You must log in or # to comment.
If I’m Pierre Poilievre, I stop running against the mobilization. Attacking a wartime footing the public demanded is a losing argument. I start positioning as the owner of the peace: the person with a plan for what comes after, for the pay stub and the mortgage renewal. Attlee, not the anti-Churchill.
So is this article supposed to be fantasy, science fiction, or comedy?
PP tried to not be negative… for about a week. He cannot go longer than that without saying something negative. He’s a debate club kid, whatever the topic is he is compelled to debate the other side. He is incapable of doing anything else.
To be fair, it is wartime.
Unfortunately, he keeps siding with the US and against the Canadian working class.
His stances are confusing. He seems to be opposed and pissing Trump off at times but kissing his ass the next. Carney is a hard right banker and still has the sign up that he says we must acknowledge was always a lie.
His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it, as Iran is opposed to western hegemony and thus is a threat to western banks (that he has devoted his life to), but just so much other shit like the privacy and civil rights erosion bills that also work hand in hand with US corporations and authorities make me wonder if his opposition to annexation is sincere or he is just hoping it is a purely Trump thing and when the old orange bastard finally dies his successors will want business as usual (all bowing to the false sign idol he condemned at Davos) and they can continue dismantling everything for the top 0.1%, with a bone tossed to the remaining middle class that will no longer be more than 10% and keep the rest a permanent underclass.
The world isn’t as simple as good guys vs. bad guys. It’s all shades of grey, and your ally on one issue might be your adversary on another issue.
His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it, as Iran is opposed to western hegemony and thus is a threat to western banks
He’s said why from the very beginning. Iran having nuclear weapons would be bad for everyone. He’s suggested people read the IAEA reports on Iran. Have you? There’s no need to speculate on what his intentions are, you just need to do some reading.
First of all, Iran is not now, nor has it ever been, interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. I am not talking about some pie-in-the-sky hippie talk on some stoned out guy who doesn’t know what year it is, but this is based on the intelligence reports of the CIA and without question probably MI6, CSIS, the French DGSE and others. There is no nuclear weapons program.
They are still holding onto the claim that they want no nuclear weapons even if at this point in time it might actually make sense for them to actually WANT nukes, given the sheer bullshit the US and Israel is doing now they might actually have a fully logical justification for wanting it. Not because they want to nuke Europe or establish some global Shia caliphate, but simply as a way of holding up the same gun being held against them.
Prior to the 1979 revolution, Israel and Iran were actually allies. The main reason was due to the anti-Arabism and opposition to Arab nationalism of the Shah’s regime that acted as a major thorn in their neighbor’s sides. After the revolution this changed for obvious reasons. For a while Saddam was ‘our man in the Middle East’ due to the Iran-Iraq war (which I do not believe was instigated by the CIA. Saddam did that on his own feeling he can acquire more territory due to the rapidly changing and weakened position Iran had at the time), but Israel also always hated Iraq from the get-go and has been doing to them what they wish they could have been doing to the Iranians from day one. Constantly committing terrorism and bombing against Iraq when they had even the slightest interest in their own nuclear energy program (they bombed them in the 60s or 70s and killed some French nuclear scientists).
The main thing they have wanted with Iran now is the same thing they wanted from day 1 in 1979. They want to turn Iran into a failed state. They want internal chaos, people killing each other over nothing, and unable to organize in any shape or form. This is what they have done to Iraq post-first Gulf War (1990s Iraq was a shithole) and post-2003 Iraq War (which effectively turned the place into a quagmire from which it might not recover from for multiple lifetimes).
Second of all, yes… it is a shades of grey situation. But it isn’t what you think. I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the authoritarian religious rulers of Iran, anymore than I would have supported the authoritarian secular ruler of Iran pre-1979. Both were brutal in very similar ways.
But one thing I do not understand is how anyone, whether they are some random middle aged lemmiverse user like myself, or a leader of a large and fairly important country like Canada, could possibly think that ANY of this is a good idea for the reasons they think. The only fucking reason Iran is being attacked like this is because Netenyahu has the US by the balls (and his hands aren’t fully off yet) and he’s forcing this action because he has an aging absolute moron who is readily and easily bribeable in power, and the people he appointed are braindead ideologically driven religious fanatics and racials supremacists who would rather see the whole world burn in nuclear hellfire (or human-induced hellfire) than see a single non-white people not behave like Stepin Fetchit.
Does Carney really think that by doing what they’re doing now they’re going to actually liberate Iran? I am not a political scientist, but I have been watching political news for my entire adult life (even going before I was an adult) and one thing I learned is this: No matter how shitty a regime is to its people, the INSTANT they are under foreign attack, people will rally to the flag and behind the same shitty leader that had his army shoot at them barely days before. It happened with Saddam, it happened in Vietnam before it, it happened in Nazi Germany during WW2 (the post-WW2 guilty didn’t start until a new generation grew up after the war and it only got started in the 1960s and 70s. Prior to that the average German really didn’t know about Auschwitz and the majority opinion was denail of the holocaust).
I am not immune to it either. I fucking hated Trudeau for his lackluster reaction to the housing crisis that is effecting me every single day, and his gun laws that are both expensive and ineffective… but at the same when Trump started talking about Annexing Canada and Trudeau said ‘not a snowball’s chance in hell of Canada becoming the 51st state’ I couldn’t help but be supportive of him.
Carney’s support for the war is not based on humanitarian grounds or the belief that the religious regime should be overthrown because it will result in better lives for the average Iranian. Carney does not give one singular DAMN about the average Canadian at home. I will say it again. He is 100% interested in protecting the economic, military, and political hegemony of western banks over everything else. He will send the entire Iranian population to hell if it meant saving a single dollar for the banks.
First of all, Iran is not now, nor has it ever been, interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. I am not talking about some pie-in-the-sky hippie talk on some stoned out guy who doesn’t know what year it is, but this is based on the intelligence reports of the CIA and without question probably MI6, CSIS, the French DGSE and others. There is no nuclear weapons program.
Show me these reports. Otherwise it is just pie-in-the-sky hippy talk.
The JCPOA was a deal Obama made with Iran about… what exactly? If there never was an Iran nuclear program, then what did Obama make a deal with them about?
The rest of your post is just a lot of rambling based on this pie-in-the-sky hippie talk that you’re pretending is real.
Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That’s been a primary factor in negotiations with Iran for decades. Just do a search there is a lot of information about this.
Here:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291
Are you claiming the UN is lying about Iran having a nuclear program?
Iran was attacked out of nowhere, by one of the most incompetent and overconfident militaries on the planet, and now has more power and freedom than it started with. Supporting that invasion is the realm of fools and idiots. Still, within less than 24hrs, he said “we will unconditionally support the US in this war”.
Carney’s “elbows up” was to make ignorant people feel good about themselves while he sells the country out from under us, often times to US-based companies. He’s nothing but a traitor.
Ok, so you’re just pretending to ignore anything that doesn’t fit the narrative you want to believe.
For anyone else that cares about reality:
- Iran has been purifying uranium beyond what’s needed for a civilian reactor
- Iran doesn’t need to purify uranium at all because they purchase uranium from Russia that’s already purified to the level needed for their civilian reactor
- The IAEA reported that Iran was secretly moving uranium to locations that they claimed there wasn’t uranium (gieger counters don’t lie)
- Iran has very often officially stated they seek to be an existential threat to Israel
- Iran also has a ritual where they routinely chant “Death to America”
- Iran has troll farms engaged in an international propaganda campaign that has been remarkably effective at reaching the youth in the western world which has resulted in violence in western countries (notably the Bondi massacre)
- Hamas (Iran’s proxy) massacred Israeli villages which resulted in a war in which around 75,000 people died.
- Iran was party to the Syrian civil war in which at least 500,000 people died, and created a refugee crisis for the world
Sure, Trump was an idiot for cancelling the JCPOA in his first term. But that is not an excuse for the horrible things Iran has done. The Iranian narrative is that they would never ever build a nuclear weapon (which is false, there is no civilian use for uranium purifies above 5%) they were just minding their own business (which is false, they’ve been supporting terrorism across the middle east for decades and trying to spread terrorism into western countries) and there was absolutely no reason for anyone to attack them.
As Carney has said, we should take the world as it is, not how we want it to be.
I wish Trump didn’t cancel the JCPOA in his first term. I wish Trump never got elected. I wish Americans understood that by electing Trump a second time, a war with Iran was inevitable. I wish Iran didn’t have a nuclear weapons program. I wish they didn’t directly support terrorism in the Middle East. I wish October 7 never happened. I wish Iran’s troll farms weren’t propagandizing young people. I wish the Bondi massacre never happened.
But that’s just wishing, it’s not reality. Some of us think about how the world actually is. You’re thinking about how you want the world to be. That’s why Carney’s actions are so confusing to you.
Even the CIA said that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon
Are you referring to last year when Russian asset and cult member Tulsi Gabbard said they aren’t building a nuclear weapon… but also admitted they were enriching uranium to a higher levels? Is that your source? What are they enriching the uranium for, Tulsi?
Yeah, I’m just going to stick with listening to the IAEA (and the basic logic of uranium enrichment above 5% having no purpose other than for a nuclear weapon) and ignore whatever comes out of the US cabinet clownshow.
His support for the Iran war could be that he genuinely believes it
I suspect there’s a bit more nuance involved.
Most people would agree that the Iranian regieme is/was bad for both their own citizens and for the region.
But at the same time, what the Israelis and Americans did by starting a war with Iran is also a bad thing for the citizens of Iran and the region (and the rest of the world). Even if it did disrupt that immoral Iranian regime.
I will repost what I wrote above:
First of all, Iran is not now, nor has it ever been, interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. I am not talking about some pie-in-the-sky hippie talk on some stoned out guy who doesn’t know what year it is, but this is based on the intelligence reports of the CIA and without question probably MI6, CSIS, the French DGSE and others. There is no nuclear weapons program.
They are still holding onto the claim that they want no nuclear weapons even if at this point in time it might actually make sense for them to actually WANT nukes, given the sheer bullshit the US and Israel is doing now they might actually have a fully logical justification for wanting it. Not because they want to nuke Europe or establish some global Shia caliphate, but simply as a way of holding up the same gun being held against them.
Prior to the 1979 revolution, Israel and Iran were actually allies. The main reason was due to the anti-Arabism and opposition to Arab nationalism of the Shah’s regime that acted as a major thorn in their neighbor’s sides. After the revolution this changed for obvious reasons. For a while Saddam was ‘our man in the Middle East’ due to the Iran-Iraq war (which I do not believe was instigated by the CIA. Saddam did that on his own feeling he can acquire more territory due to the rapidly changing and weakened position Iran had at the time), but Israel also always hated Iraq from the get-go and has been doing to them what they wish they could have been doing to the Iranians from day one. Constantly committing terrorism and bombing against Iraq when they had even the slightest interest in their own nuclear energy program (they bombed them in the 60s or 70s and killed some French nuclear scientists).
The main thing they have wanted with Iran now is the same thing they wanted from day 1 in 1979. They want to turn Iran into a failed state. They want internal chaos, people killing each other over nothing, and unable to organize in any shape or form. This is what they have done to Iraq post-first Gulf War (1990s Iraq was a shithole) and post-2003 Iraq War (which effectively turned the place into a quagmire from which it might not recover from for multiple lifetimes).
Second of all, yes… it is a shades of grey situation. But it isn’t what you think. I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the authoritarian religious rulers of Iran, anymore than I would have supported the authoritarian secular ruler of Iran pre-1979. Both were brutal in very similar ways.
But one thing I do not understand is how anyone, whether they are some random middle aged lemmiverse user like myself, or a leader of a large and fairly important country like Canada, could possibly think that ANY of this is a good idea for the reasons they think. The only fucking reason Iran is being attacked like this is because Netenyahu has the US by the balls (and his hands aren’t fully off yet) and he’s forcing this action because he has an aging absolute moron who is readily and easily bribeable in power, and the people he appointed are braindead ideologically driven religious fanatics and racials supremacists who would rather see the whole world burn in nuclear hellfire (or human-induced hellfire) than see a single non-white people not behave like Stepin Fetchit.
Does Carney really think that by doing what they’re doing now they’re going to actually liberate Iran? I am not a political scientist, but I have been watching political news for my entire adult life (even going before I was an adult) and one thing I learned is this: No matter how shitty a regime is to its people, the INSTANT they are under foreign attack, people will rally to the flag and behind the same shitty leader that had his army shoot at them barely days before. It happened with Saddam, it happened in Vietnam before it, it happened in Nazi Germany during WW2 (the post-WW2 guilty didn’t start until a new generation grew up after the war and it only got started in the 1960s and 70s. Prior to that the average German really didn’t know about Auschwitz and the majority opinion was denail of the holocaust).
I am not immune to it either. I fucking hated Trudeau for his lackluster reaction to the housing crisis that is effecting me every single day, and his gun laws that are both expensive and ineffective… but at the same when Trump started talking about Annexing Canada and Trudeau said ‘not a snowball’s chance in hell of Canada becoming the 51st state’ I couldn’t help but be supportive of him.
Carney’s support for the war is not based on humanitarian grounds or the belief that the religious regime should be overthrown because it will result in better lives for the average Iranian. Carney does not give one singular DAMN about the average Canadian at home. I will say it again. He is 100% interested in protecting the economic, military, and political hegemony of western banks over everything else. He will send the entire Iranian population to hell if it meant saving a single dollar for the banks.
Shock Doctrine 101
It kind of is.
The USA literally declared economic warfare on Canada, and made multiple threats to Canadian sovereignty.
How is that anything but a war-level action?
Canada is acting out of survival. Like an abused wife, we are doing everything we can to get out the door, while keeping a smile on to placate to this egomaniac in the Whitehouse.
I’m sorry, isolationism by the US is not “war” no matter how much the media tries to use that specifically terminology.
And neither is it an excuse for centralizing power, making partisan appointments when they’ve historically been democratic, or running up a war budget when a quarter of the population can’t afford food on the table.
Venezuela is being run by Rubio as a Banana Republic, except with oil. The president is talking openly about annexing us. Do the math.
Yes, and Iran invasion, and Cuba blockade, etc…
Again, we are not at open war (bullets flying, missiles dropping) for us to not care if centralization of power or when subverting parts of our democracy is happening.
The premise of the post and article is centralization of power as if it’s wartime, and we’re not at active war.
There are more kinds of wars than shooting wars.
USA is not being isolationist.
They initiated regime change in Venezuela in January and invaded Iran in February.
They’re also actively participating in trade talks.
You need to re-evaluate your opinions on things if you’re operating on such misconceptions.
I’m sorry, why would it be considered a misconception that I don’t want power centralized?
If you seriously and genuinely read that comment to mean I disagree with your thoughts on centralization of power than you lack the reading comprehension to participate in this conversation.
Go back to middle school English class or drop the disingenuous act and acknowledge that you were mistaken on your assumption about what isolationism is.
What do you think tariffs are? They’re literally defined as isolationist and protectionist methods by a government.
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/tariffs-and-economic-isolationism-four-principles-for-a-response/
https://uslawexplained.com/isolationism
Here’s a wikipedia article if you’d like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
It’s also the terminology applied preceding to WW2 when isolationist policies of European countries applied tariffs to imports from competing empires. Which is why the couldn’t recover well from WW1.
So I appreciate the condescending tone, I really do.
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs” and that’s what you decided to be aggressive about when the main premise is Carney’s overreach of power, then that’s not my problem.
At least you’re probably human. A bot would have replied on topic.
Do you use? Or are you just incredibly creative?
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs”
I never mentioned tariffs. Youre not good at conversations.
My issue is youre dishonest and misinformed. I’ll be blocking you now as you contribute negatively to my lemmy experience.
Did we forget the whole “join us, voluntarily or not” rhetoric coming from the White House? That language alone was a threat of war. Actual war. Like, with tanks and shit.
Carney is engaging in disaster capitalism, and must be called out for that. But let’s not forget the disaster part.
Well I’m just glad that someone is mentioning disaster capitalism and that really is my main point to the premise of this post about centralization of power.
My “war” in quotations was about the economic war. Trump’s posturing is fucked up, aggressive, and definitely threatening; and he was betting on Canada buying weapons from the US for protection like Denmark is doing.
I agree that it’s only a “war” in the sense like a “price war”, not an actual war. But it’s still open aggression and falls on the same gradient.
If we’re willing to abandon Democratic principles when war (actual battle) hasn’t even been declared, then I don’t see much hope for what will be left of our current democracy when/if that happens.
You can reframe the point all you want. Bottom line is trump laid a wide suite of tariffs against Canada to create a win lose dynamic.
Its has direct negative impacts on the canadian economy and it was every bit intentional to do exactly that.
Trump attacked Canada, full stop.
Nice how you manage to conveniently gloss over his direct threats to canadian sovereignty.
And remember I said economic war, never suggested there was military involvement.
My friend, the point is he’s governing as if it’s a military war by centralizing the power of government. If you were looking at a different country and saw the same actions, you would judge their leadership a lot more harshly
Even if they are, so what?
If you were looking at a different country that was actively being bullied, would you argue some crap about centralizing power?
If Denmark started centralizing power in response to trumps threats to the sovereignty of greenland, then what?
You talk like this is a problem that government is responding to external existential threats in the means that are available to them.
Are you arguing the Carney government should relinquish power?
