The majority of the Middle East, South America, and most of Asia — like 2/3’s of the worlds population — have known this for 50+ years.
Korea and Japan would disagree.
And the internet barely existed at that point, not every westerner in 2005 could have afforded to travel widely. The average western person would have gotten their general impression of the US from western media.
You want to knock out the main one the article focuses on?
Well how about the fact that that it’s literally entirely about a single specific weasle worded statement about Iran that was initiated that means nothing and was obviously done to not have Trump turn on us again?
Literally everything Lloyd Axworthy is railing against is the naiive idealism that is not reflective of the real world.
You know what happened with the Iraq war? Crétien publicly announced in parliament that we wouldn’t be joining without first telling the US privately and it created a diplomatic rift and caused trade issues with them.
You know what Crétien’s statement did for Iraqis? Nothing.
You know what actually mattered for them? Keeping Canadian troops and resources out of the war.
Now let’s compare it to Carney’s situation. He’s dealing with an even more vitriolic and preexisting trade war, with a president and cabinet who have literally repeatedly talkedd about trying to take us over, either explicitly or as a vassal state, and his choice is to also not actually support the war with resources, and instead issue a weasle worded statement that kind of sounds like it’s supporting the US while also calling them out for violating international order.
And because of that the sky is falling?? Like Jesus fucking Christ this is what I was fucking talking about when I said that this is exactly the naiive dumbassery that just says you should always call out evil in every situation no matter what because that will always lead to good outcomes. The man literally can’t issue a meaningless diplomatic statement unless it’s worded exactly as you want it, yet you think you’re giving him space to cook?
No, we’re not.
Sorry, did you misspell Iraq there?
Or is the article author unaware of the world’s perception of the US for the past 25 years?
You didn’t need to type that many words to say “I’m in capable of articulating a specific argument”.
Again, you’re speaking in broad generalities to make a point that doesn’t exist when you actually look att the specifics.
Name an action he has taken and the part of his speech that it’s violating. It’s not complicated. If the article can do it cogently and isn’t misrepresenting him and misconstruing the situation, it should be even easier for you.
Lmfao, you haven’t made a single cogent point.
Go ahead and try to explain precisely how Carney is not living up to his Davos speech. So far, all you’ve said is that he has made some Weasley worded political statements that look aimed to please both sides without saying anything. Congratulations. That’s politics.
Just try to explain what specific actions he’s taken that are not in line with his Davos speech. Be specific and don’t boil things down to a black and white analogy. We’ll wait.
Literally just try to wrap your head around the concept that Carney can’t force all middle powers to suddenly band together.
Oh wow, now you’re sad for feeling attacked, totally how fascists feel.
Maybe we shouldn’t go around calling everyone we slightly disagree with a fascist?
The world as it is, means that it’s more nuanced and subtle then just “do good = good outcome”, which is what you insist.
If your world view is just “every time you don’t go HAM calling out every injustice then you’re a bastard man”, then literally every politician ever, both past and future, will seem like a bastard man to you.
Carney’s literal entire epoint with “the world as it is”, is calling out naiive leftists who think that the road to heaven is paved only with good acts and the road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions.
Reflect on what you’re writing. You’re just leaning into circular logic that absolves the Carney government by dismissing contradicting evidence out of hand.
You reflect on what you’re writing. It is not conflicting evidence it is simply a situation more nuanced than black and white.
Carney says there’s a way to do things. Carney doesn’t do things that way. Must be that Carney couldn’t do things that way. Him not meeting the standard is justified because that’s “the world as it is.”
Honestly, stop responding if you need to boil everything down to simplistic terms to understand them.
This is literally just the most basic game theory problem of coordination. A single actor cannot move on their own if the move requires the coordinated efforts of many.
Oh wow, another leftist who is so naiive and righteous that they can’t even get along with people who agree with them but choose a slightly different path.
You’re such a credit to the cause with your quickness to label everyone and everything a fascist! Your attitude totally isn’t why left wing groups always fall apart to infighting.
It’s been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations.
My fucking god. You expect him to snap his fingers, and have major nation building infrastructure projects complete and profitable within a year?
Short sighted bitching like this is why we can’t have nice things. Get off the internet and go live your life.
It laid out a vision for how to walk the path to reach that destination.
Yes, middle powers pooling together and using their collective economic power to force fairer systems.
There absolutely is evidence to demonstrate that he has contradicted his own statements about how to walk the path.
Please go ahead and tell me which middle powers banded together with him to create a fairer system?
Oh you can’t? So we’re still operating in the existing unfair system then? So then we’re back at taking the world as it is.
It is not incoherent foreign policy, it just foreign policy whose goals don’t happen instantly.
If it tastes better than actual chicken, then you’ve just created a new meat-like product with a chicken-ish taste.
It’s like a Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest where Charlie Chaplin himself ranks sixth. You can say someone looks almost like Charlie Chaplin, but claiming they look more like him than he does himself doesn’t make any sense.
No, that is not a similar situation, since Charlie Chaplin is, by definition, a single entity with a single definition.
Chicken meat on the other hand, is a range of flavours and textures. Chicken nuggets feel nothing like roast chicken, which feels nothing like pulled chicken. White meat tastes different then dark meat, the and connective tissues add other flavours as well. Different species of chickens tastes different as do chickens on different diets, and the taste of chicken has changed over time. Hell, American chicken tastes notably worse than chicken in most other countries.
You are not dealing with a single defined thing, especially when dealing with the broad category of everything allowed to be called chicken at the grocery store, like chicken nuggets and burgers. It is entirely possible for a synthetic fake chicken product, to slot into this spectrum of options.
It’s not belief that Carney is taking the right path, it’s the knowledge that you haven’t had enough time to assess his path finding ability, given that his stated goals weren’t going to materialize in a 6 month time frame.
Yes, all of those actions taken to strengthen Canada economically, and position us to be in a position of future economic power that will give us the ability to enact and shape fairer systems.
You’re bitching and complaining about short term hedging his bets diplomatic moves. Naiively pursuing the most noble action at all time will not lead to a better world, it will lead to good people getting predictably out maneuvered by shitty ones.
Allow someone to tell you their framing is the one truth, and you’ve submitted to uncritically accepting their theory of action.
Lmfao. No.
That’s fundamentally not how framing / lenses / perspectives work.
You don’t forget a lens or way of examining a situation, just because you learn a new one.
Honestly, for nuggets and chicken burgers I could see this but there’s no way this is remotely true for roast chicken / chicken breasg unless all those brands have dramatically changed their products recently.
The texture between difference between actual real chicken and chicken paste that they add to nuggets burgers etc is wildly different and I’ve never seen any fake chicken product be able to replicate that texture.
This is childish.
It’s literally a product designed to imitate and fill the role of meat.
It would be like saying that synthetic motor oil has nothing to do with motor oil.
Having strong opinions doesn’t always make you look smart.
Criticize the actual specific point I made, or shut the fuck up.