Moonbox

The Palestinians themselves could more or less put a stop to this. Once support, both official and unofficial, dries up for militant action against Israel, it becomes extremely difficult for them to operate. The arab side has more or less been able enforce ceasefires so extending that to a peace treaty isn't inconceivable.

If things got nasty enough Israel's armed forces could roll over the entire region with impunity. At present they strike at will and it's only their restraint as well as their respect/fear of the international community that keeps them from doing so. Again, it's not an ongoing land grab. The land grab happened several decades ago after they embarrassed the attempted invasion of their land. At this point I'd say their goal is to hang on to land they've already occupied and claimed. As far as I can tell, they've not expanded their borders since the last attempted invasion against them. Read the Hamas charter. Read the statements its leaders have made in regards to peace with Israel. They themselves have specifically stated they will NOT negotiate peace with Israel. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start asking for referenced facts. Nope. It's more like if your neighbors are going to try to kill you regardless of what you do (their intentions made clear in their OWN words) you probably wouldn't really give a damn if you piss them off or take their stuff. Myata get this through your head please. You're really struggling with this concept I know...but: I AM NOT SAYING ISRAEL IS INNOCENT. Read that to yourself slooowly a couple of times and maybe it might sink in for you. That's the trouble isn't it? From the way you speak on the subject I'd say you're one of the least objective people I've spoken to on the matter, yet you somehow claim to be.... I think you have a really skewed view of what objective and principled actually mean in the context of an actual real world setting. I don't mean to be insulting but I truly and sincerely believe you really don't have a realistic view of the situation nor any grasp of how practical negotiations would take place. You can go on and on about objectivity and principles but pragmatism and realism are every bit if not more important to the process. In previous discussions you've indicated that for any credible peace process to begin then Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers out of annexed land. You've indicated that in return Israel should not even expect the other side to indicate a willingness to discuss peace. The suggestion itself is ludicrous. To suggest that one side should have to make huge, expensive and far-reaching concessions and to not expect the other side to even consider long term peace discussions is patently insane. It will never happen. No. I'm saying that international law is about as credible as 'democracy' is in Iran. Not only is it applied selectively, but as a cohesive institution it's completely impotent. The fundamentalist Islamic world brings up 'international law' only when it suits their purposes. Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan etc are all human rights disasters and operate so far outside international law in the first place that to bring it into the discussion is pretty pointless. Applying and enforcing grossly unfair standards on one side alone isn't going to move things forward. For peace to succeed both sides are going to have to come to the table and talk about it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Sexual relationships amongst soldiers are fine I think. Sexual relationships with underlings are not. I didn't read the whole story but a brigadier general fooling around with subordinates is inappropriate in the same sense that a professor sleeping with one of his students is inappropriate. In the military, however, this is faaaaaaaaar more serious because there are life and death implications involved. A commanding officer may make emotionally based combat decisions in order to keep his lover safe which can have very realistic implications not only on the success of the mission itself, but on the morale of the troops as a whole. How would you feel as soldier if you were constantly being put in harms way while a similarly ranked peer was being given the easy assignments on a regular basis because of a relationship with a superior?

What are you even talking about??? Both sides have a right to feel threatened. One side, however, is in a position to act against and neutralize threats against it to some extent. One thing that you might REALLY want to investigate is the reality of the situation in regards to the intents of each side. One side has made it clear that its intention/goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. That's their intention, yet they lack the means to make it so. The other side clearly has the means to wipe the other off the map, yet does not do so, which would suggest some restraint on their part and at least respect for the notion of peace. These are facts and you only need to do about 30 seconds of research to confirm this. There's nothing idealogical about it. The idealogical distortions hold on both sides. Israel annexed territories like East Jerusalem something like 40 years ago after they were pre-emptively invaded. I won't argue that international law forbids this, but I wonder what it would have said about the invasions themselves? At this point there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in some of these territories (who've been living there for many years now) and in any realistic and logical world you'd have to give Israel a good reason to withdraw and resettle those people. Launching an invasion (and subsequently getting your ass handed to you) and then bitching about lost territories after the fact is pretty ironic I think. What makes it even more contemptible is the righteous indignation and demands the Arab world places on Israel while at the same time stubbornly refusing ANY notion of long-term peace and co-existence with them. Myata we've been over this about a hundred times. I don't think Israel is innocent in any way. I don't think they believe in the peace process there and a lot of what they do is just sand in the Arab world's eye. I simply take issue with people like you who've decided that Israel is the instigator and the main source of blame in a conflict when for 50 years the militant Arab world has done nothing but threaten and inflict violence on Israel and never even entertained the idea of long term peace. One final thing I'll mention is how the Arab world will point towards Israeli breaches of 'international law' when the majority of Arab nations in the area have no respect for human rights, freedom or international law in the first place. If we're going to get into 'international law', let's take a broader view of things and investigate the idea that realistically there's hardly an Arab state in the area that could be held to the same standards that you and people like you hold Israel to.

