Define “have to”. Plenty of people, at plenty of points in history, have chosen not to do something that they “have to” do.
Are legally obligated to.
If you want to get silly then the question is unanswerable because no one has to do anything.
Actually, the law is that troops must not follow illegal orders. Knowing what is legal and what is illegal can be problematic. Since the OP didn’t describe the scenario in detail we can assume unarmed peaceful protesters do not constitue a threat and any order to shoot them is illegal.
And if you want to stand on what’s “legal”, then Vance is President right now, because Trump is ineligible. We’ve already gotten silly.
I think you don’t understand the law that determines Presidental eligibility then. But this is a hijack.
Have you not been following the decline of facts in modern political discourse?
Oh sure, and I take your point.
My guess (justified by evidence for the popularity of the Hitler regime overall at the time) is that, in 1939, a very large percentage actually believed that the false flag attack was real. A fact, accurately conveyed by the German government. Further, this was one element of incessant warmongering and propagandizing by the regime. Of course, there was also a significant percentage that hated the Nazis and didn’t believe anything they said.
In the US in 2025, my opinion is that the MAGA morons modally believe what Trump and his flunkies say. They get behind it in order to worship trump and bring about the magularity (MAGA singularity, lol). Similarly, I don’t think Evangelicals in the US today really believe in Christianity and are simply mistaking the part about loving one’s neighbor. They have a modal belief system too.
I’m not saying modal belief wasn’t a part of Nazi Germany, however; it would have been necessary in order for the smarter, more in the know people to support Hitler. But the average American today has much more objective information and has to rub elbows, at least to a certain extent, with the Libs. And therein lies the other difference: there are a lot of us Libs, and we are not going to go down without a fight.
But prior to that, the army had moved on Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Rhineland, without any significant push back from the military.
No, but the German people saw all of that as perfectly justified. Popular stuff.
The German military would have done pretty much anything Hitler told them to do, but Hitler knew he had to save most (but not all) atrocities for the SS to perform, and even those perpetrators were specially selected.
I don’t think the US Military of 2025 is in the same mindset as the German military of the late 1930s. Further, Canada is a longstanding friendly neighbor and ally. The Germans soldiers were not asked to march on allied nations.
They sure seemed okay with believing bullshit in 2003.
The army follows orders. It’s fantasy to think they won’t. There will be bullshit excuses and Americans in their millions will believe them.
I mean no offense here but your refusal to accept the military will go along with an order to invade Canada is based on an American-centric view that the USA and its military are somehow uniquely prone to choosing morality over obedience. They absolutely are not, sorry. The US military (which is disproportionately Trumpist as compared the the general population) is just as authoritarian, in the true sense of that word, as any other. They’ll go along with it.
Well of course they would, if the US troops were invaders. We do love our country, you know.
One thing that needs to be pointed out here is that attacking a NATO ally is both flagrantly, undeniably illegal per our treaty obligations (which the president is also obligated to obey) and very serious, since, in theory, it would incur a response from all NATO members. It’s not remotely close to attacking Afghanistan or Iraq in the early 2000s.
Yeah, the WMD thing was bullshit, but I don’t think that was really an issue for those in the military, inasmuch as we attacked bad actors in those invasions. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were in fact evil oppressors and international troublemakers. The reason why those invasions sucked wasn’t because we attacking an ally or someone actually good; it was because they were strategically botched.
I think some generals and many soldiers absolutely would. saying enough would not for there to be big problems for Trump. Further, there would be both a global and local American outcry against it. A deafening one. There is no doubt in my mind that such an invasion would trigger the end of the US as we know it. Hell, you’d have Americans volunteering in large numbers to join the Canadian military and fight our own troops!
If you think I have an American-centric view, then I would suggest you don’t know my posting history all that well. Which is fine, no offense taken.
I think American troops are certainly more moral than, say, Russian troops. Maybe not better than those of a lot of European countries. But they are definitely prone not to want to invade Canada! There could be no more of an absurd and unpalatable idea for an invasion than that.
This is debatable and has in fact been debated on this board. I need to see more evidence, and, for my part, I would not assume that they are particularly Liberal in their outlook, either. I would venture to say, however, that Trump’s continuous denigration of the military, those who died for the US, etc., would be enough to turn at least a significant portion of the military against him.
Montgomery actually did capture Montreal on November 13, 1775. An attack on Quebec (city) on December 31 failed (with Montgomery killed, and Arnold wounded), and the troops left Montreal a few months later as British reinforcements arrived…
My sister is in the Army. Next time I see her I’ll ask her if she believes all Canadians are Satanic pedophiles who she wants to execute on sight.
That wouldn’t match how the US has historically behaved. “Kill anything that moves” is closer to the reality.
You probably haven’t been watching, but a feature of the current US administration is the due deference shown to treaty obligations, constitutional obligations, legislative obligations, humanitarian obligations et al. Rose tinted glasses are just a fashion accessory.
Push the analogy further; Would American troops fire on (mutinous) American troops who had refused to fire on Canadian troops/civilians when ordered?
After all, it was barely more than the availability of ink and paper preventing " 'Can’t you just shoot them , just shoot them in the legs or something?" from becoming an Executive Order.
Not at all.
Trump put his tail between his legs with respect to the trade war with Canada and Mexico. We can all speculate as to what pressures caused that. Tariffs on Canada would be a minor minor let me emphasize nanometer-scale thing as compared to invading the country. It’s absolutely not going to happen.
Less an analogy and more a good question, since that kind of thing would absolutely come into play in an invasion scenario.
Yeah, and he was talked down from that. If Trump fails to be talked down from similar things in the near future–and such a failure is a genuine possibility–he will reap the wild wind. /ultravox
Soldiers famously fight for the fellow-soldier next to them, not because of belief in a cause.
Ulysses S. Grant famously fought hard and well on the U.S. side of the Mexican War even though he thought this:
U.S. troops might not fire on Canadian civilians, but they would almost surely fight against Canadian forces, if so ordered.
And remind me, what is Gen. Mark Milley’s current relationship with 45/47, something about his security detail and clearance from memory, in comparison to the newly confirmed US military leadership? Is there another Mark Milley amongst the current appointed apostles and harbingers?
I think people are underestimating the logistics that would go into an operation of this scale. The US can’t just invade Canada on a whim no matter how loud Trump yells or how many people he fires. It would take months (if not a year or more) of highly visible preparations, including major Congressional appropriations and probably a draft.
If you thought BLM protests in 2020 were disruptive, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what the buildup to an invasion of Canada would look like.