To be clear, no way we should do this. “Terrorist action” means attacking civilians. We are the good guys, the noble and moral country. Killing civilians is evil.
The military targets abound.
We’re talking about containing a fascist aggressor. During WWII allies frequently targeted civilian populations, the bombing of cities was a mainstay of allied strategy. If there is a war, Canada would have to align itself with anyone willing to target America, that will be some pretty ugly allies. It’s similar to the western allies working with the Soviets to take on the greater threat of Hitler.
As for dividing America, Germany was divided after the war. And the Soviet Union splintered after its collapse. The death of the American empire will be extraordinarily messy.
If there is war, the best asset Canada has is that America is not a united nation and anything that drives apart red and blue America serves Canadian interests. Creating foreign units willing to fight against the US, including blue state units could help, akin to what Ukraine has done with its foreign fighters program.
One of the most effective things Ukraine did was that after Russia invaded Crimea, Ukraine retooled its military specifically to fight Russia. I would be surprised if some NATO allies aren’t quietly thinking along those lines.
Yes, I know. I don’t care. Killing civilians simply makes the invasion and occupation seem more justified. It means losing the support of friendly states. It’s also wrong. What do you think is going to happen if a Canadian bomb kills a man’s child? Do you think he’ll say “Oh, we should pull out of Canada”? Hell, no. He’s gonna hate Canada and call for reprisals.
And more importantly, it’s just not necessary. We can have thousands of soldiers in the USA undercover and the soft military and state targets are so numerous it’s crazy. And if in response the USA creates internal security and takes away more freedoms from their citizenry, great.
I should point out here that a big part of the resistance being successful will be whether or not we can get a Canadian government in absentia set up in a friendly nation, one that can fund and direct a resistance. Just randos trying to bomb Marine recruitment offices or whatever will get caught and killed as often as they pull anything off. Direction, training, and support is critical.
The dumbest thing Russia ever did was not simply invade Ukraine entirely in 2014. Ukraine would be totally subjugated now. They would not have survived six months. Instead they gave Ukraine eight years to arm themselves.
Canada should have rebuilt its armed forces LONG ago. It’s be easy to say when Trump first became President, but it should have happened before then, but our politicians weren’t serious.
I’ve worked in three wars and what people say they are capable of before shots are fired and loved ones killed is very different then what they’re actually capable of when their culture faces eradication.
No way.
I agree and am not sure what the point is here.
I am fully aware of the status of the Commonwealth, and I must admit that there is some wishful thinking on my part - I did say “I would like to think…” Certainly if Boris Johnson had still been PM here, he would have rolled over and done whatever Trump wanted. Disappointingly Keir Starmer is too mealy-mouthed where the US is concerned, but surely some of the other nations in the Commonwealth, or even the rest of the free world, would come to Canada’s aid? I really hope so, if the eventuality ever actually arose. Of course, here in the UK we have the spectre of Nigel Farage looming, and if he was our current PM he would probably join with the US in the invasion of Canada - but fortunately his earliest chance is the next election in 4 years time, by which time Trump should be out of office - unless he declares himself President for Life, which I wouldn’t put past him!
They could; they could just give Canada some nukes, which are the only thing that would actually deter the US. They won’t, but they could.
That after the US has slaughtered a few hundred Canadian kids, setting off some car bombs in red state America might make a lot of sense.
You guys are putting a lot of energy into this negative fantasy.
It’s idiotic, disgraceful, and completely unacceptable. This I will 100% grant you.
This is conspiracy theorizing. Do you think Trump’s people are meeting with all the media to effect a coordinated propaganda campaign? There probably have been some bits and bobs on Fox News that could fit this theory, but elsewhere? Cite, say I.
It’s totally predictable that Trump is actually going to invade? Trump is a demented simian with a big mouth, but, in terms of past behavior, he hasn’t actually invaded anything. He seems to be leaning more towards coercing Canada economically, but, as with all things Trump, he doesn’t seem to have a coherent plan to do so, and his goals are unclear.
Not really sure what you mean. Hitler didn’t invade anything until 1938, five years after he took power:
Again, when? Putin invaded Crimea (part of Ukraine) in 2014, and then in 2022 he was clearly planning to invade the rest of the country. It’s true that some people speculated that he would not ultimately invade further, but that was by no means the majority opinion.
They don’t need to; both because the media is on their side in general, and because the great majority of it is owned by just a few companies & individuals.
Hitler was appeased just once, with the Munich Agreement in 1938:
Then he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in the same year without any kind of agreement. And then he took over Austria (the Anschluss) in the same year. So it’s not as though he was appeased over and over. (Edit: Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in early 1939, but there was significant stuff happening in 1938 as well.)
