Venandi

It was all for show, deliberate, premeditated, focus group approved hypocrisy. Saying that anyone could have used it (meaning a deliberate and premeditated lie) sounds like you endorse the practice in principle or at least accept it as a worthwhile SOP when adopted by your party of choice. Personally, I find it unseemly across the board regardless of political persuasion and can well imagine the roasting PP would have gotten if he walked the same path. Simply put, they talked tough publicly then quietly caved on first contact, not because of unanticipated situational changes that required a new approach, but because they cynically planned to do it all along. I think the gym goers in elbows up t-shirts saw that for what it was and that's why there hasn't been a single sighting in weeks.... they're embarrassed to wear them. Regardless of political differences in the gym, these folks are disciplined, committed, they walk the walk and expect the same of others... liberal stock prices plummeted somewhere between the treadmill and squat rack. Sadly, it was the election itself which provided the incentive, when Trump's tariff threats became a hot sovereignty and economy issue they deliberately fanned the flames of patriotism whilst knowing full well they had no intention of walking the walk. I work outside with the radio on pretty much all the time, the elbows up ads, buy Canadian and support local merchant ads all evaporated with the same POOF sound the t-shirts did... and it took the brief flare of patriotism (which actually warmed my heart) with it. All we got back was a return to the Herb like polarization and nastiness I've long hoped we could shake off. So ya, total hypocrisy (pretending to be tough when you are not, and pretending to believe what you clearly do not), It's the very definition of hypocrisy, made worse by premeditated execution and media compliance. Then again, that's just me and a handful of gym rats, I'm not even suggesting that full on retaliation was the best policy, I just don't like being lied to with the malice of forethought... I bet he even asked Trump's permission to proceed with this election strategy, a sign of weakness Trump immediately recognized as valuable to his own agenda, an easily manipulated weasel that leaped into the reticle of its own accord. Is it any wonder Trump is a fan?

The cost of two paid moves (out and then back in) would have been much more expensive than simply maintaining the status quo temporarily and it looks like that was the assessment made. The by-election was a given early on and it would have been foolish to move him out prior to the issue being settled definitively. As to hypocrisy, in my view the elbows up thing wins a gold medal. Not even hypocrisy really; it was premeditated and fraudulent by design and intent. Even gym goers who routinely wore that obnoxious t-shirt no longer do, I haven't seen one in weeks... I think they all got burnt or cut into rags.

That's how I see it too, absolutely breathtaking. On a daily basis I read about gang violence and gun crime in places like Toronto. To think that people are willing to spend (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eradicate a problem most of them admit doesn't (really) exist just bogles the mind. When asked, the answer I usually get is: "well, we have to do something." It's not just the ill-informed nature of these conversations either, it's the attitude. They seem to think that what Ukraine really needs and really wants is semi-automatic rifles with 5 round magazines. People should take a moment and consider how they would explain things like this to village elders (virtually anywhere) whilst maintaining a straight face.

Yup... And the gleeful nose rubbing effort (with all its machinations) is what fuels the predictable backlash which goes further than it ever could have without the "nose job." From what I've seen of the world, amplitude of the seesaw is directly proportional to polarization fuelled by ridicule.

Realizing it only comes with prolonged bad experience though. What seems to have changed is our ability to recognize total madness on first contact. Her's an example of insanity that future generations will be able to enjoy at our expense, and like residential schools, eugenics, defunding police, vaccine mandates etc, in 10 years time the number of people willing to defend it will fade to ZERO.. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-hamiltons-ban-of-a-woman-an-adult-female-billboard-is-irrational I'm not even sure what's worse... the fact that it needs to be said or the fact that it needs to be banned.

