Mark Carneys Iran-Reaktion lässt Zweifel daran aufkommen, wofür er steht
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/mark-carneys-iran-reaction-raises-doubts-about-what-he-stands-for/article_60d803fd-2740-480b-b3bc-37d95e0f679e.html
Mark Carneys Iran-Reaktion lässt Zweifel daran aufkommen, wofür er steht
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/mark-carneys-iran-reaction-raises-doubts-about-what-he-stands-for/article_60d803fd-2740-480b-b3bc-37d95e0f679e.html
12 Kommentare
Unfortunately, we live in a post-ideology era. Pragmatism is what we need. What he stands for is way less important than how he reacts to a dangerous and changing world.
No, it doesn’t. CBC’s article was clickbait and they’ve already changed the headline.
Carney’s stance is basically: „Never say never but right now, no.“ and somehow it got twisted into a maybe when it really isn’t.
The IRGC is designated as a terrorist organization by our country so in that way, I suppose we support getting rid of them, so I understand what he’s trying to say.
Edit: It’s the Star, Carney could breathe wrong and they would report on it.
He’s a conservative neoliberal. He stands for corporate profits, and reducing the public sector. And he is doing that.
It is silly to expect a principled stance from a man this personally wealthy. From a banker.
It’s called political inexperience but business savvy!
He knows that CUSMA is still ongoing, and critical for Canada/US relations, despite the rhetoric coming from the us president and all his grifter friends…whom are just trying to line their pockets along with the president himself.
However, that statement probably did give pollievre and the Conservative Party of canada some extra points and a possible attack point.
I thought his support for America was about as tepid as he could possibly state without literally saying no. This questioning of his wording really sounds like extremely questionable journalism.
Only if you don’t read past headlines.
*Anyone* trying to make things like this a black and white issue is being disingenuous, naive, or both.
Canada has the largest number of Iranians outside of Iran. Those Iranian Canadians are very much looking for regime change… while Canada should be sympathetic to their plight we should not get involved and I think this is the way the PM is looking at it. We are also forgetting they killed Canadians and never brought closure to those families. I personally do not support any Middle East intervention, we stayed out of Iraq and we should stay far far away from this conflict.
He supports taking out leaders of terrorist organizations. He has no intention on joining the war but cannot rule it out 100% because if a Nato country is attacked and invokes Article 5 he is obligated to defend them. Seems pretty simple to me. Nuance really isn’t as complicated as some of you guys make it seem.
Conservatives think they have found a chink in Carney’s armour and have been trying to exploit it all week. This is all part of the long term effort to tear the man down.
A reminder that journalists don’t typically get to pick their headlines.
Also- I’ve been wondering about this a lot of lately; are there any contingencies for refusing orders in the army, similar to the “just following orders” isn’t an excuse, when it comes to working with militias committing war crimes?
Hopefully it doesn’t happen, but I’m not too stoked to think that Canadian soldiers should ever be working alongside openly genocidal militias like the IDF.
Does Canada have any sort of caviots for stuff like that within the forces?
Ask Spain or the UK how well it went telling the Orange baby to pound sand. We are lucky tot be in a position where we don’t have assets in the area, and can placate the Regime with token cautious support.
He stands for big money, there has never been any doubt. It’s quite literally the title of his book, he doesn’t hide it.