The US is represented in Tehran by IIRC Switzerland. So Iran is represented by the embassy of some other country. Ergo the Iranian ambassador to the UN does not double as defacto ambassador to the US. Your other arguments are equally irrelevant.
World News Thread & Breaking News!!
- Thread starter kliu0
- Start date
- Status
What part of "you're not welcome on sovereign US territory" do you fellows not understand, if my neighbor's dog comes over and KRAPS in my yard, or bites my kid, and I tell him to keep his dog home or he (the dog) will be shot, I have given him fair warning......terrorists are NOT welcome on US soil period!
Yes I did delete most of this post!
I don't think you can hold the Queen as a symbol of her progressiveness (if theres such a word) until she gets over what bugs her about the Chinese and formally host a State banquet for a visiting Chinese President. I believe China, of all the major powers has never been accorded that honour.
Brat! if you poke a dog with a stick in its own back yard don't come crying if it turns rounds and bites you. We all know exactly what the US Government were doing in Iran back in the 70's and so your "terrorist" claim is as ridiculous as the belief that one nation is somehow more entitled to do whatever it wants, irrespective of how illegal and believe no one has the right to call them to account.
The US is the host to the UN. If the US is not mature and big enough to handle the responsibility that goes with maintaining Global Diplomacy then move the organisation to somewhere that is.
I am also aware that this subject is arousing strong passions on all sides and that nobody is minded in the current environment just to let things slide past on the nod.
I started this particular topic so I guess it is my fault. Somebody can have one last response to me if they are so minded and then this spat is put to bed.
Okay, Sampan, I'll take a crack at the last statement on this...then we can let it be.
Irrespective of the entire UN and its hosting, the US still has ultimate authority who it allows on its soil for any diplomatic mission, whether to the US or to the UN.
If the US determines that someone appointed by another country to a post in the US, rather to an embassy, consulate, or to the UN, poses a significant problem, it has every right to voice that concern and ask the sending nation to appoint someone else. Failing that, the US has the right to simply deny the visa if the sending country does not wish to comply.
The same goes for any other country concerning any diplomat appointed to serve in those nations. In the end, they have the authority to allow or disallow whomever they chose to have entry into their country.
In this case, the US has determined that someone directly involved in taking hostages of diplomatic personnel from the 1970s, irrespective of whatever else may have been going on, is not someone the US cares to have representing anything in the US. The violation of the diplomatic status of those individuals, their confinement and in numerous cases their torture, was so inconsistent with any measure of diplomacy or the recognition of diplomatic civility between nations, that the US simply refuses to reward anyone involved in that episode any diplomatic or visa status in the US...even if it was 35 years ago.
Some folks may argue against this...but the US has every right to make such a determination, and for the reasons stated...just as any other nation has that same right.
Per SampanViking's instructions, this ends the discussion on this matter. Do not reply to this post or further discuss the issue.
Move along.
Irrespective of the entire UN and its hosting, the US still has ultimate authority who it allows on its soil for any diplomatic mission, whether to the US or to the UN.
If the US determines that someone appointed by another country to a post in the US, rather to an embassy, consulate, or to the UN, poses a significant problem, it has every right to voice that concern and ask the sending nation to appoint someone else. Failing that, the US has the right to simply deny the visa if the sending country does not wish to comply.
The same goes for any other country concerning any diplomat appointed to serve in those nations. In the end, they have the authority to allow or disallow whomever they chose to have entry into their country.
In this case, the US has determined that someone directly involved in taking hostages of diplomatic personnel from the 1970s, irrespective of whatever else may have been going on, is not someone the US cares to have representing anything in the US. The violation of the diplomatic status of those individuals, their confinement and in numerous cases their torture, was so inconsistent with any measure of diplomacy or the recognition of diplomatic civility between nations, that the US simply refuses to reward anyone involved in that episode any diplomatic or visa status in the US...even if it was 35 years ago.
Some folks may argue against this...but the US has every right to make such a determination, and for the reasons stated...just as any other nation has that same right.
Per SampanViking's instructions, this ends the discussion on this matter. Do not reply to this post or further discuss the issue.
Move along.
Last edited:
Of course he knew what he did.
How much time has to pass when he grabs a couple of Kitchen knives from home and when he got off at school and start slashing people? You are telling me that this is not enough time for establishing of malicious, willful intent and not enough time for him to introspect?
A horrible incident...and nobody knows why yet.
A seemingly mild mannered, friendly, not too outgoing, and fairly diminutive 16-year old young man comes to school one day, and before school simply starts stabbing and slashing people...seemingly at random. I believe he injured 19, four of them critically, before a vice principal simply tackled him and held him.
Whatever the case...they want to try him as an adult and I agree with this. This kid knew what he was doing. He consciously decided to bring those knives to school and use them on his fellow students.
aquauant
Junior Member
- Status