this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
69 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10057 readers
1083 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security, and Canada has been consistently clear that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

While U.S. military action taken last night was designed to alleviate that threat, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. Stability in the region is a priority.

Canada calls on parties to return immediately to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis. As G7 leaders agreed in Kananaskis, the resolution of the Iranian crisis should lead to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza.

(With apologies for the Twitter link, this post doesn't seem to have been copied over to Bluesky.)

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You had better channel your inner Chretien and keep us the fuck out of this, Carney.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Forget about it he's all in already.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why?

Why is Iran's nuclear programme such a grave threat? A grave threat, as opposed to... What exactly?

What makes China, Pakistan, Russia, India, or North Korea less of a threat?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

To take the other side (not sure I agree):

Iran is unique in that it is run by a government that claims to be Islamic fundamentalists. This could make mutually assured destruction less effective if the ones launching the nukes truly believe that if they die in the retaliation they will go to heaven with their 72 virgins.

I'm not convinced that the Ayatollah is ok dying in the name of killing infidels, but I do see the merits of this argument.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Well, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrosit groups, arming and financing many in region to attack neighbours. You don't see China arming terrorists in Mongolia or Vietnam to overthrow their governments, for starters. Then there is the bit where their official policy is basically to end the state of Israel. And there's the fact that they have used terror themselves, kidnapping and extorsion to directly confront the west before, kidnap US citizens and fought wars against the western countries and allies. And both their official internal and external policies and policy goals are frankly terrifying.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

As opposed to Israel’s actual genocide.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

So... They're basically the same as the US and Russia?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nah, China just does oppression and genocide inside their borders. Oh and taking hostages as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's the point. From an international relations standpoint there's no major issue with China where humans rights violations are concerned. Since the don't arm groups outside their borders, there doesn't need to be an international response for that because there's no international threat. The tensions with China are mostly with respect to Taiwan and trade.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Wasn't there a country operating 'police stations' all over Canada? Which country was that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

So taking hostages isn't an international issue?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

These idiots are building fake outrage and risking world peace to stroke their egos and install authoritarian regimes designed to increase the funneling of wealth from the havenots to the haves. Fuck this war, fuck any wars. Go fight them yourselves.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Its called military keynesianism. Its how the US creates dollars, which are then imported into Europe and the globe.

Places like Europe, Canada, and China maintain a net export with the US, importing USD, which stabilizes their currency. The US imports debt and runs a large deficits in order to supply USD to the world. This is what Trump seemingly wants to milk to drop corporate tax, and thus Europe now has to build up their military, in order for their economic system to continue to function without USD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwqdo5eHJH0

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

That Varoufakis speech was excellent. Thanks so much for sharing!

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Either everyone gets nukes or no one gets nukes. Iran has every right to have them. Fuck I'd rather they have em than the Zionists next door who basically run a death cult.

And Ill wager any "nuke" that ever goes off in North America will end up being an Israeli false flag.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

And Ill wager any "nuke" that ever goes off in North America will end up being an Israeli false flag.

I'll take that bet; I figure the first nuke to be used in anger on this side of the pond will be during the second American civil war

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel like that would almost guarantee Israel and Iran being turned into glass parking lots.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If your talking the nuke in the US, yea I agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I mean Iran having nukes. The least destructive outcome would probably be the one I mentioned. If the US got nuked, I think the world would be over.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

Shut up carney

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

what fucking idiots. the neighbor to the south has a documented history of using nukes and using them against civilians.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

A few months ago I said maybe Canadians shouldn't put their faith into a globalist neolib banker and got down-voted.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

The best of 2 bad options, simple as that. There was no win in this election.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

PP came out with even stronger statements backing Israel, so...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

The best of 2 bad options, simple as that. There was no win in this election.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So we're still USA's toy dog I see. edit: and/or Israel? I guess we watch their and our actions instead of words to find out soon enough. Abrahamic cults are embarrassing. Three of the majors except Mormons are involved this time.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To me, this statement sounds like not condoning America's actions but still walking the line as to not sabotage trade talks. This has been Carney's MO with Trump from the start, appease just enough without bending the knee to get a deal done.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's what it seems like to me as well.

The last paragraph reads tongue-in-cheek, reminding people that Trump is going against the G7, against America's own policies, and did nothing to alleviate tensions.

He knows if Trump even makes it to the last paragraph, he won't understand it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

What a joke of a prime minister!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Honestly part of me is agreeing that bombing these sites was good as long as they were building towards a nuke. If all this blows over in a month like a lot of things do lately, it is a bit of a safer world.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The USA intelligence people testified Iran wasn't building nukes, so who to believe?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then what are these facilities?

Would American intelligence reveal that they know they're building nukes if they had that information?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can refine uranium for power. Prior to trump breaking deals the Iranians had very low potent uranium. Mostly made up of 3.25 refinement. USA had dropped sanctions in agreement for not processing uranium past 20%. That was fine till trump got in power and broke the deal. Then they started refinement up to 60%. So there could be potential to further refine uranium over 90% purity to make weapons, but the amount they had was tiny, till trump fucked the deal

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I totally agree trump fucked the deal. He's an absolute narcissist. He wants to tear down anything from Democrats. He wants to put his name on everything.

But at the end of the day, I'm kind of rooting for him here. I'm hoping this all blows over quickly and we're in a world where Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons is crippled

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah cause the generations of Iranian children to come will just shrug and say “big Daddy America was correct to take away our stuff”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What's the alternative? Is that a regime who vocally says they will kill my children are allowed to get nukes?

That I should be ok with that because peace and love and hugs?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“Allowed”

Sorry daddy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What's the problem with your understanding of allowed here?

You think it's their choice lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I seriously doubt its all going to blow over. No retailiation by Iran sends a signal of " bomb us anyone, we don't fire back "

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For sure, but Iran doesn't have many options do they? I think by blow over, I mean they'll retaliate in the way these countries do. They will signal their attack loudly and early. USA and Israel will have time to prepare. Iran attacks. America says fuck you and does a return. Iran again does another attack with a huge signal to say look we're retaliating. Then it's all back to business as usual. Everybody gets to say they did something and they're all big bad boys.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

From a friend that has connections there, some Iranians welcomed the assaults because they want their current leader removed. And I'm sure USA would love to install a leader there again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

That's what I'm hearing of too. I'll honestly admit if Trump pulled this move and it leads to a regime change. Fuck I'll give it to him as a ballsy move that worked. I would think at this point if it works, and I were to deny the victory I would be doing it just because I don't like Trump and I think that's something I don't want to do just out of spite.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

This wont be blown over in a month though, all of the intelligence was saying they were not building bombs. If they had ever had the ability to build a bomb I am sure they would have let the world know about it, having nukes are nothing more than deterrence now people have seen the devastation they can do if they are armed and dropped hell they know the devastation and destruction they can do if they are just dropped without being armed.

Iran now has bigger enemies that there traditional iron dome cannot even protect them in the least. The uranium they were enriching for the power plant, medicine, and research now has a fourth use ‘dirty bombs.’ If they had no plans on making a weapon of mass destruction, as all evidence suggests, they do now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Elbows up! /s

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Well they're pretty determined to get one now!