Should they decentralize their capacity to influence things inside the country?
Perhaps you can answer just this.
What is your point?
Um…its not a choice of centralization or decentralization of power. What? Those aren’t the only choices!
Point: The choice is don’t go against the Democratic process and principles.
Like when he made a partisan appointment to roles of governance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-senate-tom-pitfield-9.7261037
Prime minister ends Trudeau-era policy of nonpartisan appointments
Following that thread, him appointing Martel to open another seat in that riding which Carney is betting goes to a liberal seat
On the one hand, the Prime Minister gets to say that he’s non-partisan by appointing a Conservative to the Senate. On the other hand, creating an opening in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord creates a situation where the Liberals can win another seat
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
Lol!
It is wartime, anyone not aware of this is dangerous.
People declaring “it is wartime” are ignoring he is using this to destroy the planet faster and throw indigenous rights in the trash.
And he is also trying to force legislation through that are utterly destroying civil rights and privacy rights in Canada and increasing data sharing on Canadians with US firms like palantir and others. If his intention was to make it harder for the US to invade and quash resistance then he is doing a terrible job of it.
Exactly this. I understand that sometimes freedoms need to be traded off for security. However the freedoms we are giving up are making our security worse and not better. Canada is still a consequence free society thats being manipulated by mass propaganda. We are only making those abilities stronger.
Trading freedom for security never worked. I understand that Ben Franklin was speaking from a purely 18th century perspective, but he was right on the money when he said his famous ‘those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and are not likely to get it’.
Also historically many laws passed during war time were repealed after the war was done. Ww1 and WW2 produced many temporary laws that restricted people in Canada, the US, and the UK, but they were repealed after the war.
Anti terrorist legislation passed after 9/11(and some countries passed stuff similar but before 9/11) did diddly squat to prevent terrorism or keep people safe, but it did prevent or make harder mass social movements like those of the 1950s to 70s.
It is wartime.
This is scratch kick and bite time.
If he was governing like it’s wartime, where’s the explosion of social and affordable housing?
That was all post war policies to address the shortages from people migrating to urban centers.
Not a fan of him but imo his best quality is being reasonable on an international stage.
Still think Trudeau was better
maple flavored imperialist nazi scum
Are you high?
They’re a .ml user. Don’t bother trying to look for rationality.
.ML detected, asininity rejected.
Sorry I am not one of the cool Lemmys but what does .ml have to do with it? I think it is a TLD but whats wrong wrong with .ml servers?
Just in case that’s a real question, the mods of, and the vast majority of subscribers to lemmy.ml have a weird counter-factual view of the world usually referred to (pejoratively) as “tankies”. ML is the domain chosen because it (also) stands for marxist-leninist.
Tankies seem to think that Russia continues the USSR’s fight for communism which isweird given Russia is a kleptocratic dictatorship closer to the US model than socialist let alone communist.
They do, accurately, view the US as one of the primary threats to world peace, but then indulge in all sorts of odd double think to make reality look like their desire for an imminent communist conversion of the world driven by mother russia.
The ability to pretend Putain is anything other than a fascist dictator puzzles me, but anyway:
TL;DR
LEMMY.ML predominently equals tankies with a tenuous grasp of reality
Yes it was a real question, thank you for the answer. I am a little further to the left than socialist beliefs but I also know the world is still suffering through capitalism.
Nothing wrong with .ml servers.
The users however…
i wish hehe
canada is just as imperialist and nazi as the great imperialist states of america, theyre just as guilty of neocolonialism as the eu
Canada is nazi? Youre a complete moron
Nobody is saying otherwise. You’re like Sharon in south park trying to police everyone else’s emotions.
Go back to Russia troll.
I’m getting increasingly uncomfortable with François-Philippe Champagne’s record… There may not be proof of personal corruption, but there are enough conflict-of-interest and oversight concerns that people should be paying closer attention: the Alto situation involving his partner, federal funding received by his father’s company while a conflict screen was supposedly in place, and the massive SDTC governance failure under his department.
Now the government is eliminating the Underused Housing Tax and the luxury tax on private aircraft and expensive vessels.
Who benefits from that? Foreign owners of underused Canadian homes, wealthy buyers of private planes and yachts, and the industries selling those assets. Ordinary Canadians receive little or no direct benefit, while the government gives up hundreds of millions in revenue.
Joly is pretty bad too. When Amazon workers successfully unionized in Quebec, it’s her brothers company that’s stepped in and been the scabs.
