Close Menu
    Politik

    Carney wählt im Iran-Krieg eine realpolitische Seite


    Carney wählt im Iran-Krieg eine realpolitische Seite

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opinion/article-carney-picks-a-realpolitik-side-on-iran-war/

    View 5 Comments

    5 Kommentare

    1. grooverocker on

      Crazy to me how so many people thought Carney’s speech at Davos was some kind of signal that we’d no longer participate in ANY „world order“ stuff.

      He never said that.

      Put another way, he said our reliance on red meat has ruptured. We’re no longer going to put the sign in the window for red meat… that doesn’t imply or even suggest that we’ll never eat red meat again. It means our diet will be more broad, selective, and only align with red meat when it’s in our best interest.

      What we should really be debating is what position on this Iran war best suits the needs of Canada.

    2. The-Figurehead on

      At this time in our history, Canada really needs to look out for number one.

      However you feel about the current attack on Iran, it’s simply not in Canada’s interest to make a stand against it.

    3. PDXFlameDragon on

      I wish he had held back on a response just a little bit so that the mistake of HOW the USA did it was obvious and the message could have been crafted better. At the time he made the statement it was not obvious that the USA murdered every leader who had the authority to negotiate a surrender so now all the republican guard units are perma-terrorist cells that will never surrender as a group.

    4. SledgexHammer on

      Just to be clear, Carneys Davos speech did not imply that we would not do something like this, in fact he implied quite the contrary. I’ve seen a lot of people trying to twist it with the „sign in the window“ rhetoric. This is opportunism, not capitulism. This is taking advantage of the situation to put Canada in the best position it has the power to be in.

    5. Plucky_DuckYa on

      I cant understand why so many are so animated in their anger over this.

      Two things can be true at once: 1) Trump has started a war that will destabilize the entire Middle East and likely did so for domestic political purposes, and 2) Iran and its leadership are (and now were in some cases) fuelling conflict and terrorist activity for decades, are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including huge numbers of their own citizens, and regularly threatened the destruction of Israel and were working toward building nuclear weapons toward that end.

      Khomeini and many of his senior leaders dead is a good thing. If the regime changes to something less hostile and proactively destabilizing that is also a good thing, both for the middle east and the Iranian people. Unfortunately, what may actually come next could be even worse. We just don’t know. But that doesn’t mean the boil didn’t need to be lanced.

    Leave A Reply