4 ms·

How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice? Is there any historical, legal, or strategic precedent t

How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice? Is there any historical, legal, or strategic precedent that would make this even remotely feasible? And given the likely short political shelf life of the current U.S. administration, would any of this outlast the next four years anyway?

brookst 1y ago
No, it’s all somewhere between bluster and fantasy. But it speaks to the US oligarchs’ mindset.
toyg 1y ago
I mean, historical precedents for land grabs abound, but after the 1918 Wilson Doctrine (a US creation, btw) there is nothing. Colonialism is over and blatant imperialism doesn't work; we hold this as self-evident truth. Then again, certain governments continue to act like we were still in the XIX century so "might makes right" (Russia, Israel, China, Morocco, Turkey...). If one is not ashamed to be in such an esteemed company, everything is possible.
- janalsncm 1y ago
  Given that this is about the invasion of Iraq, I wouldn’t exclude the US from that list.
michael1999 1y ago
Recent history tells that once one moron US president decides to start an illegal war, both parties are happy to continue it for a couple of decades.
- michael1999 1y ago
  Iraq is a country: - with 45 million people - speaking languages other than english - a quarter of the way around the world - next to Iran and Turkey who could spoil US operations And Bush still destroyed it with ease. The idea that the USA couldn't annex Canada by force is just silly. We'd fight, and slit your throats in the dark. But there are some of us who'd just roll over, or welcome you with open arms. Just look at the morons in Alberta talking USA annexation -- they're probably 10% of the population. That's enough for a Quisling regime.
ben_w 1y ago
> How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice? They've tried twice already, the second time the Canadians (/British at the time) burned down the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

brookst 1y ago

No, it’s all somewhere between bluster and fantasy. But it speaks to the US oligarchs’ mindset.

toyg 1y ago

I mean, historical precedents for land grabs abound, but after the 1918 Wilson Doctrine (a US creation, btw) there is nothing. Colonialism is over and blatant imperialism doesn't work; we hold this as self-evident truth. Then again, certain governments continue to act like we were still in the XIX century so "might makes right" (Russia, Israel, China, Morocco, Turkey...). If one is not ashamed to be in such an esteemed company, everything is possible.

janalsncm 1y ago
Given that this is about the invasion of Iraq, I wouldn’t exclude the US from that list.

michael1999 1y ago

Recent history tells that once one moron US president decides to start an illegal war, both parties are happy to continue it for a couple of decades.

michael1999 1y ago
Iraq is a country: - with 45 million people - speaking languages other than english - a quarter of the way around the world - next to Iran and Turkey who could spoil US operations And Bush still destroyed it with ease. The idea that the USA couldn't annex Canada by force is just silly. We'd fight, and slit your throats in the dark. But there are some of us who'd just roll over, or welcome you with open arms. Just look at the morons in Alberta talking USA annexation -- they're probably 10% of the population. That's enough for a Quisling regime.

ben_w 1y ago

> How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice? They've tried twice already, the second time the Canadians (/British at the time) burned down the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington