[lenaitch]

Hasn't worked out for them historically, but I'm sure this will be the exception.


I mean, he could have... you know... not said anything at all, since his opinion is a pretty trivial one on the international stage? But just like Starmer, he always has to take every opportunity he can to suck up to Trump. This kind of politicking doesn't break the stereotype that we are merely an American vassal state. But I'm not sure why so many of our fellow countrymen thought that a banker would stand up to the most extreme neoliberal government in the world.

I'm not sure how tossing a verbal bone to an ally and largest trading partner makes us a vassal state, but . . . sure.

The Conservatives also support the US and Israel in their actions, but I guess that's ok. Poilievre also said the death of Khamenei is 'justice'.

 

[narduch]

I don't think Trudeau or his supporters would be happy.
He loved the Regime.
View attachment 718391

Trudeau was probably an even worse lackey for US foreign policy so I don't think his response would have been much different to Carney's

 

[T3G]

The Conservatives also support the US and Israel in their actions, but I guess that's ok. Poilievre also said the death of Khamenei is 'justice'.

I never said that was okay. They are all profoundly loathsome. But I didn't realize that, in discussing a particular personage, I needed to append a disclaimer criticizing every other person under the sun who has done the same thing!

As I said before, you can oppose all parties in this conflict. How, from this, you reached the conclusion that I am a supporter of the cons and PP will be one of the great mysteries of our time. If one party does something I don't like, why would it magically be okay if another party does that exact same thing? Please explain at length your political theory.

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

Some observations from personal experience today:
1. Traffic jams north of the city due to Iranians celebrating in the street.
2. Iranians I personally know are over the moon with joy. Happiest day of their lives, they said.
3. My friend who is so low-information politically speaking that she probably wouldn't be able to tell the last name of the Canadian PM, she was bombarded with talks about the Iran strikes all morning (she had a lot of Iranian clients today). They are all celebrating and today's events is all they are talking about.

And I'll just leave it there for you to make up your mind who was on the right side of history today.

 

[narduch]

Some observations from personal experience today:
1. Traffic jams north of the city due to Iranians celebrating in the street.
2. Iranians I personally know are over the moon with joy. Happiest day of their lives, they said.
3. My friend who is so low-i formation politically speaking that she probably wouldn't be able to tell the last name of the Canadian PM, she was bombarded with talks about the Iran strikes all morning (she had a lot of Iranian clients today). They are all celebrating and today's events is all they are talking about.

And I'll just leave it there for you to make up your mind who was on the right side of history today.

They are celebrating now but will regret it once they turn Iran into the next Libya. Which is their goal.

I wonder if the parents of that all girl elementary school that Israel bombed are celebrating

 

[Lennox970]

With Carney's statement on Iran its really hard not to see us as basically a vasal state of the United States.

All the elbows up bs was just empty election sloganeering. Just like Carney's statements in Davos were pretty hollow too

Well done. Davos speech was aimed squarely at shoring up Carney's domestic credibility, presumably in preparation for an election. The penny dropped for most that the new world order arrived with Crimea's annexation, or at the very least with Trump 1, so I don't know what Carney's point was apart from domestic.

When the election of a Republican directly changes the course of our election, retaining an otherwise clapped-out Liberal party in power, surely that is indicative of being of the same socio-cultural-political cloth? We have benefited enormously from US prosperity and security, such that it takes a dedicated effort to screw up the economy (thx JT) and national defence is barely an afterthought. We seethe with rage when DT baits us withtalk of being the 51st state, and we purr with delight when Obama comes up to Ottawa and scratches our head and rubs our tummy.

Amusing.

 

[wopchop]

Well done. Davos speech was aimed squarely at shoring up Carney's domestic credibility, presumably in preparation for an election. The penny dropped for most that the new world order arrived with Crimea's annexation, or at the very least with Trump 1, so I don't know what Carney's point was apart from domestic.

Yeah, but this is sort of nonsense because if the penny did drop after Crimea, the majority of the world did not notice. That is why 2025 was so shocking for many US Allies.

 

[kEiThZ]

They are celebrating now but will regret it once they turn Iran into the next Libya. Which is their goal.

You really live in hope don't you?

You must hate the Americans and Israelis more than you love the Iranians to make a statement like this, despite seeing some widespread reporting on celebrations in the region and amongst the diaspora.

