SpankyMcFarland

Got me bang to rights. Where do I sign my jihadi confession?

Um, what? I have never posted under any other name here before and there's not one Muhammed (of any spelling) in my family - not that I would apologise if there were BTW. Try focusing on the content of posts if you want to encourage more members here.

The creeping incursion of Israel into Palestinian territory is something we know all about in North America. It's the story of our continent, after all. We know how these things are justified and how the story will probably end. The nature of the Palestinian regime(s) looks increasingly irrelevant as hard liners like Naftali Bennett come to the fore. The Palestinian Territory on the West Bank will be progressively shrunk until a rump state, call it Gaza East, is eventually left to them. Israel will get the land without the people and, like us, will express surprise how things turned out.

The oligarchs are the most obvious target but every supporter of Putin should be given a hard time. The CBC threads on Nemstov have been flooded with messages of support for the Big Man in dodgy English. And there are some on the right who admire his 'strength' as well as the useful idiots of the left who like anything not American.

This delusion of 'l'etat c'est moi' is exacerbated in countries where the head of state is also the head of government, like Russia, France and the US.

As Gary Kasparov noted, no critic of Putin is safe in Russia now. It doesn't matter who gave the order, the effect is the same. As his economy collapses, Putin is entering the next phase of authoritarian leadership where terror must figure prominently. Things don't look good. Western Europe, 'led' by Germany, is showing very little enthusiasm for taking a tough line and America is all warred out. I would prefer a quieter but tougher approach from Canada where we talk of peace and, at the same time, go after every oligarch with any assets in this country, no matter what the cost. Ukraine is worth at least that, surely?

A minor power like Canada should speak very quietly and choose its battles. We have no armed forces to speak of but we can still hurt these crooks in their pockets. Have Putin's buddies been sanctioned yet in Canada? http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/01/26/canada-hints-at-further-sanctions-against-russia Chrystia Freeland claimed recently again that nothing has been done about Yakunin and Sechin which makes us look like blustering blowhards. Unfortunately, hitting them may carry a political price in Alberta and Quebec. As in the UK, we seem to go easy on actions that will cost us money while still making a lot of noise on other fronts. http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/02/19/stephen-harpers-selective-punishment-of-vladimir-putin-tim-harper.html If nothing has still been done, we should start some sort of petition to hit these thugs where it hurts.

I need hardly remind you of the importance of precedence in political or legal matters. So, firstly, let us clear up a very basic point one way or the other. When was a foreign head of govt. last invited to speak to Congress without the consent of the President?

I disagree with the title of the thread. Bibi may be mistaken to make this speech but it's reasonable to conclude he believes he is doing it in his own country's best interests. Having renounced US citizenship at some point (does anybody know exactly when?), he has no duty of loyalty to the US.

Not the same. Blair's visit was welcomed by the President. If Blair had opposed the invasion, I would consider that a similar situation. Show me an example of a foreign head of govt. getting himself invited without the consent of the sitting President. I believe there was a proposal by a French official to come in the early 19th century and this was fiercely resisted. This creates a precedent. Why shouldn't Steve get an invite to talk about Keystone?

Except the 'right' you speak of so casually of has never been used before.

One more point. Did you read my first line? The issue I address is on the US side, not the Israeli side. The Israelis will do what they have to. The Americans must make sure that they keep within their own laws when dealing with Israel and this has clearly not been that case IMO. BTW I never used the phrase you mention above.

There are some facts to be considered. The speech was unprecedented in US history - no foreign leader has ever spoken in Congress against the wishes of the sitting President. Milchan did obtain nuclear equipment in the US. Richard Kelly Smyth, an employee of Milchan's, got prison time for his activities.

