86
submitted 2 days ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JTode@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

To be fair, it is wartime.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Unfortunately, he keeps siding with the US and against the Canadian working class.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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.

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 87 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] JTode@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Venezuela is being run by Rubio as a Banana Republic, except with oil. The president is talking openly about annexing us. Do the math.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

There are more kinds of wars than shooting wars.

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

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?

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2026/07/07/pm-carney-poaches-conservative-mp-in-latest-batch-of-senate-appointments/

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.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Trump waging economic warfare against Canada.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Done the same and worse to Mexico. They're neither arming up or dismantling parts of their democratic process.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

It kind of is.

Shock Doctrine 101

[-] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 days ago

People declaring "it is wartime" are ignoring he is using this to destroy the planet faster and throw indigenous rights in the trash.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Sleeping_Elephant@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

It is wartime.

This is scratch kick and bite time.

[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago

Not a fan of him but imo his best quality is being reasonable on an international stage.

Still think Trudeau was better

[-] BinzyBoi@piefed.ca 9 points 2 days ago

If he was governing like it's wartime, where's the explosion of social and affordable housing?

[-] trainsrkool@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

maple flavored imperialist nazi scum

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago
[-] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They're a .ml user. Don't bother trying to look for rationality.

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

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?

[-] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] trainsrkool@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Polyphilic@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago

Canada is nazi? Youre a complete moron

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

Go back to Russia troll.

[-] JustDorky@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Sleeping_Elephant@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

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.

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
86 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

12154 readers
533 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS