Canada Blocks Nuke Ban

[theminister]

We are not bad ass enough for this storyline.

We are very likely easily pushed around enough by our southern neighbours into breaking international and Canadian law though.

[Hugor Hill]

We are very likely easily pushed around enough by our southern neighbours into breaking international and Canadian law though.

Or in our case, our so called Prime Minister voluntarily getting on his knees with his mouth wide open.

[Lockout Casualty]

This is not even remotely true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iran

Iran also has troops in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq right now.

I thought the statement you're claiming to not be remotely true was "Iran hasn't started any wars", not, "Iran hasn't been involved in any wars". So not only are you already way out of context with the post you're replying to, you're also presenting a list that involves every conflict that goes back 1500 years before Iran even existed.

This is why nobody takes you seriously taxi.

[taxi]

I thought the statement you're claiming to not be remotely true was "Iran hasn't started any wars", not, "Iran hasn't been involved in any wars". So not only are you already way out of context with the post you're replying to, you're also presenting a list that involves every conflict that goes back 1500 years before Iran even existed.

This is why nobody takes you seriously taxi.

Are you trying to say that Iran has not started wars by moving its troops into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc...only someone trying to support a pre-conceived agenda would ever conclude that Iran has not started any wars. And for the record the issue was whether Iran had invaded or threatened to invade anywhere. I would call moving thousands of armed troops into the above noted countries an invasion.

Yes, the list includes items from the 1500s. It also includes the 1982 invasion of Iraq, and the 1970s invasion of Oman. Just last year Iran threatened to invade Pakistan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-iran-pakistan-kidnapping-idUSBREA1H11V20140218

I guess that's ancient history too....emoticon emoticon arharhar

[Lockout Casualty]

Are you trying to say that Iran has not started wars by moving its troops into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc...only someone trying to support a pre-conceived agenda would ever conclude that Iran has not started any wars. And for the record the issue was whether Iran had invaded or threatened to invade anywhere. I would call moving thousands of armed troops into the above noted countries an invasion.

Yes, the list includes items from the 1500s. It also includes the 1982 invasion of Iraq, and the 1970s invasion of Oman. Just last year Iran threatened to invade Pakistan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-iran-pakistan-kidnapping-idUSBREA1H11V20140218

I guess that's ancient history too....emoticon emoticon arharhar

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when you contradict someone's claim, you should present evidence that contradicts that claim, not a link that that has nothing of the sort (and to a long time poster like me, it appears like yet another post where you push your narrative)

You can be right, or you can be wrong. My post doesn't touch on that whatsoever.

Frankly, I wonder every time I reply in these threads as to why I even bother. Iran bad, Israel good. There, you win.

[BanTSN]

Same line of logic as the pro-gun argument in the US.

You don't see anyone invading the US though.

[Ghostsof1915]

Dr. Strangelove, what do you think?

[taxi]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when you contradict someone's claim, you should present evidence that contradicts that claim, not a link that that has nothing of the sort (and to a long time poster like me, it appears like yet another post where you push your narrative)

You can be right, or you can be wrong. My post doesn't touch on that whatsoever.

Frankly, I wonder every time I reply in these threads as to why I even bother. Iran bad, Israel good. There, you win.

So like that evidence I just showed you....honestly, even if you're anti-Israeli that doesn't mean you have to be pro-Iran. Iran has spread it's armies and militias all over the middle east, and they are tearing countries apart. Not a peaceful country.

[BanTSN]

The threat of nuclear war is just fear-mongering to keep the masses on edge. The reality is that no country will ever go to nuclear war due to the outcome being disasterous for us all. Nagasaki and Hiroshima will be it. The cold war was an interesting time, but if you wipe away all the fear-mongering and propaganda, what remains is the real reason behind the creation of the nuclear boogeyman: Money and power. You see the same thing today, but now it's called The War on Terror. How many trillions are being wasted on this futile effort? As many as the purposely failed War on Drugs? All of this bs is invented by the powers that be so they can directly profit.

As for the mythical lone terrorist threat, the odds of it happening are pretty much zero. The US government as part of it's world policing activities keeps track of all nuclear devices across the globe, for starters. (So if there is any attack in the US for example, it would have to be a false flag operation.) But do you think China and Russia aren't also keeping track of these same devices? What do you think all those satellites circling the globe are for?

The reason some countries such as Iran aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons is that those countries are in the most recent fear propaganda zone. The War on Terror must continue and we have to be scared of Iran now that Afghanistan and Iraq are nullified. They also want the threat of US invasion of Iran to be active in case Russia and China sanction it. I highly doubt they will, as they stopped the US dead in their tracks against Syria, but you never know.

