this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
63 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

11702 readers
431 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
63
Mark Carney’s Stance On Iran Throws His Davos Doctrine Into Question (www.readthemaple.com)
submitted 4 days ago by patatas@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“What we’re hearing right now, at a time when it really matters, is … that we’re giving in,” Neve said. “We’re not prepared to be that bold leader in that ‘middle power’ space. Instead, we are capitulating to the ‘might is right’ world that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are intent on forging.”

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Carney does himself no favours with the kinds of statements he makes, but the reality is, he doesn't have a history in politics, so he doesn't think about how things he says can be misconstrued.

Saying things like not being able to rule out Canadian involvement, are saying true things. He's right, we can't rule out involvement, but that doesn't mean military support. It could mean any of 1000 different things. He's pragmatic, and speaks with the language of pragmatism, not the language of politics.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Honestly, like, all through the election campaign and the last year, Liberal supporters have been crowing about how uniquely suited to this moment Carney is, how brilliant a tactician he is.

Now it's becoming clear to them that the critics, who correctly clocked him as a ruthless capitalist who doesn't care about the public he's supposed to be serving, were right all along.

So the excuses start flying. I've heard some version of "Carney just needs more experience" at least a dozen times in the last couple days.

This is a serious moment, not a time for excuses. If he's not up to the job, then demand his replacement.

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not making excuses. I said he's not a politician and he doesn't talk like one. He's actually honest and doesn't deliver platitudes. That's refreshing. But as I said, it does him no favours.

So, I absolutely think he's up for the job, even if he is far from my first choice.

And to be clear, I don't support a lot of what he has said or done, but I also support a lot. Even with the things I disagree with, I'm not sure what he could do differently. Our current reality is we are bordering with a country run by a pudding brained psychopath that has flat out declared his desire to conquer us. Taking the preferred path will not always net us what we need, which currently is a defence against an aggressive and evil megalomaniac who has a stated goal of forcing our entire side of the world into being their vassals.

Out of all of the leaders in the last election, we got the one best suited to slay the current dragon.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Honest? Carney has been actively pushing US & Israeli propaganda by lying about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons aims/capabilities. Even the CIA agrees that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons!

Carney isn't 'playing defence against the US' here; he's outright pushing the exact falsehoods that were the pretext for this unprovoked attack by a fascist state that he is still calling our "ally".

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

An Avi Lewis NDP is gonna make gains in a sitiation where both Carney and PP do not reject getting Canada into a Mid East war started by Israel and US.

[–] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

[ Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights

So here's the thing. The USA has been using the events of 11/09/2001 as a casus belli liberally since the event. International law has still not caught up to this decision, so they continue to work in this neat little grey area.

Is it right? Nope.

Is it bullshit that a security council member changed International Law unilaterally? Yup.

Is it legal? So far, yes.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Thanks; now I understand him better…

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

He was talking like a real politician during the compaign. Politicians always use vague languages like he did to use it as an excuse to whst he really believe

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago

Davos Carney was cool, but he hasn't been around much since Davos.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Pay less attention to what politicians say and more to what they do.

Canadian troops to be relocated from Middle East operations. Canada is withdrawing troops that were already stationed in the region when the Americans attacked. A few are remaining in place specifically to provide assistance with further evacuations if needed.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Edit: The article you linked contradicts your own summary of it. That's not good faith argumentation.

Anyway: Canada’s military chief says allies to talk defending Gulf states from Iran: Canada’s defence chief Gen. Jennie Carignan said allies are in talks about possibly helping Persian Gulf states defend themselves against bombing from Iran. Speaking to reporters at a defence and security conference in Ottawa Thursday, Carignan said a meeting is set for early Friday morning to discuss such a proposal among allied militaries and the Canadian Armed Forces would present a recommendation to the government.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Canada’s defence chief Gen. Jennie Carignan said allies are in talks

Emphasis added.

I just said to pay less attention to what's being said and more to what's being done. Talk is cheap, and it's going to result in a recommendation. ie, talk that results in something being said.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I notice you didn't pull a direct quote from the article you posted: "About 200 members of the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed in the Middle East on six different operations, but some are being moved to other areas or brought back to Canada as a result of the outbreak of war in the region." (emphasis added)

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I didn't pull that quote because it's unclear how it makes any difference. As long as the troops aren't deployed in the Middle East how are they going to help the war against Iran?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Did you read the quote? Because it shows that your first reply, where you said

Canada is withdrawing troops that were already stationed in the region when the Americans attacked.

was misrepresenting the actual situation. In fact, the article you linked also said that

Six others are being deployed abroad to act as liaison officers in the event that the military is asked to assist in civilian evacuations in the region

which is quite different from what you said:

A few are remaining in place specifically to provide assistance with further evacuations if needed.

Anyway as for the other quote

"About 200 members of the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed in the Middle East on six different operations, but some are being moved to other areas or brought back to Canada as a result of the outbreak of war in the region.”

the implication of the word "some", in this context, is that "most" of the troops that were already there will remain there. And there are discussions happening in a few hours about whether to send more. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent the situation?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You are trying really really really hard to find every possible little way to interpret this situation as "Fuck Carney" fodder. Accusing me of "deliberately trying to misinterpret the situation" is rich.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

So, ad hominem rather than looking at the facts. Ok then

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

It was always about greenland and the threat of annexation. I don't understand how many was fooled by him

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A politician full of shit in a speech? Impossible!

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

What's next, hiring Gregor Robinson as housing minister to make housing affordable?

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yeah I reached out to my local Liberal MP over this. Some initial lip-service is fine since the US attack came suddenly and unexpectedly, so I'm okay with what he's said so far. But at a certain point I'd rather he just come out and say either we support US jingoism wholeheartedly, or we reject it and not be mealymouthed over it.