Very articulate. You're a real asset here.

Well there's an interesting notion and one worth investigating. Whose land is it? Obviously the inhabitants of the land back in the 1940's have some claim to it, but then so too wouldn't the people born and raised there who've lived there for 60 years? It's an absolutely useless argument at this point because it does nothing to move the peace process forward and instead holds everyone back in the past. Don't try to get into 'logic' Myata because that's generally where your arguments start to crumble. Why are we even talking about whose fear takes 'precedence'? That doesn't make sense in the first place. The fact of the matter is that Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has a long history of its neighbours attacking it and it DOES get struck by suicide bombers and rocket attacks. This is enough to make them fearful. It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference to the people of Israel that Arabs in the area are also scared and I have no idea why you would think it should. That's really the point isn't it? Who ARE we talking about in respect to the 'other side'. In that I'd say it's the cowards who hide behind the honest people of Palestine and encourage violence and violent rhetoric against Israel at all costs. Those are the only people that MATTER when it comes to the peace process and unfortunately it's rather hard to bring them to the table. We're not talking about just Palestine here. We're talking about the entire angry militant Arab world. Israel is constantly being condemned. Europe is condemning them. The Arab world condemns them. The UN condemns them. Unfortunately toothless condemnation by international bureaucrats matters little to either side. What sort of 'action' do you suggest? Sending a UN military mission? Sanctions against Israel (in which case you'd have to sanction most of the middle east as well)? It's not going to happen. Israel and Palestine have to figure this out themselves.

That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said on the issue Myata. Just because you're well-armed doesn't mean you're not scared, especially when we're talking about suicide bombings and random rocket attacks. It's not 'funny pretext'. I'm not trying to 'justify' either side's actions. We've been over this a hundred times before but both sides have to WANT peace for the process to be anything less than a joke. You could certainly make the argument that Israel doesn't want peace but at the same time you'd have to admit that the other side has ZEEERO interest in the peace process, especially considering they've endlessly STATED as such. This is where you're so-called unbiased approach to the argument gets HILARIOUS. Your focus and blame has been undeniably on Israel and its supporters, with little to no attention to the fact that Israel's opponents are STILL calling for its utter destruction, regardless of whether there's been settlement encroachment.

yeah really haha

Let them be haughty all they want. In 40-50 years nobody will need their oil anymore anyways. Then it's back to good 'ol Ontario to carry the nation...

While I'm pretty happy to see Mulroney cut up like that I'd be more interested in seeing him in jail. This really has nothing to do with the present government (the reform formed out of disgust for Mulroney's CPC) so I'm confused why people are trying to make this score points. Let's all just be happy that a crook has finally been found to be a crook.

It's the responsibility of the 'innocents' you speak of to curb their militants. The instigators you speak of don't operate in a vacuum. They need places to hide, funding and support from the 'innocents' that get 'dragged' into the conflict. Unfortunately, religious leaders and fanatics have a really easy time brainwashing populations who've endured literally centuries of religious indoctrination. It further complicates matters that a lot of the leadership and funding come from outside the area in the first place. No, until Palestine and the surrounding area rejects violence and violent rhetoric as a whole, Isreal is going to continue feeling scared and lashing out. It's natural and instinctive.

It's rather galling that you'll say that when you've months, perhaps years of posting proving you do the same. I hope you recognize the irony of your statement.

Hmmm....I don't mean to be particularly offensive but sometimes I wonder how much you really know about economics. The above comment really puts it into question considering: Avery Shenfeld is a Managing Director and Chief Economist with the wholesale banking arm of CIBC, having been with the firm since 1993. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Avery follows economic developments and their implications for financial markets. He was recently named by Bloomberg as one of the top five forecasters of the US economy in the past two years, is a two time winner of Dow-Jones Market Watchs award for most accurate US forecaster, and has been ranked by fixed income investors among the leading five economists in Canada. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/AveryShenfeld.pdf

When you lump Israel in with North Korea and Iran, you're really making it hard to take you seriously.

