It was always about greenland and the threat of annexation. I don't understand how many was fooled by him
A politician full of shit in a speech? Impossible!
What's next, hiring Gregor Robinson as housing minister to make housing affordable?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
[ 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.
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
Thanks; now I understand him better…
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.
Davos Carney was cool, but he hasn't been around much since Davos.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.
So, ad hominem rather than looking at the facts. Ok then
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
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
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca