NATO has a spending target, we committed to it, so we have to do it. The fact that the worst human being in power ever is pressuring to fulfill that commitment doesn't really change the fact that we do have to do it. The thing we should be pushing on is how to spend it: award those contracts to European suppliers instead of the USA.

The prime minister said he supports the latest U.S. attacks on Iran, calling it an “appropriate” response.

This is the part that is messed up and should be the lightning rod for criticism.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There are tens of agreements by most countries on earth pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce global warming.

The atmosphere's greenhouse gas content has not yet reached its peak.

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 4 points 18 hours ago

There are tens of agreements by most countries on earth pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce global warming.

Yes, but unfortunately none of those are tied to membership to a military or economic block with significant political consequences.

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

It obviously isn't. I don't understand the question.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

because Canadians are delusional morons.

what is more likely to happen to you in the next 25 years, invasion by Emmanuel Goldstein or getting sick of a disease?

We spend fuck all on diseases research, orders of magnitude more on pointless toys which just give $ to the USA.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago

pointless toys which just give $ to the USA.

You spell 'sweden' and 'germany' weird, but I know you meant to write the name of the places from which we made the last two significant military purchases.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Because it makes a few people rich and allows the complete dismantling of democracy.

[–] RadiallyAxiomatic@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Countries and politicians commit to a lot of things that they later back out of due to various reasons. Agreements without penalties are optional.

In this case, Turnup being an unpredictable self-centered loser in charge of a large and dangerous military is considered a sufficient reason to bend the knee for now. If he fails his coup we will may stop spending. If he succeeds, then I think we will continue spending.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, Obama and Biden exercised a good deal of parsimony which allowed the Trudeau government to underspend for years. But of all the things the USA is terrorizing the world right now, holding NATO accountable for the spending commitments is the least egregious one, they're not really in the wrong here, they're just being real dicks about it. Demanding it to be raised to 5%, however, is where this demon is really manifesting, and having Carney agree to that increase is another place where I think it's fair to criticize him, I think Carney is just banking on the fact that Trump is not getting reelected.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Right... but maybe the 5% is warranted, because of the ongoing collapse of American hegemony?

We need Middle Powers to have leverage, and part of that will depend on being able to collectively stand up to military aggression from our "allies", let alone rivals.

In other words, what is the likelihood that Canada faces an existential crisis due to having insufficient investment in our military, and how much investment is required to mitigate that risk? What's the cost-benefit analysis?

I don't pretend to know enough to have an answer, but there are real concerns, not just posturing to placate a petulant would-be dictator.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

maybe the 5% is warranted, because of the ongoing collapse of American hegemony?

that will depend on being able to collectively stand up to military aggression from our “allies”

I think that's a fair point, but that's a different discussion. If Carney argues that we need to triple our defense budget because we need to prepare for the USA as a threat, I'll pay close attention to his arguments. If that was the case, we'd not be considering buying equipment from the USA. But that's not what's happening. The situation is that Trump is demanding that Canada increase the spending to 5%, and there's definitely lobby from US defense contractors eyeing these expenses coming their way. So I think it's fair to criticize that jump in commitment as appeasing to Trump.

Would I do things differently if I were Carney? Maybe not. Maybe I'd think "yeah whatever let's commit to those 5% by 2035 because this orange sack will be dead by then, and let's take our contracts and award to nordic contractors" and do things exactly as Carney is doing. The fact that I find his position fair to criticize doesn't mean that I'm totally against it, it just means that there's a good discussion to have about it. And the whole point of my initial comment is that I don't think there's a good discussion to be had about our 2% commitment, that's a done deal and we should focus on how we're going to do it instead of whether we should be doing it.