Poland was a totally different situation. England and France had pledged to defend Poland, and Hitler knew it would be war, and war it was.
The legacy media is an ineffective joke, but I don’t agree that, aside from the obvious RWNJ media (Fox, Newsmax, etc.) that they are on Trump’s side. I have seen no normalization of the idea of acquiring Canada or Greenland, much less that of invading them.
That must be why Trump is having a hissy fit and banning the Associated Press from the White House. Because they’re so completely on his side and want to help him invade Canada.
Perhaps you could quote from the part of the article that’s about Canada? TIA!
All the media? No. The right wing media? Yes.
I am curious how much the Trump regime literally gets on the phone with Fox, etc., to plan their propaganda and how much it just happens through a Leibnizian “preordained harmony.” I do assume that there is some actual conspiring going on–the only question is how overt and to what degree…
There’s not really much of a separation anymore; the Trump/Musk/right wing party is all the same thing now. They work in harmony with right wing media. Remind me again who the Secretary of Defense is? A drunk who hosted a right wing TV show. And they’ve made allies or thralls of the social media billionaires.
Prior to the election people here were sneering at the idea a Joe Rogan appearance could affect the election, but it absolutely did. The right wing media sphere is remarkably big and it motivates Republicans. Laugh if you want, but half the USA really does believe that Elon Musk is saving hundreds of billions of dollars through DOGE (and a surprisingly large minority of them genuinely think they won’t have to pay taxes anymore.) They genuinely think everything Musk says. They really, honestly think RFK Jr is a genius who will make them healthier. They really and truly believe Russia is a noble ally (almost universally.) And yes, they support annexing Greenland and Canada, and they’ll briefly warm up to invading Gaza and wiping out its population, though that idea will be dropped soon and forgotten by year’s end.
As others have already pointed out, nations - including, remember, the United States - have had entire revolutions with the support of a third of the population. Support for taking Canada is currently less than ten points below that.
And by the way, if you think the price of eggs is going to change their mind, you are just not grasping the situation. They see that eggs are still expensive and they don’t give a shit. That’s not what Trumpism is about any more than Nazism was about autobahns.
Unlikely; America has been hostile to Muslims since before it was founded, with a temporary re-focus onto Communism during the Cold War (in fact Communists were originally demonized by comparing them to Muslims). “Kill all Muslims” is and will remain an ongoing desire of the American Right indefinitely.
No objection here. My question is a minor one in the scheme of things, but it’s about how much there is direct, conspiratorial coordination, and how much do they maintain the kayfabe behind the scenes? My impression of the Hitler and Stalin regimes is that they did keep up the kayfabe, though individuals disbelieved certain things. And it seems to me that Trump really does believe his own bullshit (a key weakness, IMO). I don’t know what the main Fox personalities really think, but they are all execrable humans.
Here again, it’s hard to tell what people really think. The MAGA moronity kung fu is strong to be sure, but I also think a lot of it comes down to, “If we all come together around the same fictions, then we can dominate together.” A lot of this can be unconscious, of course.
Cite? I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance and inconsistency on this one. And part of the MAGA moronity technique comes down to extreme enthusiasm over the symbols (i.e., Trump), unspoken/masked goal (authoritarian dominance), and one’s personal beefs and causes (i.e., wokeness, trans rights, “replacement theory,” Christofascism, etc.) while holding tepid, uniformed opinions about most of the details. So I think a pretty common opinion about the Ukraine war by MAGA is, “Umm, I dunno, aren’t we spending too much money on that?” I think the actual Putin freaks are low in number, but they certainly exist.
I think there is a wide gap between thinking a result is desirable and thinking that that result is worth invading allies and killing people.
Apples and oranges. You are comparing something that can only arise via some support of the people (revolution), which involves a selection bias effect in the data set (how often do revolutions with 33% support get quashed or never get off the ground?), with telling a pollster that one supports something that the authorities might do, which involves no personal risk and thus can easily be inflated. That is, the former provides little to no evidence for the likelihood of the latter (and, even if it does, the statistics would be very complicated).
100% agree. These people are the most fucking frustrating in the world, as they stand for nothing but nevertheless hold and shout their opinions with maximum loudness and obstreperousness (MTG being about as good example there is, I should think). Example: If it’s Obama, then he’s not really a Christian, he’s actually a Muslim, he wears tan suits. Reality can and will be denied across the board, and any nit that can be picked will be broadcast to the world. But if it’s the utterly manifest moral decrepitude of Trump, then that mutherfucker is a real Christian, in fact he’s the Chosen One of the Lord, and every sin will be forgiven if not celebrated. It’s an utterly maddening and intolerable algorithm. Yet also extremely effective.