There’s more than one now?
I saw one version of the Jesusland map that included Alberta.
The Jesusland map, IMHO, is a simplification of the kind of cultural differences described in Fire and Ice and plotted geographically in Joel Garreau’s The Nine Nations of North America. I’ve long thought that North America would make more sense if it was reorganised along the lines of The Nine nations.
Yes. There’s South Saskatchewan, also known as North Dakota. If you call it South Saskatchewan, it feels warmer in winter. 
You know, the second I hit submit on that post, I thought sure as anything someone would come along and point out that there are two Saskatchewans - the North and the South, and I’ve been busy trying to come up with a witty comeback. And then you go and pull this Dakota thing in out of left field. Bah!!
After a wholly unexpected and completely unprovoked invasion… I think I might give it a shot. I just wouldn’t claim I was doing the work of God in the process.
Would you do the horrible civilian-murdering things Lemur described, or be willing to sign up to kill soldiers? I’d be all ready to kill soldiers, but I’m not interested is slaying innocent people.
Wait. You’d honestly drive an explosive-laden truck into a bunch of five year old children, just because they were American?
Your’re safe, being in Quebec Province. We may be crazy, but we’re smart enough not to want Quebec! Just give us the English speaking parts, and nobody gets hurt.
I think this may be getting a bit dark for what was obviously a light hearted OP (I still the first Canadian’s first response should say bomb the Baldwin household). But that said…
The dividing line rapidly gets blurred…
What about factories making munitions? What about people who live next door to a military base (or contractors who work there) ? Civil servants in the occupying administration ? A senior general at a children’s party ?
And whatever you answers now, try repeating the same questions after the town where your family live has been the site of a few months of brutal house-to-house urban warfare.
I’m sure that would come as a huge shock to the large Hindu and Muslim communities in Alberta.
But what about air power? Could the Canadian Air Force even stand up to America’s, let alone beat it? If the United States is willing to go total war on Canadia and bomb everything, there is no way they can hold out.
But like someone asked earlier, how willing are we to avoid civilian lives? If we do whatever it takes to keep the populous alive, it’d take a lot longer.
Hey, the OP is talking about invading my country, for apparantly no other reason than we’re Canadian. In the realm of goofy hypotheticals, nothing is off limits.
That said, I happen to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and would, in the event of war, act in accordance with the lawful orders given by my superiors.
All kidding aside, is there any stronger alliance on the planet than that between the US and Canada? Even considering the “disagreement” over the Iraq war, I can’t think of any two countries that have coexisted so peacefully as neighbors for as long a time. I would say it’s a model that the rest of the world would do well to emulate.
Nah, what’s the fun of that?
Forty-four forty or fight!
Well, there was that small tussle in 1812. And I DID get into a hell of a bar fight in Otawa in 1999…
-XT
Since 1812, last time the US invaded ? (that didn’t go so well )Not even 200 years, not all that long… I’d say any of Switzerland’s relationship with any of its neighbours would be more peaceful than that (they declared neutrality in 1815 but I believe the last war they had was with France in 1700s)
If we keep this to the initial hypothetical - an American invasion today, or in the very near future - we can assume Canada will be overrun and only a protracted guerrilla war would earn the nations’ freedom.
John Mace: Of course this is a ludicrous proposition, there’s not going to be such a war now or in our lifetimes, but it’s fun to do it as a thought exercise.
In such a scenario, international support would be critically important to Canada’s prospects; as I suggested, ideally the government could be reconstituted in a friendly nation (ideally the UK) and the war directed from there. However, the key to international support would be keep the war as clean as possible. If Canada resorted to killing civilians, that support could be rapidly lost.
Accidental civilian deaths in attachs on military targets might be unavoidable but deliberate killing of civilians would be a disastrous, disastrous error. It would also be largely stupid. You’re not going to win such a conflict by blowing up a munitions factory in Decatur; the size of the American economy is such that you couldn’t possibly make a dent in it that way. The proper approach would be simply putting as much pressure on the occupying force as possible - specifically, by killing as many soldiers as you possibly could and destroying high profile military targets. The goal is to exhaust the U.S. populace’s willingness to continue fighting while simultaneously garnering overseas support to keep the campaign going. Ideally, you would infiltrate the USA and destroy targets there, too. But always military. (Off duty military is a valid target, so I’m afraid that if you can bag the senior general at the party, he’s gotta die.)
The one possible problem you would have is a puppet government. As per usual practice, if there were an invasion, it would likely be closely followed by the appointment of a number of suitable Quislings to form a puppet government. The challenge then would be ensuring such a “government” did not gain legitimacy, which is why I think it’s critically important for a government in absentia to be formed overseas; that makes the phony government’s phoniness obvious. The question would be whether the traitors would be valid targets. I’d argue not, but I think you might have to change that position if they seem to be gaining traction.
Of course. Hence the majority of my posts in this thread have been jokes. Still, I just wanted to acknowledge the unusal nature of the US/Canada relationship.
More peaceful, or just a peaceful? In 1812, Canada did not exist as an independent country. Still, your point is well taken. Switzerland stands out as a unique country. That I won’t dispute.
I have a spatula, and I’m not afraid to use it.
Look, you’re a nice enough bunch of people. Remarkably different from us, despite all the superficial similarities. I have been lucky enough to live in the USA, and I am grateful for the opportunity.
But we ain’t you. We speak English (mostly), drive on the right, and spend and save a dollar.
But we ain’t you, and I think there’d be a heck of an insurgency should the USA try to make Canada part of the States.
We’re really big, geographically. Seriously, do you know how big we are? Canada stretches to the friggin’ North Pole. And for all our apologetic politeness and sometimes ineffectual ways with the wider world, there is a deep and solid core of love for this country that no one should take lightly. We are not USA Lite.
My name is Jane*, and I am Canadian.
*Damn, there went the pseudonym.