Ya, sort of like the concentration camp idea for anti vaxxers that was supported by 18% of Canadians during the Covid era eh? Lot's of nasty comments from nasty people on full display right here.... look no further. This is tame by comparison. Your point is well taken though.There certainly is an element of "careful what you wish for" and I think it's a lesson that will go unheeded. It's now a function of who wins elections. It's self inflicted and all you need to do now is wait for your guy to get in. Then ya can stick it to the MAGATs with impunity. That's where we are now (IMO) so enjoy the ride. As Flyer would say "YOU LOST." Personally, I'd favour building a wall around California and sending all the illegals to a bonafide sanctuary paradise that provides a guaranteed income and free housing ... but that's just me.

Lots of hype over this but when you cut through all that it's simply the proposed construction site of a detention centre located 45 miles west of Miami on an unused airfield... there's about 39 acres. They plan to use temporary buildings and shelters similar to what FEMA uses for disaster relief. The Alcatraz nickname comes from its remoteness, the alligator reference is due to it being located in the everglades and the fact that it's in a swampy area... escape is difficult; there are few places to hide and overland travel is very difficult. It's currently being spun as a concentration camp built with stolen FEMA assets just prior to hurricane season. Herb can certainly make hay with that combo... even I could do it. The picture was in poor taste to be sure but that's about the extent of it.

That's a pretty select club: the Iranian regime, several terrorist organizations and.... you. Okee donkey then.... I like my club better than yours anyway.

Just my opinion and admittedly I'm a bit out of touch now, but attrition (largely in the form of experienced folks) has now reached a point where regeneration will be difficult, costly and time consuming. I'm not even sure it can be done without a complete pause in operational tempo and it will take years to grow back what's been carelessly squandered. We're actually losing recruits due to extended training delays now and DEI issues remain a problem as it skews recruiting priorities to non standard streams that aren't based on fitness and competence. That's a bigger problem than people might think because the pool of top candidates who are ready, willing, and able is small and it comes from the traditional supply stream whether Herb likes it or not. By prioritizing outside that stream you end up losing top candidates to such things as policing and firefighting who are every bit a hungry as the military... they're better at intake and training too. If the budget suddenly went to 5% of GDP I'm not convinced the military could even spend it wisely now. By way of example I think manning the new UAVs and P8s will prove very challenging for the RCAF. Recruiting, retention, and operational tempo is a three legged stool that requires constant monitoring... we didn't do that. Not only did we unbalance the legs of the stool, we got rid of all the carpenters who could fix it. So yes, you can use the new budget to buy more stools but there's not enough butts to sit on them and most of the butts currently available are too fat anyway. Sometimes you reach a point where the money to buy stools isn't the issue or even the problem... I think that's where we are now.

My Aunt would likely be my Uncle if she had nuts. Duh Four pages in and I've yet to hear a firm position that's grounded in the here and now. Please fast forward to present day and state your preference... do you approve of Iran having nuclear weapons? If not, why not and how would you prevent it.... not how you would have prevented it if you had the luxury of owning a time machine?

There's a lot of open source reporting on this, here's a BBC piece that mentions some of what i said in the post. This information is all over the place... you need to start doing your own homework and piecing snippets together before going direcly to caps lock and spouting duhs and LMAO's. This took 15 seconds to find and it's one of many: Just after 05:00 GMT on Tuesday, Trump announced that the ceasefire had taken effect. The Israeli government said it had agreed to the US ceasefire proposal just after 06:00 GMT on Tuesday, after Iran indicated that it would stop attacking if Israel did the same. Two hours after Israel said it had agreed to the truce, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it had identified missiles launched from Iran. The Iranian military denied it had fired missiles after the ceasefire had taken effect. Later, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that "in the final moments before the ceasefire was imposed on the enemy", it had struck "military and logistical centres" in Israel. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjk3kxr3zno

There's a list of things they can't do (by regulation) and the reason behind it is because they are deemed to lack a sufficient level of maturity at the age of 16. So yes.... it certainly is logical to examine / discuss whether that list and the individual items on it are still valid or not before modifying one or more of them. You're essentially arguing that it's now OK to eliminate one of those restrictions and your only response to people who question your logic is to accuse them of being illogical. Read this a couple of times and then take a nap... once refreshed you may be able to discern who the illogical one is:

Everything is just so cut and dried eh? Wouldn't it be lovely if the world actually worked like that? Two hours after Israel agreed to the cease fire the IDF identified inbound missiles originating from Iran and instructed the military to continue the bombing effort; they struck a radar array near Tehran as a result. Iran initially denied doing that of course but later the IRGC admitted firing the missiles but insisted that they only did it in the final moments leading up to the peace deal coming into effect. Congrats though, you seem to know who was lying here... superior intellect no doubt. I certainly don't know and it appears that most people who follow such things don't know for sure either. Trump was clearly frustrated by the childish nature of this and the unresolved "he said she said thing"... a bit like policing children at recess from his perspective I'd guess. BTW, 60% purity isn't weapons grade but it's well above the level required for peaceful civilian purposes... it stands as a reasonable and appropriate threshold for action. They aren't using it to build glow in the dark hands for Swiss watches; so let's not pretend that they were. Here's a potential bugbear though, as it stands now about 400 kgs of uranium (enriched to about 60%) is unaccounted for and was likely moved to a safe location prior to the US air strikes. Personally, I would not have telegraphed any those intended actions, the entire effort would have been a coordinated strike with Israel. Now instead of "surprise, your alarm clock business is terminated" we have a "where's Waldo" question begging for an answer.

It might be more instructive to look at what a 16 year old can't do... and why that is. They can't buy cigarettes, they can't buy alcohol, they can't buy marijuana, they can't get a professional drivers license (CDL), a professional pilot's licence, they can't join the military without parental / guardian authority, they can't be police officers, prison guards, provincial Sheriff Deputies etc etc. I think the general consensus on that is because they (generally) aren't deemed to have the level of maturity required. Generally (especially these days) I tend to agree with that even though some clearly do but they would have to be considered the exception. I've come across some of these folks teaching basic training to Reservists on SSEAP type summer employment gigs and Air Cadet flying scholarship training. In the world of 16 year olds they really are the exception though... some of them are more mature than their parents. In order to prevail here (at least with me), you would need to put forward a compelling argument in favour of allowing 16 to become the new age of majority across the board and without exception. Suggesting that voting requires less maturity than buying a 6 pack is a hard sell.

Appalling really.... if you truly believe the land was stolen then these acknowledgements are like being taunted by the burglar who robbed your house. He has absolutely no intention of giving anything back or making amends, he isn't even sorry he did it but, BUT... he publicly acknowledges doing the deed as if that makes it all OK. "Thank's so much for the moment of silence buddy, how's my stolen ATV working for ya?"

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to sweeping assertions that end with "duh" but I happened to be reading this at about the same time as the "duh drop." I looks like Iran is actually the hold out which isn't terribly surprising IMO. Even if / when Iran does agree, I'm just cynical enough to believe it won't last long enough for the ink to dry... they haven't completely gassed out yet and they are nothing if not predictable. When it happens, and I bet it does, I'd lock in that rear naked choke until they go limp. But that's just me Netanyahu says Israel has agreed to Trump's proposal for ceasefire with Iran https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-israel-has-agreed-trumps-proposal-ceasefire-with-iran-2025-06-24/

We'll miss you...

What you and I think about Trump is irrelevant. I happen to like his wife but I'm pretty sure that is too. What matters is Iran having nuclear weapons; either that's OK with you or it isn't. Since you oppose the intervention I'm simply asking what you would have done; if the answer is nothing, why do you think nothing is a reasonable course of action given Iran's history and rhetoric? I happen to believe that they would use any and all means to reach out and touch Israeli, and I would believe that whether Trump did or not... even if Melania and I exchanged Christmas cards. In addition, the people of Iran would pay a huge price for the action of a rogue regime that most of them despise... they don't deserve that. Who knows though, maybe you can convince us that the enrichment program was in support of a watch making industry that offered glow in the dark hands. I bet you can't convince Iranian citizens of it though.

Are you're suggesting that they were compliant with it? Even if you decide to ignore the fact that they weren't or even convince me that they were, I'd have to argue that it doesn't matter in the least unless you have a time machine. You need to get into the here and now even if you don't like it... the situation is what it is and it's all ya got to work with. I think it falls to you to convince people that Iran can be trusted despite their previous actions and rhetoric. It's not me you need to convince either... because you can't. I'd still like to hear why you find them so trustworthy though.

An interesting perspective... are you're suggesting the regime wouldn't (or didn't) pursue their enrichment goals in the absence of sanctions? If he didn't hold a similar opinion, Roboduh would likely say "prove it duh." As to the threat assessment / threshold, it's a bit like Dalton's Law in that the total is equal to the sum of the pieces... and there are a lot of pieces here and most of them don't make the news. If you're going to suggest that removing the capability for Iran to develop / deploy offensive nuclear weapons is a bad idea, I think you should at least outline why you think they can be trusted with one; I can't think of least trustworthy nation. He said, she said, he did, she did, and most other historical issues are (IMO of course) interesting but largely irrelevant in the here and now... and they're certainly subordinate to the issue of Iran developing and deploying a nuclear capability. That's the issue you need to address in order to prevail here (I think). Nothing in their actions to date convinces me that they're only kidding about their own rhetoric and if you want to convince anyone that this was a bad idea, I think you'll have to address it directly whilst not confusing that issue with the idea of regime change. Iran possessing a nuclear capability is worse for the region (by orders of magnitude) than what entity replaces the current one. That's a whole separate thread.

Indeed, another example of perspective, or lack of it. Most people (on both sides) aren't normally subjected to these sort of emotionally charged, aggressive, in your face situations, it may be the first time in their lives for many of the participants... it's moderately stressful and as a result there's a very human tendency to over react and get it wrong. Anger is a close cousin of fear and both usually result in bad responses.

Got to run but it's noteworthy that there's a difference between being deliberately intercepted with hostile intent (or the reasonable perception of it) and approaching a venue (like a picket line) that was blocked prior to your arrival. Aggressively forcing your way through that picket line is not the same as being aggressively targeted by four masked people during an intercept maneuver... that applies even in the absence of a hostile act taking place. In this instance, any reasonable person would assume that the hostile act is forthcoming and and any proportional effort to avoid being victimized by it would likely be construed as justifiable even if it later turned out to be false assumption... say coworkers staging a prank on you.

Read the article, then consider that perspective starts with situational awareness. Seems a little lacking there doesn't it? If you really want the master course consider why Egypt reacted the way it did, what's their perspective here and why? The question I have is what did you think was going to happen. BTW, if you're looking for someone to trade insults with ya got the wrong guy.

Yes, it's situational, but there really isn't a lot of grey with the application of deadly force, that's a good thing because you (we and us) are all criminally responsible for any excessive force, just as police officers, security guards and soldiers are. Any response has to be proportional, reasonable and (usually though not necessarily) applied incrementally whether you're dealing with people, cars or tanks. Using an extreme example, four tanks approaching your position along the main supply route at low speed with turrets depressed is not the same as four tanks line abreast speeding across the open ground with turrets stabilized and tracking. If you are arguing that it's the same because it's still four tanks and they're still approaching your position then you suffer from the same lack of perspective Mr Eyeball does. If deadly force was justified for use against people who happen to be impeding your progress think about the fate of people at the grocery store who turn their carts sideways and block the aisle. I tend to think some of them do it deliberately... but that's just me. If they grab you in an attempt to forcibly impede your movements though it's a different thing, and it's one of the reasons I like Aikido despite its reputation in the BJJ community. If the person loses their balance and eats concrete when I attempt to free myself from their (unwanted and aggressive) grasp it isn't usually deemed an over reaction... it's the force of gravity at work. An apology and helping the person up goes a long way with spectators too. On the other hand, a front leg round house kick to the left temple usually would be considered an over reaction. There are cameras everywhere now and it looks bad in court.

That's all ya got eh?