10 ms·

That makes perfect sense. It puzzles me why supporters of the current US regime think Canada won’t resist the US. Be it a trade war or a military invasion, Cana

That makes perfect sense. It puzzles me why supporters of the current US regime think Canada won’t resist the US. Be it a trade war or a military invasion, Canada will make the cost so great that it may eliminate the US from the world arena. Canada has been cornered and has nothing to lose at this point.

a-priori 2y ago
It's incorrect to think of Canada as being "cornered" here nor having "nothing to lose". It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with. It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  I wouldn't color relying on a historical ally that either produces, or is the transit corridor for, most of your food with "everything to lose". The current trade spat is an issue, and Canada should react accordingly, but the reality is that, even with tariffs, the US still represents a very profitable trade partner, especially when they can levy tariffs of their own.
  - watwut 2y ago
    The issue is not limited to tariffs. There is consistent hostile rhetoric against Canada by multiple members of administration. And by hostile I mean threats of annexation, demands that Canada gives USA parts of its land and false accusations. Tariffs are only part of the issue. They seem the be the first USA step meant to weaken Canada economically before USA proceeds to steal from from it.
    - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      Exactly this. It's interesting watching how Americans are talking about this issue vs Canadians. Even my liberal friends in the US think it's more "Silly" and "Troll" behaviour on Trump's part -- "you're not taking that seriously, are you?" Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet. He's the official head of state and silence from the rest of the GOP and the US political class generally isn't exactly doing anything to calm tensions. We faced heavy tariff threats under 1.0 and it wasn't anything like this. The reaction here isn't really about trade at all. It's about sovereignty. The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        throaway1987 2y ago
        isn't annexing another country based on it being merely an economic client state a...fascist rationale?
        rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        watwut 2y ago
        Yes and likely yes.
        pcwalton 2y ago
        You should visit Canada sometime. It's quite a nice country. British Columbia in particular is gorgeous.
        rayiner 2y ago
        I have been visiting Canada for decades—quite a bit of my family lives there. I was just there in 2022 for a wedding reception. It’s a nice place that seems like it won’t be a nice place in 50 years. Cops watched me like a hawk—I assume they have good reasons. Punjabi Uber driver told me he doesn’t even have to speak English because everyone at the bank, store, etc., speaks Punjabi. For some reason his elderly, past working age parents were immigrating to join him. Had to defend my being married to an American to some family friend at the wedding—there’s so many Bangladeshis there it’s possible to maintain endogenous marriage. Tried to charge my rented Tesla in a part of town that was all Indians. I let one Indian lady cut in front of me, which pissed off the Indian lady behind me, who started yelling at me “why are you letting her do that?” Not Canadian nice, certainly. In the 1990s, Canada was a phenomenally well run and efficient country. More federalized than the U.S. (with 80% of spending run through the provinces). Canada had universal healthcare while having non-military per-capita government spending lower than the U.S. Now you’re running a sociologist experiment about what really causes prosperity and orderliness in western countries.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    If it was just the trade spat, you might be right. But there's also Trump repeatedly talking about annexing Canada. That goes well beyond a trade spat, and I would absolutely expect Canada to do more in response because that is in the mix. Including actively working to reduce their dependency on US-sourced or US-transiting products.
    - zardo 2y ago
      At the very least you would expect them to start looking at other sources for arms.
      - a-priori 2y ago
        Absolutely. Canada is almost certainly going to cancel or severely limit a pending F35 order, and is actively sourcing aircraft and negotiating mutual arms deals with European partners.
        fmbb 2y ago
        … which is hard to do for European plane makers that have engines with parts licensed from US companies. Hopefully this all leads to more countries stopping relying on US trade.
        overfeed 2y ago
        I'm sure Rolls Royce expects their order book to grow over the next few decades. Likely some engineers have been tasked with researching the viability of creating drop-in replacement models for American engines.
        a-priori 2y ago
        Of course, NATO was founded on the assumption that the US is a reliable trading and security partner, and the defense supply chains reflect that assumption. It will take time to untangle those chains, but you're watching all of NATO speed-running that process right now.
        2y ago
- epa 2y ago
  This is silly. US is Canada's biggest trading partner and one of the largest borders in the world. 80% of people live within 1 hour of the border. Free trade has allowed both economies to prosper. Canada has everything to gain with free trade. You are right on over reliance, but free trade benefits everyone.
  - throaway1987 2y ago
    Ironically the "free trade deals" have been broadly bad for workers, but Trump's proposals seem even worse
  - overfeed 2y ago
    It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
      The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Tit-for-tat inherently forgives the moment the other party stops defecting, in a game theoretic sense. It's "start friendly, every future move copies other party's previous move".
    - InitialLastName 2y ago
