Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 2yrs agoActive 2wks ago

Should the government support peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran?

In April 2023 Saudi Arabia and Iran’s foreign ministers met in Beijing to discuss reopening their diplomatic missions in their respective countries, to encourage visits of official and private delegations, and to facilitate visas for Iranian and Saudi citizens. They also agreed to discuss resuming flights between the 2 countries. This was the first formal diplomatic meeting between the 2 countries since China brokered a deal to restore relations between the top regional powers in March 2023. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said that Beijing is ready to support both side…  

Read more

264 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

Yes

 @9GH9426from Ontario  agreed…1yr1Y

As they frequently support opposite forces in conflicts, Saudi Arabia and Iran's rivalry has likely contributed to regional instability.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

Yes, we should always promote diplomatic peace talks during foreign conflicts

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No

 @9FL3CWJfrom British Columbia  disagreed…1yr1Y

We as Canadian citizens will not promote such fickle and dumb things such as allowing a war in which the government and our citizens have a lot invested into.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, we should not get involved in foreign conflicts

 @9FL3CWJfrom British Columbia  disagreed…1yr1Y

Not getting involved militarily, but involved with the support of those people affected or, by stabilising the situation.

 @9GH9426from Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

One could say that the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are significant players in the world energy markets is a counterargument to the idea of becoming involved in conflicts with them.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, only if it is an immediate threat to our safety

 @9FL3CWJfrom British Columbia  disagreed…1yr1Y

Strengthen our military and protect our interests in the Middle East, whilst continuing to provide support monetarily to those affected, trying to mediate the situation.

 @9G5RCDKfrom Alberta  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only if it’s safe and won’t get us into any trouble

 @B23CRQ3from Nova Scotia  answered…2wks2W

No, we should end relations with Saudi Arabia due to their hateful, sectarian laws towards other religions. Saudi Arabia committed genocide in Yemen, we should not have relations with countries who commit genocide.

 @9ZLDVNLfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

We should first focus on improving life for our citizens and residents before involving ourselves in external conflicts. We currently have a housing crisis, high inflation and taxes, youth using and getting involved with drugs and vapes on school grounds, etc. It’s not a major concern yet.

 @9RZPX67from Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

support how? financial support? arms and defense support? political and media support? unless we can actually do something for this conflict canada is a B grade player only involved in things like immigration from said countries not actual defense policy. If we were able to get our federal energy policy in order, with minds to constitutional overreaching, maybe we could actually help more with this issue.

 @9RB43K3from Quebec  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but only if the Islamic Regime is abolished in Iran and a new, non-corrupt government is formed.

 @9VMP4KLfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

only in extreme cases (i.e. innocent people deaths). the red cross should be respected in terms of how they think other countries should proceed.

 @9TMMVLNNew Democraticfrom Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

No, we should not get involved in foreign conflicts only if there is an immediate threat to our safety

 @9C8N9GZfrom New York  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, we should support the peace talks and be assist if required to give assistance in any kind of help. This will help in increase Canada's global standing.

 @9C8CJDPfrom Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, it's a sign of maturity.

 @9C43H6Cfrom Quebec  answered…2yrs2Y

Only if we have first looked at the condition of Canadian residents first.

 @9BH5JBRfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

No, neither of these countries shares our values

 @9C8YBHHfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

Only if there is reason to believe that the peace talks will help

 @9D5HV3Nfrom Manitoba  answered…1yr1Y

Yes - verbal support only.

 @9BYJBB2answered…2yrs2Y

Advocate for peace talks BUT do not become directly involved in said talks

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree