normanchateau

Interesting theory but I see no unequivocal supporting evidence for it. While it's true that an Islamic theocracy replaced an unpopular dictator, this was because Khomeini had more supporters than the numerous other anti-Shah Iranian groups, many of which were secular but not united. Iran was ready for democracy years earlier. Iran's first democratic government was headed by Prime Minister Mosaddegh until he was overthrown by SIS and CIA agents in 1953 who replaced him with the Shah. Had the coup d'etat not occurred, Iran might today be a democracy spared from decades of brutal Islamic theocracy.

If you are referring to fiscal conservatism, I agree. His spending has been out of control. On the other hand I am concerned that with a majority government, his social conservatism will result in further legislation to erode our civil liberties. While arguably Section 120 of Bill C-10 is not actual censorship but merely denial of tax credits for certain sexually explicit films, it creates a potential slippery slope towards government censorship of sexually explicit material. No wonder anti-pornography crusaders like Charles McVety support Bill C-10.

Here's one analysis of how Harper has "shrunk the size of the state": http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

I guess bombing the crap out of them didn't work.

They had first dibs on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Yes, let's ban history. After all, it has nothing to teach us...

That approach would work with some dictators but probably not all of them. Lying prostate would work with some. Suicide would work with others. Different approaches for different dictators I suppose.

So we should blame Canada for the Treaty of Versailles?

I take it you still have no opinion as to whether Canada should have fought the Nazis.

Why not do it now? Iran has already boldly defied all US threats to stop their nuclear development. Why wait until Iran has nuclear weapons?

That happened only after he won the largest number of seats and a minority government.

I guess with that insightful revelation, the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Islamic theocracies like Iran are no threat.

And we'll remain stuck with right wing authoritarianism as long as the anti-right wing forces comprising two thirds of Canada's population are split between the NDP, Liberals, Greens and BQ. Not that I'm equating Hitler with Harper but Hitler did come to power with a minority government and only 37% of the votes because the anti-Nazi parties split the vote.

I wasn't around either. It doesn't take a huge amount of reading of history to form an opinion as to whether Canada should or should not have fought Hitler and the Nazis. You know you do reduce your credibility somewhat by not having any opinion on this issue.

Probably that's not the best way to defend ourselves or our friends abroad against fascist dictators intent on expanding their territory.

Stephen Harper would kill for an election right now: http://www.westislandchronicle.com/article...-right-now.html

When Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, Germany was not threatening Canada. Should we have left it to others to fight fascism and not declare war on Germany?

What's especially interesting here is that Harper added a police office to shift the balance of the committee to outcomes favourable to the Conservatives and he did so while leading a minority government. Can you imagine what will happen to the balance on these committees if Harper were actually to achieve a majority?

In the early 30's, many in the UK, including government MPs, wanted to reduce military spending as it was inconceivable to them that Japan and Germany would become threats. It's difficult to predict the future and many would argue that it's best to be prepared for a threat. From purely a self-interest perspective, sure, I'd probably benefit more from increased health spending than increased military spending. But eventually either Canada or a friend of Canada will be threatened and we should be prepared by funding those brave people willing to risk their lives for us.

I think this means that Harper will attend the 2010 games unless of course he has a previous appointment.

Why? Do you think it will cost Harper votes?

Yes, the US can always count on working in concert with Islamic theocracies. Iran... But of course there's no possibility that eventually the Islamic nation of Iraq will follow the anti-American Iran model... After all, the majority of Iraqis are Shiite whereas the majority of Iranians are...Shiite.

Next you'll be claiming that Stephen Harper has added a police officer to each of the judicial advisory committees which select judges.

Harper and Flaherty have been spending like drunken sailors during the past two years. How ironic that now they chose to punish the Canadian Navy. Oh well, this will probably gain them votes in Quebec.

If Harper's actions as leader of a minority government merely reflect deal making rather than his actual beliefs or principles, should Canadians expect him to show his true colours as leader of a majority government? If Harper were to achieve a majority and continue to fund the CBC generously, would you rationalize this as something he must do for subsequent re-election? What deal was Harper doing with the opposition when he introduced USA-style legislation that one marijuana plant would warrant a mandatory sentence of six months in jail? How are voters to analyze the spate of inconsistencies and determine which of Harper's actions reflect his true beliefs and which are motivated solely by deal making with the opposition?