      Depending how you count "borders" and "European countries" they share a border with 2 (France via St Pierre and Miquelon, Denmark via Greenland) and share a landlord with a third.
- raydev 2y ago
  > It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with. Yes, but any of those deals will pale in comparison to the opporunities Canada has with the wealthiest next door neighbor in the world. The oceans aren't nothing, the culture differences aren't nothing (no matter how small you try to make them with other Commonwealth countries). Losing the US as a friend is a massive loss, and nothing will match it.
- JeremyNT 2y ago
  > It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia. The problem is, this kind of pivot would take a long time and be extremely difficult. Out there in the real world, real Canadians have a lot to lose. The US strong-arming its allies in this way puts them in a massive bind near term. Canada could eventually adapt to a different world order with reduced reliance on the US, but it would suffer a recession (or worse) in the process. They have no good options here, because how can you really deal with a madman? (In a game theoretical sense [0], if not also a literal one) - but I think the ideal strategy is to acquiesce to the US and pursue these efforts as quickly as they can to remove any reliance going forward. This is made more difficult by the fact that there seems no obvious way to actually appease the US, whose current goals and objectives are completely opaque. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
  - k12sosse 2y ago
    You greatly underestimate the stubbornness of a Canadian to suffer for what they believe is right.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Regime?
- boringg 2y ago
  noun 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. "ideological opponents of the regime"
- hypertexthero 2y ago
  Historian Bret Deveraux, writing in October 2024: > Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed. > Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail. — https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/ https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
jdlyga 2y ago
They don't think, and that's the problem. This might've worked during the cold war, but it's not 1960.
psychlops 2y ago
This sounds like a straw man. Do you have a link showing where supporters think Canada won't resist the US?
Brusco_RF 2y ago
>[Canada] may eliminate the US from the world arena Is this a joke?
- FredPret 2y ago
  For any armed force, even a 2-3 million strong one, fighting a war against an entire population of 40 million goes one of two ways: - unimaginable atrocities that would make Hitler blush, and then they might still lose - Vietnam x 100
  - machomaster 2y ago
    How many of those 40 millions have military education/skills, are willing to use them, as well as have access to weapons?
    - FredPret 2y ago
      I don't know, but let's do a thought experiment. North Vietnam had 13 mil people, South Vietnam 17m. Afghanistan had 20m people at the time of invasion. These were undeveloped countries with very low human capital. Their militaries did not hold up. And yet - how did it all turn out for the US? Canada has 40m people, terrain ideally suited to guerilla warfare, a huge land border with the US, and a population that is not only indistinguishable from American civilians, but also enjoys much wider popular support in the US than the Vietnamese ever did. It would be extremely foolish to think you could simply invade such a place at all, nevermind easily.
hintymad 2y ago
An honest question: what is wrong with reciprocal tariff? Wouldn't that be fair to both countries? I understand that there were many compromises when the countries signed trade deals like NAFTA, so we got some protective tariffs here and there, but I was wondering in general why reciprocal tariff is considered unfair.
- jpambrun 2y ago
  I guess it could be fair, but those are unilateral. The official justifications such as considering sales tax, are bogus. The unofficial justification (or official depending on time of day..) is annexation. Surely, you see how this isn't perceived as fair from up North?
- anon84873628 2y ago
  The trade isn't necessarily perfectly balanced, is it? In negotiations you have more flexibility if you can increase the size of the pie. Things like transit tolls or cruise ship stops are examples of that.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  It's not that it's unfair, it's that it is stupid.
Gibbon1 2y ago
There is this bad penny bit of propaganda that a lot of people believe. Which is only the US has any agency. And everyone else does what they do either under orders from the US or as a reaction to something the US did. It's attractive if you're ignorant and stupid because it makes the world simple enough for you to think you understand everything. Putin, the current administration and conservatives in general swallowed that hook line and sinker.
rurp 2y ago
There has been some darkly hilarious reporting that much of this administration was genuinely surprised and confused that Canada didn't immediately roll over in response to US bullying. Most people realize that the world isn't made up of NPCs during childhood, but I guess the clowns currently in charge missed that developmental step. Either that or they have spent so much time on twitter and similar spaces that it has seriously warped their view of reality.
jjkaczor 2y ago
When there is now a 6-month backlog of people trying to take the CFSC/CRFSC courses to get their PAL, and the CAF recruitment site is constantly overloaded, yes - Canadians will definitely be resisting any military style invasion. Add that to the grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement, and no - Canadian's are not going to roll over and accept US pressure for either tariffs or annexation.

a-priori 2y ago

It's incorrect to think of Canada as being "cornered" here nor having "nothing to lose". It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with. It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia.

