Share.

    3 Kommentare

    1. I wouldn’t classify it as a shift as much as it is a clarification. Canada supports actions to prevent Iranian nuclear proliferation & to protect the region from Iranian proxy/missile attacks, but it doesn’t support war and asserts that diplomacy & de-escalation is the superior solution.

    2. SomeDumRedditor on

      He’s really tripping all over his dick on this. 

      Maybe next time take the night before co-signing naked aggression and don’t let your lowkey warmongering foreign affairs minister pressure you into a statement. 

    3. Knight_Machiavelli on

      I’m not so sure it’s a shift so much as Carney’s inexperience as a politician showing. Trudeau would have simply said a lot of words that didn’t mean anything that people could interpret however they wanted. Carney basically said what most reasonable people think: we support the US taking action to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Most people support that basic statement.

      He didn’t comment specifically on military action likely for good reasons, he didn’t yet have enough intelligence to make an informed statement on it. Now that he has more information, he’s clarifying. An experienced politician would know to have phrased the initial statement more ambiguously because they know a clarification like this is going to come across as backtracking to low information voters.

    Leave A Reply