5 ms·

> those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept Problem is that they aren't the ones in power in the USA.

dylan604 2y ago
Right, but even if the US actually wants to annex Canada, Canada would have to allow that to happen. That's what makes it insane. Russia wanted to annex Ukraine, and it didn't go so well. So playing the tape to the end, what do people think Trump is actually proposing? A war? A "special operation"?
- NewJazz 2y ago
  It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      And who in their right mind would come to defend Canada against the US if it comes to it? It would be suicide on any country's part, plain and simple.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon
      - throaway89 2y ago
        Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.
        throaway89 2y ago
        Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory? I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
        throaway89 2y ago
        I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is. In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Kuwait is nowhere near comparable. Btw that coalition of countries... Who led it?
      - dylan604 2y ago
        If the rest of the world refused to trade with the US over this, the US would have a helluva time and struggle. No bullets need to be expended. Why is this hard to comprehend?
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Russia is an even smaller economy than the US, and even then many countries continue to trade with them despite their aggression. Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too. Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions. The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia. It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion. And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
        dylan604 2y ago
        If the US were in this position, any country that had sanctions that were only there at the urging from the US would be dropped. Even if they were not dropped, those that were sanctioned would immediately start ignoring them. Hell, most of Europe would probably immediately starting buying oil/gas from Russia.
        8note 2y ago
        if the world was going to cut trade with the US, it would have over the iraq invasion.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I dont think there would be a military intervention, and if there were, I dont think it would be verry successful. NATO would be crippled without the US. That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    They could invoke Article 5 of NATO; that would trigger Article 8;, expelling USA from NATO and requiring all remaining member to come to Canada's aid. >In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > expelling USA from NATO which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
    - polishdude20 2y ago
      Would anyone really want to oppose America though?
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Words on a page don't put boots on the ground. The treaty would be invoked, US would be expelled (and sanctioned), and nobody would dare try to break the blockade. The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
      - mlekoszek 2y ago
        Even if they achieve it, the reputational damage would be hard to understate. I think anyone with a bone to pick with the States would happily and repeatedly point to us Canadians as an example of what happens when you trust Americans. And that would be enough to achieve a lot of their regional policy goals, if not much more. Mexico would probably seek other political partners to make sure they're not next.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - badc0ffee 2y ago
    Come on. Canada grows, and is a major exporter of, food, and has all the infrastructure and fuel needed to process and distribute it. There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.

dylan604 2y ago

Right, but even if the US actually wants to annex Canada, Canada would have to allow that to happen. That's what makes it insane. Russia wanted to annex Ukraine, and it didn't go so well. So playing the tape to the end, what do people think Trump is actually proposing? A war? A "special operation"?

NewJazz 2y ago
It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
- dylan604 2y ago
  A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    And who in their right mind would come to defend Canada against the US if it comes to it? It would be suicide on any country's part, plain and simple.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon
    - throaway89 2y ago
      Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.
        throaway89 2y ago
        Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory? I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
        throaway89 2y ago
        I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is. In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Kuwait is nowhere near comparable. Btw that coalition of countries... Who led it?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If the rest of the world refused to trade with the US over this, the US would have a helluva time and struggle. No bullets need to be expended. Why is this hard to comprehend?
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Russia is an even smaller economy than the US, and even then many countries continue to trade with them despite their aggression. Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too. Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions. The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia. It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion. And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
        dylan604 2y ago
        If the US were in this position, any country that had sanctions that were only there at the urging from the US would be dropped. Even if they were not dropped, those that were sanctioned would immediately start ignoring them. Hell, most of Europe would probably immediately starting buying oil/gas from Russia.
      - 8note 2y ago
        if the world was going to cut trade with the US, it would have over the iraq invasion.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think there would be a military intervention, and if there were, I dont think it would be verry successful. NATO would be crippled without the US. That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  They could invoke Article 5 of NATO; that would trigger Article 8;, expelling USA from NATO and requiring all remaining member to come to Canada's aid. >In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > expelling USA from NATO which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
  - polishdude20 2y ago
    Would anyone really want to oppose America though?
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Words on a page don't put boots on the ground. The treaty would be invoked, US would be expelled (and sanctioned), and nobody would dare try to break the blockade. The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
    - mlekoszek 2y ago
      Even if they achieve it, the reputational damage would be hard to understate. I think anyone with a bone to pick with the States would happily and repeatedly point to us Canadians as an example of what happens when you trust Americans. And that would be enough to achieve a lot of their regional policy goals, if not much more. Mexico would probably seek other political partners to make sure they're not next.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- badc0ffee 2y ago
  Come on. Canada grows, and is a major exporter of, food, and has all the infrastructure and fuel needed to process and distribute it. There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.