This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to 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.
Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
>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.
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).
At least China and Russia only forcibly attacked independent countries that were once united with them.
The US imports pretty much everything consumers consume. Ooops
The US would have nobody to sell anything to. Ooops
The US is now in a local conflict that a very large % of citizens does not support. What happens after the next election?
It is a fun fictional exercise, ala Man in the Highcastle
which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
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?
That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support.
AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government.
If he says go, they go.
It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh).
This conversation is so stupid though.
As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out.
They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all.
So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
I think it would be a bigger loss for the UK to do something stupid than for the US do to something stupid.
I guess we have to see how it plays out with Greenland - most likely scenario would be he'd go after Greenland first if it ever comes to that.
But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened.
Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.
That doesn’t go away quickly without good reason even with new orders.
An attack on a Anglophone Five Eyes NATO member is militarily close to a civil war and could rapidly lead to a civil war.
Why is this hard to comprehend?
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.
There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.
Also, a president doesn't have to declare war to engage in military conflict.
"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[2] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Eg: Nexen was bought by CNOOC with a whole bunch of promises and broke lots of them.
The whole thing is pretty stupid, but Trump is so chaotic that chances of bad things happening are feeling somewhat above zero.
At least one Canadian business magnate (Kevin O'Leary) has tried to position himself in on the deal and visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago to talk details.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-t...
Naked sedition would be promoting an actual invasion, not just floating the idea of Canada joining as the 51st state voluntarily and figuring out the logistics of how that could happen (which as far as I can tell is all this is).
We don't have an equivalent of the American Logan Act that would make this illegal.
I feel like a single word should explain it, but I know HN abhors single word responses. Trump has threatened tariffs and has mentioned annexing Canada. He's also mentioned buying Greenland, trading Puerto Rico for Greenland, and a bunch of other notions.
It seems to me that he really wants to do some empire building, but hasn't figured out a way that people would actually accept (and isn't interested in the modern version of treaty based "empires").
Panama is only relevant because of the US investment in the Canal and they claim ownership when it suits them and then cry poverty every time investments need to be made.
Panama is currently playing with fire by courting foreign interest that doesn't align with the US, who are effectively their paymasters.
It's not a sudden "empire-building" move by the US. The fact that the canal exists at all has always been because of the US Empire. Panama is playing a dangerous game of FA&FO.
Probably wouldn’t make a state but treat like Puerto Rico where they continue to self govern and citizens can freely move to the USA as they’d have USA passports.
For USA very strategic naval passages and mineral extraction.
It’s not that crazy really and I think there’s a deal that’s mutually beneficial where everyone wins and is better off long term.
That's almost $300 billion dollars?
Or maybe Canada should pull a Russia and sell the Northwest Territories and Yukon. That would generate a lot of interest and money.
If Poilievre gets elected, will he willingly join the USA? It seems that the world is more and more aligned by political spectrum rather than national allegiance.
Did it? Stickers or posters saying "keep our Pound!" were common on bus stops and street lights as a kid in the Home Counties in the 90s. Newspapers ran (mostly untrue) stories about market fruit stands needing to sell bananas by the KG rather than by the lb. Both the Tories and Labour had Euroskeptic wings since the 1970s.
Rightly or wrongly, the undercurrent of Brexit was there from the start of the EU and ebbed or flowed based on events of the day.
When it comes to US - Canada relations, if Canadians decide to be a part of the states, then it’s their will. I don’t support it, but if super majority changes their minds… well, we live in a democracy, and such is the will of people.
Frankly, I think US is in a panic mode as they realize they can’t outcompete China anytime soon by themselves. So they’re trying every possible thing to see what sticks to increase their chances.
China is also in panic mode because of internal issues that stem from the younger generation’s dissatisfaction. Natural fix is to claim some wins to rally and unite people. So the ideas of reunification, playing to win in manufacturing, showing how much better they can overcome the economical problems using their 1B population are on the play now.
For whatever reason, I think the common lives of people who live in countries that play for both sides will be the only ones that get elevated. And frankly, I think, Canada should do the same.
He could have rested on his laurels knowing history would likely forget his shortcomings & scandals, and be remembered as the prime minister who got us legal weed, navigated the covid pandemic, brought clean drinking water to FN reserves and advanced social programs (childcare, dental care).
Instead he's likely going to be known as the prime minister who had to be forcibly walked to the door by Canadians and his party, while leaving the country in a precarious position during tumultuous times.
Poilievre is a career politician who's only professional experience has been as a politician, has no work history to speak of (don't take my word for it, his wikipedia entry details only a job as a collection agent, and that he started a business in 2003 focused on political communications, and then was elected in 2004).
Poilievre has spent the last several years in the lead up to becoming the party leader for the CPC cozying up to the alt-right, supporting the anti-vax movement, and hasn't published any meaningful policy documentation.
Poilievre is basically the last man standing from Stephen Harpers administration (in terms of policies and practices), and has failed to drive or pass any meaningful legislation or policy changes in his 20 year career. His victory in the 2022 CPC leadership campaign was a landslide, but also suffered from allegations of foreign interference from India and China. There is still an outstanding report on foreign interference due on January 31st.
Trudeau's greatest mistake was not implementing the electoral change he campaigned on, which likely would have marked a long term shift toward more left leaning social policies along side centrist fiscal policies, which have typically characterized Canadian society. Unfortunately, unless a very compelling alternative to the CPC emerges in the next 3 months, we will most likely get a government lead by a sock-puppet who lacks any real strength to negotiate with a presumably hostile incoming US administration, and the official party line from other Conservative groups in Canada appears to be appeasement and concession.
It's gonna be a rough couple of years :/
(edited for shoe-in)
Agreed. In an over-simplification,
- first past the post is the best for the Conservatives. (It was best for the Liberals before the Reform & Conservatives merged).
- single transferable is the best for the Liberals
- mixed-member proportional is the best for the NDP
Trudeau thought the electoral commission would give him the STV he wanted, but it was going to deliver MMP that would pretty much guarantee that he would have to coalition with the NDP. So he nixed it. He ended up with an NDP coalition anyways, so he didn't gain anything through the nixing. Instead FPTP is going to result in a Conservative landslide in 2025.
Mulcair was ahead in the polls first half of that election. Trudeau came out of third place to win with his lie about electoral reform and by refusing to answer the question about the religious discrimination laws being introduced in Quebec.
Things could have gone very differently. Mulcair was a much more competent politician than Trudeau, and the NDP platform was more balanced. Though it may have been a challenge for him to assemble a fully competent cabinet.
A wolf in sheep disguise. I didn't want PP to be the next prime minister for comments in parent of the thread, but who else is going to win this running now?
- You don't want PP to be PM
- You're angry at the NDP for not voting to bring Trudeau down (and effectively make PP the PM)
I share your frustration with the NDP under Singh. But I'm not sure what alternative he has, tactically. Voting down the government at this juncture would only have led to an election that would have brought PP to power as PM. Which is notably not in the NDP's interests. (Or, I'd argue, the public's)
But, yes, I understand it tactically. But it's strategically inept. For 4 years the NDP has "won the battle but lost the war" -- all the policy planks they forced the Liberals to adopt will simply be dismantled by the conservatives now.
What they were hoping for is some recognition from the public that the progressive moves made by the Liberals in the last parliament were in fact NDP initiatives forced on them. Instead they're just tarred and feathered with the same image that Trudeau has.
Ronald Reagan and Zelenskyy were ridiculed as an actor in their election campaigns.
Poilievre is a career politician and unproven at the highest office, but that by itself should not disqualify him. Knowing who to delegate to is 90% the job of a good leader -- the other 10% is public speaking and being charismatic.
Trudeau was also a secondary school teacher, acted in a tv movie. He also reputedly worked as a bouncer and worked in various (heavily politically affiliated) non-profits. He had a career before politics.
That said, my primary point is that Poilievre hasn't been a particularly effective politician, and his reputation is largely that of a blowhard who's main appeal is that he is not Trudeau.
Which is a plus considering how much Trump hates Trudeau.
Poilievre gives off too much Milhouse energy, which I'm not sure if good or bad for obsequiousing.
I do think Freeland is too tainted by Trudeau now to be a success. Very intelligent woman, but I think her political career is ending. (I should check back on this comment in 5 years)
I think if she wanted she could very well be a contender in the next election cycle.
I'm amazed at the dominance he has over his party that has made it possible for him still to be hanging on. Even his resignation is slow motion.