suggesting a "Gulf of Tonkin" like episode to get the US into a war with Iran...
Pretty chilling to hear the words right from the horse's mouth (and even more scary to know that people like him actually have influence over US foreign policy)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Was just about to post that video myself. His name is Patrick Clawson, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and previously an economist at the IMF and adviser at the World Bank. He's openly suggesting a "Gulf of Tonkin" like episode to get the US into a war with Iran...
Pretty chilling to hear the words right from the horse's mouth (and even more scary to know that people like him actually have influence over US foreign policy)... |
It would be easy. Mainline Democrats want a tough Obama and Obama wants to be tough. Obama has certainly declared that a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable. And he's already assassinated Iranian researchers.
Do you see the fanaticism of Obama supporters? The Republicans are idiots for painting Obama as Carter this election season. But if they wanted to goad Obama into attacking Iran, its actually a savantly idiotic tactic. Obama, full of flush and vinegar from his Libya and Bin Laden victories, and perhaps not chastened enough from the Camp Bastion disaster (after all, it was a British base, and the press didn't seem to care anyway), could charge into Iran and slay the foreign incompetence ghost of Jimmy Carter.
Of course, an attack on Iran could fail. Retaliation could be swift and decisive. And the entire episode could blow into a debacle that would make Carter's hostage raid look like a minor misadventure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slow-motion train wreck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran will have the bomb in a year or two. That will happen Its not a good thng obviously.
However, when they do get it it will mean nothing. They will not use it. Countries that acquire or seek to acquire the bomb in the modern age do not do so for offensive purposes. Its purely for defensive purposes. Its an insurance against ever being invaded in a conventional war.
If the bomb was for offensive purposes, north Korea, India or Pakistan would have used theirs by now. All of them acquired it for defensive purposes.
Iran will never use it unless its used on them first. Iran won't threaten anyone in using it. America knows this, Israel knows this. The country that fears Iran with the bomb the most isn't Israel, its Saudi Arabia. For all its rhetoric, Iran can live with Israel but what it can't live with are the Saudis as stewards of the holiest cities. They despise them and the Saudis have been behind the scenes calling for more stringent action against Iran acquiring the bomb. Israel and the Saudis are secretly united against Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Iran will have the bomb in a year or two. That will happen Its not a good thng obviously. |
I hate that Iran will have a bomb. It pisses me off. I'm not some little Ron Paul pixie that gets all self-righteous because Israel and America have many nuclear weapons and Iran is pursuing just a handful. No.
| sirius black wrote: |
However, when they do get it it will mean nothing. They will not use it. Countries that acquire or seek to acquire the bomb in the modern age do not do so for offensive purposes. Its purely for defensive purposes. Its an insurance against ever being invaded in a conventional war.
If the bomb was for offensive purposes, north Korea, India or Pakistan would have used theirs by now. All of them acquired it for defensive purposes. |
It means a great deal. Iran signed the NPT, so they are bound. The NPT has done so much to keep so many countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Everyone forgets that the India-Pakistani nuclear stand-off has taken a regional rivalry into a world watched atomic flashpoint.
North Korea may be the worst. They were also signatories of the NPT, but manipulated its provisions and pulled out. Now they use their nuclear weapons card to prop up an illegitimate regime and bribe for food aid.
| sirius black wrote: |
| Iran will never use it unless its used on them first. Iran won't threaten anyone in using it. America knows this, Israel knows this. |
Never say never. The more states that have nuclear weapons the more likely a nuclear mishap. Look at Japan. It has no nuclear weapons and an accident still managed to irradiate California.
Iran should be embargoed and shunted out of the league of trading, adult nations. But we cannot assassinate and bomb our way into deterrence. Ultimately, only Iran can halt Iran's nuclear program. They must pay the price and that price should be steep, after all, it has taken advantage of NPT provisions allowing access to peaceful nuclear technology to shelter its weaponized ambitions. Nevertheless, that price should halt at drawing blood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geo political reality is that without Russia and China its not as effective. Good conscious says make life politically, economically and as much as one can, militarily difficult for them but they will get it but will not use it. Never say never but the chances of them arbitrarily using it is remote. America and USSR had moments as well. As time goes by Pakistan is more afraid of a group within getting control far moreso than India using it against them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Iran will have the bomb in a year or two. |
This is wild. 71% of Americans believe Iran has the bomb already and those of you who should know better believe it is actually trying to build one.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (and the previous Chief Mullen and Leon Panetta) have said that Iran is a rational actor and there is no evidence that it is pursuing or has made the political decision to pursue nuclear weapons. Rather, it is moving to 'breakout' captability, where one could be built at an undertermined time (Iraseli agression) in the future.
Further, the war warmongering re: Iran isn't actually about nukes. You damn people are falling for WMD's in Iraq round two. It is incredible. Israel wants the ability to kill people in the region at will.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/which-path-to-persia-redux.html
Yes, the report references "US interests". Let us remember what those interests are:
http://antiwar.com/blog/2011/09/14/us-ambassador-support-for-israel-drives-all-us-mideast-policies/
| Quote: |
| In a recent speech before the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Ambassador Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies: "The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel�s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government." |
Which brings us to the ultimate question. The question that nobody dare pose: Who told you that Iran is xyz from a nuclear weapon and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustinC
Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Location: We Are The World!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Iran will have the bomb in a year or two. |
This is wild. 71% of Americans believe Iran has the bomb already and those of you who should know better believe it is actually trying to build one.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (and the previous Chief Mullen and Leon Panetta) have said that Iran is a rational actor and there is no evidence that it is pursuing or has made the political decision to pursue nuclear weapons. Rather, it is moving to 'breakout' captability, where one could be built at an undertermined time (Iraseli agression) in the future.
Further, the war warmongering re: Iran isn't actually about nukes. You damn people are falling for WMD's in Iraq round two. It is incredible. Israel wants the ability to kill people in the region at will.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/which-path-to-persia-redux.html
Yes, the report references "US interests". Let us remember what those interests are:
http://antiwar.com/blog/2011/09/14/us-ambassador-support-for-israel-drives-all-us-mideast-policies/
| Quote: |
| In a recent speech before the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Ambassador Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies: "The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel�s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government." |
Which brings us to the ultimate question. The question that nobody dare pose: Who told you that Iran is xyz from a nuclear weapon and why? |
Oil? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No. After the fall of the Iraqi government the Chinese and Russians (who opposed the war) got the oil. The Americans made very little effort to get the oil. Additionally, executives at oil firms in the US have explicitly and publicly opposed attacking Iran leading a zionist at ThinkProgress to declare them traitors to American national interests (the article was posted in a thread called "should America scale back relations with Israel). Oil firms want Iran open for business and not chaotic and in the arms of the Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
