Some Advice To Mark Carney

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
98,407
26,274
113
MAGA's warmongering is costing us.

Pre trump's destruction of treaties, NATO members were happy to not spend the limit and to not live in fear. Now everybody is worried that anyone can attack anyone else again so now Carney thinks we need to spend 5% of GDP on weapons.
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,453
618
113
Are you trying, much like your predecessor, to convert the rest of the world to "zionism"?
Do we have a treaty obligation to UKraine's defence? Where is the national debate on the relevance of NATO? Carney is bandying about tens of billions as if they are sitting there in our piggy bank.
Having declared that the US is no longer a "reliable partner" is it sane policy to flee to Europe and embrace the war in Ukraine?


Canada announces $4.3-billion in new Ukraine aid and sanctions on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’
Steven ChaseSenior parliamentary reporter
Kananaskis, alta.
Published June 17, 2025




Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning at the G7 summit and said Canada would offer the country additional military aid and more support in the form of loans.
Reuters
Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced $4.3-billion in new Canadian support for Ukraine’s war effort and more sanctions targeting the “shadow fleet” of vessels that Russia is using to skirt international trade restrictions.
The measures, unveiled Tuesday, comprise of $2-billion in military support for Kyiv – including funds for drones, ammunition and armoured vehicles – as well as a $2.3-billion loan to help Ukraine rebuild public infrastructure shattered by years of Russian bombing.
Separately, the G7 summit that Canada hosted this week in Kananaskis, Alta., cancelled plans to issue a joint statement on Moscow’s war on Ukraine because the United States wanted to water down the wording too much, a Canadian official told reporters at the summit.
Late Friday, however, Prime Minister’s Office spokesperson Emily Williams issued a statement to retract this assertion, saying it been made in error and was based on a breakdown in internal communications.
G7 agrees on narrow set of issues as trade tensions overshadow summit
Tuesday’s announcement marks Canada’s first substantive support for Ukraine since Mr. Carney became Prime Minister in March. The Prime Minister’s Office said the money was tucked into Ottawa’s big defence spending hike unveiled earlier this month but not announced until now.
The “shadow fleet” sanctions – which target more than 200 foreign registered vessels – follow similar measures unveiled by Britain and the European Union in recent years. These vessels are used to sell Russian oil to raise money for Moscow, now into the fourth year of its war on Ukraine.
Canada’s new measures add 201 more shadow fleet vessels to the list of Russia-linked vessels involved in the illicit movement of oil, liquefied natural gas and arms for the benefit of Moscow. In total, Ottawa now has sanctions against more than 300 vessels.
Canada also announced export-restriction sanctions on goods related to the production of chemical and biological weapons, as well as industrial goods and advanced technologies that have both civilian and military applications.
Open this photo in gallery:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis, Alta, June 17.Suzanne Plunkett/The Associated Press
New import restrictions also block Canadian companies, even those operating abroad, from sourcing nickel, aluminum, coal from Russia – sales that can benefit Moscow’s war machine.
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand also announced Canada is imposing additional sanctions on 77 individuals and 39 entities.

Campbell Clark: Even when he’s smiling, Trump stands apart
Targets include three individuals, and 14 entities involved in the development of quantum technology in Russia, a sensitive sector that can have various dual-use military applications and be leveraged by the Kremlin to bolster its military.
Ottawa is also applying sanctions on three financial entities who directly support the Kremlin in moving funds in and out of Russia to pay for arms and other war-related material; toughening sanctions on Surgutneftegas, a major Russian oil and gas company; and imposing sanctions on 15 additional individuals and entities that enable Russia’s shadow fleet to conduct its activities.
Canada’s sanctions bar targeted individuals from travelling to this country, freeze any assets people or companies might have in Canada and prohibit Canadian financial institutions from providing services to them. It would also prevent Canadians from providing marine repair or supply or insurance services to the Russia-linked shadow fleet.
Opinion: The G7 is dead – time to move on to the G6
John Boscariol, head of McCarthy Tétrault’s international trade and investment law group, said that even if those individuals or companies now under sanction have no dealings with Canada, Ottawa’s new measures prevent them from turning to this country for business or financial services if they are seeking new bankers or suppliers after being barred in the European Union, U.S. and Britain. It also prevents Canadians or Canadian companies outside this country from dealing with these people, companies or vessels.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at the G7 summit Tuesday looking for more help and tougher sanctions on Moscow. Hopes for a united show of support were dashed by Mr. Trump, who made another pitch to bring Russia back into the G7 fold and left the gathering early, late Monday.
Mr. Zelensky made his pitch Tuesday morning to other G7 leaders while Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv recovered from the deadliest attack by Russia in mo

































Firefighters walk at the site of Russian drone and missile strikes, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv. Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters


















An overnight Russian missile and drone bombardment of Ukraine killed 15 people and injured 156, local officials said Tuesday, with the main barrage demolishing a nine-story Kyiv apartment building in the deadliest attack on the capital this year.
Mr. Carney expressed sympathy for victims of the latest “barbarism from Russia” in Kyiv.
“This underscores the importance of staying in total solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people,” he said.
The Prime Minister said G7 leaders discussed Ukraine Monday night: “We underscored the importance of using maximum pressure against Russia, who has refused to come to the table.”
Mr. Zelensky thanked Mr. Carney for applying the new sanctions and offering additional military support. He called the Russian attack overnight “a big tragedy for” Ukraine.
“Really it was a big attack on civilian infrastructure. On people. Just people, houses.”
Mr. Trump, who since taking office has sought but failed to broker peace between the two countries, suggested earlier this month that the two sides may just need to “keep fighting” before a ceasefire is possible.
On Monday, he renewed his pitch to expand the G7.
“I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in,” Mr. Trump said of the grouping. “You spend so much time talking about Russia, and [Russian President Vladimir Putin is] no longer at the table.”
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
98,407
26,274
113
  • Like
Reactions: niniveh

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,969
7,882
113
Canada has until 2035 to meet the 5% NATO target on Defend Spending.
Trump is not going to be in office by that time. I'm sure that any future Democratic President will find that goal a bit far fetched.
No NATO member besides the Estonia, or Poland will probably be close to that figure. They have to spend on defence as Russia is a huge threat to them.
Nothing to worry about for now!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
98,407
26,274
113
Canada has until 2035 to meet the 5% NATO target on Defend Spending.
Trump is not going to be in office by that time. I'm sure that any future Democratic President will find that goal a bit far fetched.
No NATO member besides the Estonia, or Poland will probably be close to that figure. They have to spend on defence as Russia is a huge threat to them.
Nothing to worry about for now!!
Carney says he will cut programs to fund weapons.
Which ones?

 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,969
7,882
113
Carney says he will cut programs to fund weapons.
Which ones?

Well in this article there was no mention of cutting any programs, and it is much less than what was spent on programs during the Pandemic:

 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,969
7,882
113
Liar Trump claimed that Canada was charging tariffs of 400% on US Dairy and that is why they are suffering. Two Pinocchios in that liar of a statement. Canada has not charged 400% tariffs on US dairy and the only reason that the US Farmers are suffering is mainly due to their migrant workers being forcefully snatched from those farm fields by ICE and due for deportation!!

Another huge Pinocchio on Trump's part was Inflation being the highest in history under Biden at "19%". But it is even "Much Higher" than that. Liar Lama Trump then claims that it is now the "lowest" under his watch. We all know that under Biden the inflation rate immediately after the Pandemic hit a high of < 10%. It was then down to a low of 2.4% in September 2024 under Biden's watch. In May under Liar Lama Trump, it has ticked up to 2.7%!! :D :LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
35,824
70,108
113
Your definition of 'strategic voting' means you think its therefore ok to vote for someone aiding the worst crime known to humanity, genocide.
Of course it does.

Either you won't vote for people who break the law or you should admit that you have Wilhoit exceptions to the law.
That's not how it works and at this point I can only conclude you are refusing to understand on purpose.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
98,407
26,274
113
Of course it does.
Then you are no different from MAGA voting for a felon and perhaps even worse if you are willing to vote to aid genocide in order to maybe get a tax break or better health care.
MAGA declared that the US would be destroyed if they didn't back the rapist and felon, you argued that the US would be destroyed if you didn't vote for genocide.

That's not how it works and at this point I can only conclude you are refusing to understand on purpose.
I fully understand that this is a point you will try to dismiss endlessly and never defend.
That is the difference between us. You are more of the expert on governance and US democracy yet despite knowing the history are willing to repeat it.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
35,824
70,108
113
Then you are no different from MAGA voting for a felon and perhaps even worse if you are willing to vote to aid genocide in order to maybe get a tax break or better health care.
I understand that this is view you hold, erroneous as it might be.

MAGA declared that the US would be destroyed if they didn't back the rapist and felon, you argued that the US would be destroyed if you didn't vote for genocide.
And yet, I didn't vote for genocide.
We've been over your complete lack of understanding of voting in the past.
We won't be rehashing it here.

I fully understand that this is a point you will try to dismiss endlessly and never defend.
There's nothing to defend.
It's like you saying "You shouldn't pull your goalie before trying for a touchdown."

That is the difference between us. You are more of the expert on governance and US democracy yet despite knowing the history are willing to repeat it.
You don't even understand voting and somehow "not voting means we won't repeat history" is your argument now?
--smh--
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
98,407
26,274
113
I understand that this is view you hold, erroneous as it might be.
Yes, and I understand that your view is that you are more informed and therefore your view is the correct one.

And yet, I didn't vote for genocide.
We've been over your complete lack of understanding of voting in the past.
We won't be rehashing it here.
You can argue that you were voting only for democrats social policies, immigration plans or just because you wanted to stop trump. But you were also voting for aiding genocide. Backing genocide was not a deal breaker for you. MAGA might argue that voting for a rapist is ok because it might mean tax breaks. You argued that voting for a candidate who is backing the worst crime against humanity know was acceptable, for whatever reason.

There's nothing to defend.
It's like you saying "You shouldn't pull your goalie before trying for a touchdown."
I know, you feel very justified in arguing that voting for a candidate who backed genocide was the best choice.

You don't even understand voting and somehow "not voting means we won't repeat history" is your argument now?
--smh--
We have been over this and you are smart enough to know there were other options. You just didn't seem think that there was a need to worry about genocide.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
35,824
70,108
113
Yes, and I understand that your view is that you are more informed and therefore your view is the correct one.
When it comes to things I am correct about, yes.

You can argue that you were voting only for democrats social policies, immigration plans or just because you wanted to stop trump. But you were also voting for aiding genocide. Backing genocide was not a deal breaker for you. MAGA might argue that voting for a rapist is ok because it might mean tax breaks. You argued that voting for a candidate who is backing the worst crime against humanity know was acceptable, for whatever reason.
Because it was obviously morally acceptable given the opposite.
Voting isn't a statement of your moral purity.
That you don't understand this is something I've given up trying to educate you on.

I have never voted for a government I didn't disagree with on policy.
Sometimes violently so.

And to be fair, you did say that anyone who said social policies, immigration, and the damage to lives that would be done factoring into their decision was a moral monster.
It isn't like you are just making it up now that those things don't matter.

I know, you feel very justified in arguing that voting for a candidate who backed genocide was the best choice.
Of course.
It clearly was the best choice.
As we discussed even during the campaign, if someone was a single-issue voter on what was best for Gaza and the Palestinians it was the best choice.
I wasn't a single-issue voter, so it was an even easier and more obviously good decision.

We have been over this and you are smart enough to know there were other options. You just didn't seem think that there was a need to worry about genocide.
Oh dear.
You just really want to cling to the fantasy world you live in where magic ponies were going to save everyone, don't you?

Unless you are just accepting the logic of your arguments and calling for the violent overthrow of the US and Canada?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts