4 ms·

Fighting a war against the US is futile. Not saying it should be annexed but if it has to be anyone then it may as well be your neighbors who have a lot in comm

Fighting a war against the US is futile. Not saying it should be annexed but if it has to be anyone then it may as well be your neighbors who have a lot in common with you. Life in Canada would no doubt improve if it was a US territory.

nofriend 9mo ago
the goal is to make a war unpalatable to the us public. this is not very difficult to do, since the us public doesn't like it when their own soldiers die. having fighter jets that can be remotely shut down by the us makes it a great deal more difficult.
- bulbar 9mo ago
  US citizen also not used to having war at their front door. I assume that would make a great difference. But what the duck are people (including me) even discussing here? Within a year it has come so far that the US government alienated one of their most important allies and people discussing the possibility of a war against them.
  - wakawaka28 9mo ago
    I think this could be a scheme to get other countries to start paying for their own defense more, instead of relying on the US to do it. It is perhaps rude or undiplomatic, but it's supposed to be a kick in the ass. I remember Trump talking to EU leaders years ago to explain this to them, and nothing changed. Maybe now they got the message.
    - youngtaff 9mo ago
      And perhaps the US should start paying for it’s own debt instead of relying on the rest of the world to support it?
      - wakawaka28 9mo ago
        I agree! But I think bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion. Our financial situation over decades, facilitated by the rest of the world, has destroyed most industry in the US because nobody can afford to compete with foreigners while getting paid in "strong" fiat dollars. I expect it to end in disaster. The US needs to rebuild industry and eat its own dog food product-wise, but that will be difficult to get back to.
- jgwil2 9mo ago
  If any weapon can be remotely shut down by anyone, that should be a deal breaker. But is there any evidence that is the case?
  - wakawaka28 9mo ago
    How the hell would anyone know? You think they ship detailed plans and schematics to 3rd parties? Even the US government can hardly get those things from the manufacturer in general. Are we to believe that governments that want to backdoor your phone and every other personal device, would not put backdoors into equipment sold to foreign nations?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
gpm 9mo ago
Life in Canada would no doubt deprove drastically. The loss of healthcare. The loss of language rights. The loss of the right not to be harassed and gassed by secret police. Etc.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  [flagged]
bulbar 9mo ago
> Life in Canada would no doubt improve if it was a US territory. Nobody ever invaded another country to improve the life of the citizen of the other country. Countries get invaded to increase the power of the own country and that implies a less favorable outcome for the invaded country.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  You're not exactly wrong, but the net outcome can be favorable to the common man in the invaded country. Some takeovers of countries have been (relatively) peaceful as well.
tim333 9mo ago
There was a war in 1892 when the US invaded Canada. They ended up giving up and going home.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  Not worth it back then I guess...
notepad0x90 9mo ago
Everyone will lose their healthcare, that alone sucks. The improvement I think is by your metrics, not theirs. They like paying more taxes for social welfare and welcoming lot of immigrants (up to a point). that's incompatible with US culture.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  Their socialized medicine generally sucks. I don't think there's anywhere in the world where medical is cheap and easily available in a timely manner. In countries with "free" (as in "government robs you at gunpoint to pay for it whether you want it or not") healthcare, people often end up paying for expensive private services anyway because of inadequate treatment under the government plan. Since you have to pay for it anyway, and there's no free lunch, I'd rather be able to decide how important my problem is and seek the appropriate treatment whether it is cheap or expensive. Also, insurance companies and providers play an elaborate game to maximize their profits and also scare people into getting insurance. Providers would rather deal with insurance companies than poor people and will cut these huge and exclusive discounts that don't apply to private pay.

nofriend 9mo ago

the goal is to make a war unpalatable to the us public. this is not very difficult to do, since the us public doesn't like it when their own soldiers die. having fighter jets that can be remotely shut down by the us makes it a great deal more difficult.

bulbar 9mo ago
US citizen also not used to having war at their front door. I assume that would make a great difference. But what the duck are people (including me) even discussing here? Within a year it has come so far that the US government alienated one of their most important allies and people discussing the possibility of a war against them.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  I think this could be a scheme to get other countries to start paying for their own defense more, instead of relying on the US to do it. It is perhaps rude or undiplomatic, but it's supposed to be a kick in the ass. I remember Trump talking to EU leaders years ago to explain this to them, and nothing changed. Maybe now they got the message.
  - youngtaff 9mo ago
    And perhaps the US should start paying for it’s own debt instead of relying on the rest of the world to support it?
    - wakawaka28 9mo ago
      I agree! But I think bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion. Our financial situation over decades, facilitated by the rest of the world, has destroyed most industry in the US because nobody can afford to compete with foreigners while getting paid in "strong" fiat dollars. I expect it to end in disaster. The US needs to rebuild industry and eat its own dog food product-wise, but that will be difficult to get back to.
jgwil2 9mo ago
If any weapon can be remotely shut down by anyone, that should be a deal breaker. But is there any evidence that is the case?
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  How the hell would anyone know? You think they ship detailed plans and schematics to 3rd parties? Even the US government can hardly get those things from the manufacturer in general. Are we to believe that governments that want to backdoor your phone and every other personal device, would not put backdoors into equipment sold to foreign nations?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

gpm 9mo ago

Life in Canada would no doubt deprove drastically. The loss of healthcare. The loss of language rights. The loss of the right not to be harassed and gassed by secret police. Etc.

wakawaka28 9mo ago
[flagged]

bulbar 9mo ago

> Life in Canada would no doubt improve if it was a US territory. Nobody ever invaded another country to improve the life of the citizen of the other country. Countries get invaded to increase the power of the own country and that implies a less favorable outcome for the invaded country.

wakawaka28 9mo ago
You're not exactly wrong, but the net outcome can be favorable to the common man in the invaded country. Some takeovers of countries have been (relatively) peaceful as well.

tim333 9mo ago

There was a war in 1892 when the US invaded Canada. They ended up giving up and going home.

wakawaka28 9mo ago
Not worth it back then I guess...

notepad0x90 9mo ago

Everyone will lose their healthcare, that alone sucks. The improvement I think is by your metrics, not theirs. They like paying more taxes for social welfare and welcoming lot of immigrants (up to a point). that's incompatible with US culture.

wakawaka28 9mo ago
Their socialized medicine generally sucks. I don't think there's anywhere in the world where medical is cheap and easily available in a timely manner. In countries with "free" (as in "government robs you at gunpoint to pay for it whether you want it or not") healthcare, people often end up paying for expensive private services anyway because of inadequate treatment under the government plan. Since you have to pay for it anyway, and there's no free lunch, I'd rather be able to decide how important my problem is and seek the appropriate treatment whether it is cheap or expensive. Also, insurance companies and providers play an elaborate game to maximize their profits and also scare people into getting insurance. Providers would rather deal with insurance companies than poor people and will cut these huge and exclusive discounts that don't apply to private pay.