Davos speech was aimed squarely at shoring up Carney's domestic credibility, presumably in preparation for an election. The penny dropped for most that the new world order arrived with Crimea's annexation, or at the very least with Trump 1, so I don't know what Carney's point was apart from domestic.

I thought it was obvious that he was appealing to middle powers and economies. And he has followed that up with specific diplomacy to middle powers this government is trying to court like South Korea. But everybody is a cynic.

 

[lenaitch]

I never said that was okay. They are all profoundly loathsome. But I didn't realize that, in discussing a particular personage, I needed to append a disclaimer criticizing every other person under the sun who has done the same thing!

As I said before, you can oppose all parties in this conflict. How, from this, you reached the conclusion that I am a supporter of the cons and PP will be one of the great mysteries of our time. If one party does something I don't like, why would it magically be okay if another party does that exact same thing? Please explain at length your political theory.

You're right. I made the leap that if you don't like one side you are probably somewhat ok with another. I guess if you don't like anything on the menu, be prepared to be constantly hungry.

Sorry, I don't have a cohesive, articulable 'political theory' anymore than I have a theory on why the Leafs perennially disappoint.

I am kinda curious about an Administration that professes to only care about a US-led 'fortress America' and being a 'presidency of peace' getting tangled up in this.

 

[kEiThZ]

and national defence is barely an afterthought.

I will call this out. This is the first PM in my lifetime to attempt to hit 2%. And is already planning for well past that to the NATO 3.5 + 1.5 target. I can legitimately see the change at work. You won't find a serving member today who would argue that Carney treats defence "like an afterthought". Indeed, it's very much central to his attempt to at least boost some of the industrial economy. After all, one destroyer has the same amount of steel as 5000 cars. The 1.5 is also about driving whole of government reform on security that we've never done. From critical stockpiles to infrastructure protection. Conversations that I have never had till now. Under a PM of any stripe before.

 

[lenaitch]

I will call this out. This is the first PM in my lifetime to attempt to hit 2%. And is already planning for well past that to the NATO 3.5 + 1.5 target. I can legitimately see the change at work. You won't find a serving member today who would argue that Carney treats defence "like an afterthought". Indeed, it's very much central to his attempt to at least boost some of the industrial economy. After all, one destroyer has the same amount of steel as 50 000 cars. The 1.5 is also about driving whole of government reform on security that we've never done. From critical stockpiles to infrastructure protection. Conversations that I have never had till now. Under a PM of any stripe before.

Agree. Recognizing that you don't turn any ship on a dime, it remains to be seen if he can get the bureaucracy and processes to get out of it own way.

 

[kEiThZ]

Agree. Recognizing that you don't turn any ship on a dime, it remains to be seen if he can get the bureaucracy and processes to get out of it own way.

I mean he simply made a new agency to get around the current bureaucracy. The new DIA is taking over every defence project above $100M. This won't solve getting boots faster. But it will change the procurement of big stuff. He's also forcing other government departments to go back and look at their previous security and emergency mandates. We know how to protect nuclear plants. But nobody has really talked about how we protect a Bell exchange or our ammunition plants in Quebec or the armoured vehicle plant in London. This will also change the military being the easy button for disaster relief instead of the other government agencies doing their jobs.

This is restoring basic competence to government. It won't get the blood flowing for any leftists or hardcore conservative, as we see here. But was deeply necessary.

 

[afransen]

I mean, he could have... you know... not said anything at all,

He would have been hounded by the media until he made a statement. A statement is not really optional for a major military action like this. He cold have been more ambivalent, maybe.

 

[afransen]

Well done. Davos speech was aimed squarely at shoring up Carney's domestic credibility, presumably in preparation for an election. The penny dropped for most that the new world order arrived with Crimea's annexation, or at the very least with Trump 1, so I don't know what Carney's point was apart from domestic.

You don't get to revise history and say that Carney's Davos speech only had domestic impact. It caused a lot of waves in foreign press and power circles. If it was purely for domestic consumption, he would not have given that speech in Davos.

 

[Westey]

You don't get to revise history and say that Carney's Davos speech only had domestic impact. It caused a lot of waves in foreign press and power circles. If it was purely for domestic consumption, he would not have given that speech in Davos.

The Davos speech was primarily for China.
Taken together with the "New World Order" speech that Carney was forced to do in a struggle session in China - it was really China getting Carney to rally whatever middle powers he can to join a Chine led effort to defeat the USA.
It was anti-USA so of course it was lauded domestically, but the real message was that Canada believe firmly in China and others should too.