It will and those who cheer Putin today in Donetsk will live to regret their foolishness. One question I have for Mr. Harper. Does your BFF BIbi have exactly the same policy as Canada on Ukraine? Are you sure about that? http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/59037-150126-maintaining-good-relations-with-russia-a-top-priority-for-israel-fm-says

The problem is American weakness. They should never have allowed a foreign leader to speak to Congress against the wishes of the President. Since Nixon agreed the don't ask don't tell deal with Meir, the US has had to support the ambiguity policy and even muzzle its own officials from talking about Israel's nukes. Now the documents are finally appearing that show the US govt. knew of Israel's nuclear program in the eighties but continued to give that country financial assistance in defiance of US law. For sheer brass neckedness, you have to hand it to Bibi, though, palling around in America with self-confessed nuclear spy Arnon Milchan. Both of them should be under investigation for their role in the Smyth affair. Milchan even attended the speech which is quite extraordinary: http://amconfidential.blogspot.ca/2015/03/arnon-milchan-attends-netanyahus.html

So what does Mr. Alexander think of the Quebec hijab kerfuffle? He seemed to put niqabs, burkas and hijabs in the same unfavourable category in a recent reply to a question from Chrystia Freeland: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/on-chris-alexanders-hijab-reference/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/19/niqab-hijab-ban-chris-alexander_n_6716104.html Candice Malcolm of the Sun explained that this was because of all that expertise he has in foreign affairs and that hijab can refer to any garment covering the head, including niqabs - it's the generic term encompassing all of them. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/20/life-outside-the-political-bubble But Candice, see what happens when I type hijab into google images - lots of faces. Maybe Chris can clear this up for us with some sort of public statement? If Dear Leader will allow it. Celeb MPs like Alexander and Freeland often find out that politics is trickier than it appears. Is it so hard to just say you made a mistake? Is that forbidden now?

Overwhelming support because people don't think the measures will affect them. If you want to save lives in Canada, make driving safer e.g. bring in massive numbers of speed cameras on roads, monitor traffic by satellite and in the car, put in automatic alcohol detectors in all vehicles and cut the speed limits by 30% and trucks by 40%. Will any govt. do that? Of course not, because Joe Public will be immediately impacted and won't like it. We don't want to save lives that way. I have to say fair play to the NDP here. Like Howard Dean on Iraq, they are standing up for a point of principle when it is not popular to do so.

Unmitigated? The euro has obviously got a massive downside but there have been mitigating advantages that came with it. Prices are now easy to compare and trade has been considerably simplified. If you talk to businesses within the eurozone, they still support the currency by and large.

The mission has 'evolved' in Iraq. Does that mean, in simpler terms, that it has changed? It seems that quite a few words I thought I understood, like 'accompany' and 'combat', have arcane technical meanings that continue to, well, evolve.

One question for Conservatives. Does Israel really support the position of Europe and North America on Ukraine? I can't imagine Netanyahu confronting Putin on this matter. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-diplomats-nix-drone-sale-to-ukraine-report/ It seems to me that Harper and Bibi have agreed to disagree on this issue and not mention the difference.

I think we need to admit that there is strong bipartisan, actually pentapartisan, support for keeping military spending very low in this country. The Conservatives have had nine years to change direction and they have not done so. The US is not impressed. BTW I have never been a member of a political party and I have voted both PC and Liberal in my time.

I thought she treated him pretty well - maybe a little flippant at the beginning but he did most of the talking.

O'Toole is a good communicator who doesn't have to stick to the talking points. He is a huge improvement on Fantino. Politics is not for everybody, clearly.

The oil crisis is going to bring about some dramatic changes in govt. policy in Alberta, probably including large tax increases. A party like Wildrose will have an opportunity to offer a different mix of responses, perhaps going more with spending cuts. Prentice was impressive this am on The Current. There was implicit criticism of the fiscal management of the province since Lougheed's time.

He wanted us to fight with Bush in Iraq. You do remember that, eh? The paradox about Harper has been explained by Wells. He loves power more than policy. So all that Reform talk of openness and accountability has been binned and MPs now describe themselves as performing seals who might as well go home after the election. In Iraq we have six fighters trying to do their best. Canada's military spending is a national embarrassment. You'd think the leader of such a country would stay pretty quiet.