You've chosen to take a VERY narrow view of the conflict and it's something you and I have disagreed on fairly regularly. While I'll agree Israel's settlements etc don't help the peace process, I don't think the peace process has any chance regardless until Israel's neighbours in the Middle East make an effort to marginalize and police their militants. Both sides have to have a vested interest in peace for any negotation to work. Israel and its direct neighbours have this. Iran and the people funding Hezbollah etc do not. If I had to chose a side, it would be the democratic and relatively secular Israel sorry.

As we have discussed maaany times before, these principles are very easily to carry on about when you're not afraid of having your bus bombed.

They're both important. The central banks are all in contact with each other on a regular basis because nobody wants the boat to get rocked to hard. Foreign currency volatility can directly affect domestic stability (imports/exports/jobs gained/lost) and any central banker has to take these factors into account. I still think this is a really silly question and a silly thread altogether.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think most people think of Israel when they think of Israel. There's nothing religious about my support for them.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Currency stability is based on both internal and external factors, and you can't talk about one without the other. Also, there are lots of simple reasons to devalue your currency. Some popular ones are to encourage exports and to artificially reduce fixed-rate debt. Predictability is important to everyone. If it affects businesses, it can affect workers as well. Rapid/unexpected currency appreciation can run companies out of business and thousands out of their jobs.

How about you spend 30 seconds looking it up yourself before you start swearing at him champ. Regardless, wind and solar power are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive and we're being ripped off with the wind and solar farms being build all over the place now. Guaranteed profit for farmers and rip off rates for us and the gov't? Obviously this is good for Ontario........

The China bubble will burst. The rate of growth there can't continue forever. Eventually they'll be the next Japan.

I know that. I've written mortgage deals with close to 50% TDSR's and GDSR above 40%. There was enough equity in a good looking property to do it. The clients' credit history was great and they have a proven record of responsibility. 40% TDSR is no problem, even CMHC insured. 42%+ however and the mortgage app is dead on arrival at CMHC if it's high ratio. This was not the case in the USA and that's why so far we're looking a lot better than them. That's fine, but that doesn't really account for all the other factors that help decide a mortgage application. Not really. It happens in Guelph as well. If you can find a CMHC-insured mortgage with a +45% TDSR then I'd be impressed, because it's not allowed.

That's not necessarily a bad deal. 6-8x their gross income would mean TDSR/GDSR's of +40%, which means that CMHC wouldn't even look at the mortgage, which means that your self-employed clients have 20% equity in the property. With 20% equity, the banks are much more willing to make income exceptions, because housing prices would have to go down 20+% for the banks to be screwed. Someone with 20% down payment is also likely to be a much better borrower in the first place. As a fellow professional, you might also be aware of the fact that many clients bullshit and lie to you all the time, or have no idea what they're talking about. Mortgage brokers have to send copies to the lender. This is more a question of fraud than anything. Good on you for not doing it. Unfortunately the majority of mortgage brokers are both stupid and unprincipled. My experience (work as an FA) is that most self-employed individuals have their tax returns prepared in such a way that they declare FAR less income than they're actually living on. Sometimes that's because accountants work their magic but most of the time it's because CRA is practically impotent and most self-employed people are brutally ripping off the system. I've had clients in $500,000 (mortgage-free) houses bitch me out because I won't lend (unsecured) to them with $17,000/year income on their tax returns. You'd think that CRA would get wise to this but unfortunately this is a COMMON problem in Canada. I'd probably have been able to convince the bank to give them a $200,000 mortgage, however, because there's sufficient equity in the house to cover the mortgage and thus the potential loss is limited. The bank would also probably understand that the dude is a tax cheat. Not their problem though, that's CRA's.

Topaz man...you don't normally write stuff THIS dumb.

Smallc sometimes I forget that you're actually a young guy, because you're so opposed to change within our government I'd almost think you're eighty years old. There's enough precedent in Canada and outside that we should be cynical and suspicious of our politicians. That's not to say they're all bad, but enough of them are that we should care. We've seen for a long time that Canadian politicians (not just Liberals) have a sense of entitlement and it would be interesting, I think, to see what sort of expenses they claim. I imagine there are a lot of expenses that, while they may be commonly claimed by MP's from all parties (and thus acceptable/common practise amongst then), are actually just giant craps on the collective taxpayer's head.