Consider India and Pakistan. At a state of war since the 60's, they got nukes in 1999 and the world feared the worst. But did they launch? Hell no. Do you think they are stupid? What they did instead was cause a reason to come to the table and they have since resolved their differences diplomatically and have been in a state of relative peace.

North Korea has the bomb now. Are you scared? Is the US? No. Because everyone knows that even a complete psychopath like the character made up to represent their leader isn't dumb enough to use them. But what they did was cause the threat of US invasion to be eliminated.

Like it or not, old Cold War diplocacy works. Russia getting nukes soon after the US resulted in a state of peace among the two countries directly. (Yes they fought wars by proxy, but if those countries they used had nukes, this would not have happened.)

As for Canada wanting to back the US here, well so what? Canada's say is useless in the grand scheme of things anyway and will forever be in the US's back pocket. It's silly that Israel is still playing this charade that they don't have nukes when everyone knows they do, but if they want to be children about it, so be it.

I say give Gaza and the West Bank nukes as well and watch Israel's illegal expansion and terror attacks on those territories cease immediately. They would have to come to the table, just like Pakistan and India did, and resolve their differences in a civilized, diplomatic way. Until this happens, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Thank you.

[Lockout Casualty]

So like that evidence I just showed you....honestly, even if you're anti-Israeli that doesn't mean you have to be pro-Iran. Iran has spread it's armies and militias all over the middle east, and they are tearing countries apart. Not a peaceful country.

What evidence? The link talks about Iran stating they will enter Pakistan to retrieve its kidnapped soldiers, taken by militants, if Pakistan doesn't "take steps necessary to fight against militants". This isn't an invasion threat, and neither did it actually happen yet, going by that link. I don't know what evidence you're talking about.

I'm not pro-Iran anymore than I am pro-Mexico or pro-Thailand. However, any problems with Iran today stem from the US's coup in the 50s. I don't think they're any worse than the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's a regional power in a region that hasn't reached European level of peace yet, what do you want it to be, Finland?

And for the record, when talking about invading other countries, I think it's implied that Iran is the aggressor. It's actually bizarre how you can say, "Are you trying to say that Iran has not started wars by moving its troops into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc...only someone trying to support a pre-conceived agenda would ever conclude that Iran has not started any wars", when Iraq invaded Iran in '80. How does fighting invading Iraq on Iraq's soil after two years constitute starting the war?!

And then in an even more bizarre twist, you go on to say, "And for the record the issue was whether Iran had invaded or threatened to invade anywhere. I would call moving thousands of armed troops into the above noted countries an invasion." Lebanon invaded? Really? Fighting in Syria against the militants in support of the (friendly) government is an invasion? You're stretching the truth like it was Stretch Armstrong. Nobody's buying though.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

There won't a WW3 in our lifetime.

Economies are too tied now. Its going to be proxy wars at most.

Exactly this.....and it has been going on for a few decades already sadly most do not see it.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Your breakin my balls Hans

https://youtu.be/UEaKX9YYHiQ?t=18

There is only one rogue nation in the middle east that has nukes.

Dam this movie still makes me howl

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Maybe.

Or at least sheltering them illegally in our territory.

Sadly this is most likely true.

[Electro Rock]

Exactly this.....and it has been going on for a few decades already sadly most do not see it.

Major wars happen when there's a big shakeup in the global balance of power, and that's what we're seeing now with the decline of the Western powers and Japan, and the rise of Eurasia.

[grandmaster]

Iran has never invaded nor threatened to invade another country......one could argue that they are the ones being threatened.

My point is Iran is a fundamental religiously run country. It's government is not truly legitimate and its people do not exercise standardized rights. These are countries that should never have nuked.

[Ghostsof1915]

The threat of nuclear war is just fear-mongering to keep the masses on edge. The reality is that no country will ever go to nuclear war due to the outcome being disasterous for us all. Nagasaki and Hiroshima will be it. The cold war was an interesting time, but if you wipe away all the fear-mongering and propaganda, what remains is the real reason behind the creation of the nuclear boogeyman: Money and power. You see the same thing today, but now it's called The War on Terror. How many trillions are being wasted on this futile effort? As many as the purposely failed War on Drugs? All of this bs is invented by the powers that be so they can directly profit.

As for the mythical lone terrorist threat, the odds of it happening are pretty much zero. The US government as part of it's world policing activities keeps track of all nuclear devices across the globe, for starters. (So if there is any attack in the US for example, it would have to be a false flag operation.) But do you think China and Russia aren't also keeping track of these same devices? What do you think all those satellites circling the globe are for?

The reason some countries such as Iran aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons is that those countries are in the most recent fear propaganda zone. The War on Terror must continue and we have to be scared of Iran now that Afghanistan and Iraq are nullified. They also want the threat of US invasion of Iran to be active in case Russia and China sanction it. I highly doubt they will, as they stopped the US dead in their tracks against Syria, but you never know.

Consider India and Pakistan. At a state of war since the 60's, they got nukes in 1999 and the world feared the worst. But did they launch? Hell no. Do you think they are stupid? What they did instead was cause a reason to come to the table and they have since resolved their differences diplomatically and have been in a state of relative peace.

North Korea has the bomb now. Are you scared? Is the US? No. Because everyone knows that even a complete psychopath like the character made up to represent their leader isn't dumb enough to use them. But what they did was cause the threat of US invasion to be eliminated.

Like it or not, old Cold War diplocacy works. Russia getting nukes soon after the US resulted in a state of peace among the two countries directly. (Yes they fought wars by proxy, but if those countries they used had nukes, this would not have happened.)

As for Canada wanting to back the US here, well so what? Canada's say is useless in the grand scheme of things anyway and will forever be in the US's back pocket. It's silly that Israel is still playing this charade that they don't have nukes when everyone knows they do, but if they want to be children about it, so be it.

I say give Gaza and the West Bank nukes as well and watch Israel's illegal expansion and terror attacks on those territories cease immediately. They would have to come to the table, just like Pakistan and India did, and resolve their differences in a civilized, diplomatic way. Until this happens, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Thank you.

You realise that back in October of 1962 the world was on the brink of nuclear war, because Castro agreed to have Nuclear Missiles in Cuba. The US started a blockade. Many senior military leaders wanted the US to strike at Cuba to take the missiles out by force. It was only by negotiation that got them out of that mess. Humans are very fallible. And having nuclear weapons, you have the danger of using them. Not everyone listens to reason.

[taxi]

What evidence? The link talks about Iran stating they will enter Pakistan to retrieve its kidnapped soldiers, taken by militants, if Pakistan doesn't "take steps necessary to fight against militants". This isn't an invasion threat, and neither did it actually happen yet, going by that link. I don't know what evidence you're talking about.

I'm not pro-Iran anymore than I am pro-Mexico or pro-Thailand. However, any problems with Iran today stem from the US's coup in the 50s. I don't think they're any worse than the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's a regional power in a region that hasn't reached European level of peace yet, what do you want it to be, Finland?

And for the record, when talking about invading other countries, I think it's implied that Iran is the aggressor. It's actually bizarre how you can say, "Are you trying to say that Iran has not started wars by moving its troops into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc...only someone trying to support a pre-conceived agenda would ever conclude that Iran has not started any wars", when Iraq invaded Iran in '80. How does fighting invading Iraq on Iraq's soil after two years constitute starting the war?!

And then in an even more bizarre twist, you go on to say, "And for the record the issue was whether Iran had invaded or threatened to invade anywhere. I would call moving thousands of armed troops into the above noted countries an invasion." Lebanon invaded? Really? Fighting in Syria against the militants in support of the (friendly) government is an invasion? You're stretching the truth like it was Stretch Armstrong. Nobody's buying though.

I think lots of people are buying it. Especially the people living in the middle east who are now at war with these Iranian paramilitary groups. Your characterization of Iran as a peaceful nation is bizarre. They've gone out of their way to open up multiple fronts between Sunni and Shiite muslims that are resulting in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

And I don't see how sending in thousands of troops and setting up a paramilitary organization with the goal of taking over an country does not count as an invasion. Iran has most certainly invaded Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. It's not a stretch of anything. In fact, it's the exact same strategy the US used to invade many South American nations.

[Hugor Hill]

You don't see anyone invading the US though.

No one invades China either, or many other non-nuke countries.

On the other hand, US interests abroad get attacked, US companies and government get hacked, and sometimes you get home grown terrorists attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing.

[Hugor Hill]

I think lots of people are buying it. Especially the people living in the middle east who are now at war with these Iranian paramilitary groups. Your characterization of Iran as a peaceful nation is bizarre. They've gone out of their way to open up multiple fronts between Sunni and Shiite muslims that are resulting in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

And I don't see how sending in thousands of troops and setting up a paramilitary organization with the goal of taking over an country does not count as an invasion. Iran has most certainly invaded Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. It's not a stretch of anything. In fact, it's the exact same strategy the US used to invade many South American nations.

Except they weren't "invasions". (except Bay of Pigs)

[taxi]

Except they weren't "invasions". (except Bay of Pigs)

You don't consider moving thousands of troops into a foreign country, training a paramilitary, and then overthrowing the government an invasion?