BobbyJo 2y ago
I wouldn't color relying on a historical ally that either produces, or is the transit corridor for, most of your food with "everything to lose". The current trade spat is an issue, and Canada should react accordingly, but the reality is that, even with tariffs, the US still represents a very profitable trade partner, especially when they can levy tariffs of their own.
- watwut 2y ago
  The issue is not limited to tariffs. There is consistent hostile rhetoric against Canada by multiple members of administration. And by hostile I mean threats of annexation, demands that Canada gives USA parts of its land and false accusations. Tariffs are only part of the issue. They seem the be the first USA step meant to weaken Canada economically before USA proceeds to steal from from it.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    Exactly this. It's interesting watching how Americans are talking about this issue vs Canadians. Even my liberal friends in the US think it's more "Silly" and "Troll" behaviour on Trump's part -- "you're not taking that seriously, are you?" Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet. He's the official head of state and silence from the rest of the GOP and the US political class generally isn't exactly doing anything to calm tensions. We faced heavy tariff threats under 1.0 and it wasn't anything like this. The reaction here isn't really about trade at all. It's about sovereignty. The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throaway1987 2y ago
        isn't annexing another country based on it being merely an economic client state a...fascist rationale?
        rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        watwut 2y ago
        Yes and likely yes.
        pcwalton 2y ago
        You should visit Canada sometime. It's quite a nice country. British Columbia in particular is gorgeous.
        rayiner 2y ago
        I have been visiting Canada for decades—quite a bit of my family lives there. I was just there in 2022 for a wedding reception. It’s a nice place that seems like it won’t be a nice place in 50 years. Cops watched me like a hawk—I assume they have good reasons. Punjabi Uber driver told me he doesn’t even have to speak English because everyone at the bank, store, etc., speaks Punjabi. For some reason his elderly, past working age parents were immigrating to join him. Had to defend my being married to an American to some family friend at the wedding—there’s so many Bangladeshis there it’s possible to maintain endogenous marriage. Tried to charge my rented Tesla in a part of town that was all Indians. I let one Indian lady cut in front of me, which pissed off the Indian lady behind me, who started yelling at me “why are you letting her do that?” Not Canadian nice, certainly. In the 1990s, Canada was a phenomenally well run and efficient country. More federalized than the U.S. (with 80% of spending run through the provinces). Canada had universal healthcare while having non-military per-capita government spending lower than the U.S. Now you’re running a sociologist experiment about what really causes prosperity and orderliness in western countries.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  If it was just the trade spat, you might be right. But there's also Trump repeatedly talking about annexing Canada. That goes well beyond a trade spat, and I would absolutely expect Canada to do more in response because that is in the mix. Including actively working to reduce their dependency on US-sourced or US-transiting products.
  - zardo 2y ago
    At the very least you would expect them to start looking at other sources for arms.
    - a-priori 2y ago
      Absolutely. Canada is almost certainly going to cancel or severely limit a pending F35 order, and is actively sourcing aircraft and negotiating mutual arms deals with European partners.
      - fmbb 2y ago
        … which is hard to do for European plane makers that have engines with parts licensed from US companies. Hopefully this all leads to more countries stopping relying on US trade.
        overfeed 2y ago
        I'm sure Rolls Royce expects their order book to grow over the next few decades. Likely some engineers have been tasked with researching the viability of creating drop-in replacement models for American engines.
        a-priori 2y ago
        Of course, NATO was founded on the assumption that the US is a reliable trading and security partner, and the defense supply chains reflect that assumption. It will take time to untangle those chains, but you're watching all of NATO speed-running that process right now.
        2y ago
epa 2y ago
This is silly. US is Canada's biggest trading partner and one of the largest borders in the world. 80% of people live within 1 hour of the border. Free trade has allowed both economies to prosper. Canada has everything to gain with free trade. You are right on over reliance, but free trade benefits everyone.
- throaway1987 2y ago
  Ironically the "free trade deals" have been broadly bad for workers, but Trump's proposals seem even worse
- overfeed 2y ago
  It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
    The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Tit-for-tat inherently forgives the moment the other party stops defecting, in a game theoretic sense. It's "start friendly, every future move copies other party's previous move".
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    Depending how you count "borders" and "European countries" they share a border with 2 (France via St Pierre and Miquelon, Denmark via Greenland) and share a landlord with a third.
raydev 2y ago
> It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with. Yes, but any of those deals will pale in comparison to the opporunities Canada has with the wealthiest next door neighbor in the world. The oceans aren't nothing, the culture differences aren't nothing (no matter how small you try to make them with other Commonwealth countries). Losing the US as a friend is a massive loss, and nothing will match it.
JeremyNT 2y ago
> It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia. The problem is, this kind of pivot would take a long time and be extremely difficult. Out there in the real world, real Canadians have a lot to lose. The US strong-arming its allies in this way puts them in a massive bind near term. Canada could eventually adapt to a different world order with reduced reliance on the US, but it would suffer a recession (or worse) in the process. They have no good options here, because how can you really deal with a madman? (In a game theoretical sense [0], if not also a literal one) - but I think the ideal strategy is to acquiesce to the US and pursue these efforts as quickly as they can to remove any reliance going forward. This is made more difficult by the fact that there seems no obvious way to actually appease the US, whose current goals and objectives are completely opaque. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- k12sosse 2y ago
  You greatly underestimate the stubbornness of a Canadian to suffer for what they believe is right.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

