Oh, no doubt. Just a fantasy, really, and I agree that insurgencies and bombing and sabotage will be key.
But I guess you don’t know just how good a rifle shot I am. How about five shots through a loonie, without touching the edge, at 50m? Pretty sure I can hit the point man between the eyes with my rifle. After that, I’d need my shotgun.
Never mind, you’re right. IEDs and guerilla action would be key. But the idea that Canadians are unarmed, or are somehow incapable of repelling a US Army invasion, is something I’ve seen a lot on RWNJ/MAGA message boards. I’d ask that you do not spread their word that Canadians are helpless. Many of us have guns, and useless as they may be against the far-better equipped American army, at least they give us some semblance of a capability of fighting back. Let us have our fantasy, okay?
Oh, no doubt. Just a fantasy, really, and I agree that insurgencies and bombing and sabotage will be key.
But I guess you don’t know just how good a rifle shot I am. How about five shots through a loonie, without touching the edge, at 50m? Pretty sure I can hit the point man between the eyes with my rifle. After his men scattered, I’d need my shotgun.
Never mind, you’re right. IEDs and guerilla action would be key. But the idea that Canadians are unarmed, or are somehow incapable of repelling a US Army invasion, is something I’ve seen a lot on RWNJ/MAGA message boards: “In Canada, they’re not allowed to have guns, like us.” I’d ask that you do not spread their word that Canadians are helpless. Many of us have guns, and useless as they may be against the far-better equipped American army, at least they give us some semblance of a capability of fighting back. Let us have our fantasy, okay?
Who here has dismissed Canadians’ concerns about what our idiot president is saying? (And doing, in the case of tariffs.)
Yes, a disgrace.
Equivocation. I and others have acknowledged the above-mentioned “concerns” while saying that the chance of an actual invasion is vanishingly small.
This seems to me equivalent to saying, “You are not allowed to take the opposite side of the debate without being deemed insulting, etc.”
I’m OK with this being a kind of therapy session in part, and I have literally apologized on behalf of the US in this thread, but we need to be able to discuss the situation rationally as well.
Mexico: What has been proposed is not really an invasion of the country per se but an incursion in order to attack the drug cartels. Mexico strongly opposes such a thing, and it would be a huge deal if it happened, but it would not be the same thing as attacking an ally in order to take it over. I really don’t think it’s going to happen. <5%.
Panama: An actual invasion just isn’t necessary. I could imagine some US ships hanging out around the canal as part of a pressure campaign to have the canal handed back over to the US. I.e., Trumpian thuggery. That would be <5%. The next step up would be to blockade the canal or something. That would be a big international deal, a real problem. <1%.
Greenland: A NATO ally. Just isn’t going to happen. <1%.
That’s just claiming that an invasion doesn’t count as an invasion because Trump says so. As absurd as the old “police action” line about Vietnam. Nobody but the Trumpists will buy it. Not to mention that even in the highly unlikely event that the intent is just to attack the cartels, it’s not possible to fight criminal activities without outright taking over territory and keeping it. And how Trump will escalate when the Mexicans dare fight back.
Of course, you are both right, and any such action would be a major international crisis. It just wouldn’t be as unthinkable as attacking a NATO ally with the unconcealed goal of taking it over.
Even Hitler bothered to set up a false flag before attacking Poland…
How would it be unthinkable? America has no allies, only nations that can stand up to it and those that can’t. Canada can’t defend itself, therefore it’s a proper victim that deserves anything that happens to it. That’s how the Right thinks.
Trump even more so; Canada is not Trump, and therefore anything that happens to it is fair game. He’d carpet bomb Canada with nukes and never feel a moment of guilt, just concern over whether he got something out of it. To a total narcissist like Trump the universe exists for the sole purpose of his profit and glorification.
Because it’s a NATO ally per the treaty, and NATO countries would be obliged to come to Canada’s defense. The United States has not traditionally attacked allies. Attacking Canada would completely upend the world order; therefore it’s unthinkable.
Nonsense, I recall how he tried last time he was President to get the police to just shoot down protestors, the military to nuke North Korea, and how he spent years trying to get some falsely accused black men (the “Central Park 5”) executed.
Are we really now at the point that you are claiming invasions are not invasions? Will it be just a Special Military Operation?
An invasion is in fact an invasion. Oh, and a “redrawing of the border” is also an invasion.
By your own admission the USA is talking about attacking Mexico. Hell, does the USA have allies anymore?
As to NATO and Canada, can we get real here? Let’s talk about the actual real world, shall we?
No, NATO allies are not so obliged. Not with military force, anyway. If you don’t believe me, actually read the NATO treaty. It says they must take “such action as (the individual country) deems necessary.” That’s all. A country could decide “such action” as “necessary” is diplomatic or economic.
No NATO country could do anything anyway. No other country in NATO has any ability whatsoever to intervene in any meaningful way, except the UK and France using nuclear weapons, which they will not do. Look at a map.
Furthermore, it’s actually not legally clear at all what would happen if one NATO country went to war with another. Two NATO countries fought a war in 1974 and NATO stayed out of it, after all. The internal workings of NATO are such that, historically, it has always been assumed they all had to agree to invoke Article 5. An invasion of Canada by the USA will end NATO as it currently exists.
A top White House official has threatened to redraw the Canadian border amid Donald Trump’s ambition to turn the country in America’s “51st state”. Peter Navarro, one of Donald Trump’s closest advisers, is pushing US negotiators to discuss reworking the border with their Canadian counterparts, The Telegraph can reveal.
“Navarro recommended revising the Canada-US border, which is just crazy and dangerous,” a source close to negotiations told The Telegraph.
Trump is thuggish, to be sure. And it’s not as though he is completely disinterested in violence, especially when it comes to his own desire for revenge.
But it would seem inaccurate to call Trump a “warmonger.” He didn’t start wars in his first term, and it doesn’t seem to be his thing.