Regime?

boringg 2y ago
noun 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. "ideological opponents of the regime"
hypertexthero 2y ago
Historian Bret Deveraux, writing in October 2024: > Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed. > Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail. — https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/ https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...

jdlyga 2y ago

They don't think, and that's the problem. This might've worked during the cold war, but it's not 1960.

psychlops 2y ago

This sounds like a straw man. Do you have a link showing where supporters think Canada won't resist the US?

Brusco_RF 2y ago

>[Canada] may eliminate the US from the world arena Is this a joke?

FredPret 2y ago
For any armed force, even a 2-3 million strong one, fighting a war against an entire population of 40 million goes one of two ways: - unimaginable atrocities that would make Hitler blush, and then they might still lose - Vietnam x 100
- machomaster 2y ago
  How many of those 40 millions have military education/skills, are willing to use them, as well as have access to weapons?
  - FredPret 2y ago
    I don't know, but let's do a thought experiment. North Vietnam had 13 mil people, South Vietnam 17m. Afghanistan had 20m people at the time of invasion. These were undeveloped countries with very low human capital. Their militaries did not hold up. And yet - how did it all turn out for the US? Canada has 40m people, terrain ideally suited to guerilla warfare, a huge land border with the US, and a population that is not only indistinguishable from American civilians, but also enjoys much wider popular support in the US than the Vietnamese ever did. It would be extremely foolish to think you could simply invade such a place at all, nevermind easily.

hintymad 2y ago

An honest question: what is wrong with reciprocal tariff? Wouldn't that be fair to both countries? I understand that there were many compromises when the countries signed trade deals like NAFTA, so we got some protective tariffs here and there, but I was wondering in general why reciprocal tariff is considered unfair.

jpambrun 2y ago
I guess it could be fair, but those are unilateral. The official justifications such as considering sales tax, are bogus. The unofficial justification (or official depending on time of day..) is annexation. Surely, you see how this isn't perceived as fair from up North?
anon84873628 2y ago
The trade isn't necessarily perfectly balanced, is it? In negotiations you have more flexibility if you can increase the size of the pie. Things like transit tolls or cruise ship stops are examples of that.
maxerickson 2y ago
It's not that it's unfair, it's that it is stupid.

Gibbon1 2y ago

There is this bad penny bit of propaganda that a lot of people believe. Which is only the US has any agency. And everyone else does what they do either under orders from the US or as a reaction to something the US did. It's attractive if you're ignorant and stupid because it makes the world simple enough for you to think you understand everything. Putin, the current administration and conservatives in general swallowed that hook line and sinker.

rurp 2y ago

There has been some darkly hilarious reporting that much of this administration was genuinely surprised and confused that Canada didn't immediately roll over in response to US bullying. Most people realize that the world isn't made up of NPCs during childhood, but I guess the clowns currently in charge missed that developmental step. Either that or they have spent so much time on twitter and similar spaces that it has seriously warped their view of reality.

jjkaczor 2y ago

When there is now a 6-month backlog of people trying to take the CFSC/CRFSC courses to get their PAL, and the CAF recruitment site is constantly overloaded, yes - Canadians will definitely be resisting any military style invasion. Add that to the grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement, and no - Canadian's are not going to roll over and accept US pressure for either tariffs or annexation.