• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

I'll respectfully disagree with your claim that the bad taste of forcible annexation eventually goes away. Again- I'll ask you to name another western liberal government that has invaded or annexed, and successfully integrated another?
That's probably too narrow a definition to find one. My general rule is that most peoples prefer poor self-rule to excellent foreign rule anyways. I would not be surprised if a majority of people resented it for three or four generations. I would also not be surprised if, lacking any particularly compelling unified cultural narrative, a Canadian majority didn't last that long.

Certainly not all annexations are failures. The US annexed part of Mexico - it's easy to argue the US was not really "western liberal government" by contemporary standards, and obviously Mexico less so - and there hasn't been a very large movement in those parts of the US to return to Mexico.
 
This is Army.ca. An Army defends its nation. If you want to minimize/rationalize/moralize (and when you insist on describing all the "good aspects" of being forcibly annexed, you are minimizing, rationalizing and moralizing the annexation) or otherwise argue that Canada should not resist a forced annexation by the US, then you should probably go preach that somewhere else. We don't need surrender cheerleaders.
Can you ever avoid describing my position in a way that expands it to something I do not argue? I am not claiming that "Canada" should not resist a forced annexation by the US in absolutely any way. I am claiming that ordinary citizens are not bound to fight (and as a sidebar pointing out the folly of expecting spontaneous armed resistance by an essentially disarmed population), that they may and should measure the losses and gains of doing so, and arguing that the losses/gains are approximately a wash that does not rise to the level of meriting risking one's life. I would counsel fighting age people to think long and hard about what they really would lose or gain, relative to the costs.

This is Mike's site, not the CAF's, and not even the government's. It's worth being professional about the sobering if unpalatable prospect that the Canadian people aren't going to necessarily join the armed forces in armed resistance to a US invasion, to assess the ramifications professionally, and to make sure the politicians understand the position if they haven't already figured it out themselves. It's worth being realistic about the capacity of people to do so; and, if the country is serious about defending itself against US aggression, creating the necessary conditions for irregular combatants to have reasonable prospects. It's worth being open-minded about what someone here might suggest/hope people ought to kill/die for; and, if they come back with variations of "my country right or wrong", to be skeptical.
 
That's probably too narrow a definition to find one. My general rule is that most peoples prefer poor self-rule to excellent foreign rule anyways. I would not be surprised if a majority of people resented it for three or four generations. I would also not be surprised if, lacking any particularly compelling unified cultural narrative, a Canadian majority didn't last that long.

Certainly not all annexations are failures. The US annexed part of Mexico - it's easy to argue the US was not really "western liberal government" by contemporary standards, and obviously Mexico less so - and there hasn't been a very large movement in those parts of the US to return to Mexico.
I don't think a recent (past 100 years) example exists, and certainly not involving democratic members of a collective defence pact.

I think your last post to McG better explains the point that you're attempting to make, but surely you can understand that annexation musings from a close ally will generate an emotion response from a large (...massive?) percentage of the population in question.

Even if the probability of annexation actually occurring is infinitesimally small, the fact that a head of state / commander-in-chief, and senior members of his administration are indicating that the option is on the table (edit: to be more precise, not off the table) isn't normal.

Liberal democracies don't threaten other liberal democracies with invasion or annexation, and certainly not allied nations. To minimize only serves to normalize something that isn't normal.
 
I think your last post to McG better explains the point that you're attempting to make, but surely you can understand that annexation musings from a close ally will generate an emotion response from a large (...massive?) percentage of the population in question.
Sure, for those who take them seriously. "51st state" and "Greenland annexation" are so far off the wall, though. I can't take them seriously.

Despite my attempts to avoid it, I suppose I got dragged a bit sideways by the people trying to frame me for supporting the annexation.

My response to JLB50

My response to MrWhyt

My response to Altair

I single those out to be clear that I've been objecting to the facile idea that Canadians should be expected to fight and die for "Canada" or "patriotism" or something rather more abstract that fighting real tyranny and oppression.

Regarding Greenland, I wondered about a consensual annexation, not a forced one.
Here. Not sure how that became advocacy of forcible annexation of Greenland.
 
Can you ever avoid describing my position in a way that expands it to something I do not argue? I am not claiming that "Canada" should not resist a forced annexation by the US in absolutely any way. I am claiming that ordinary citizens are not bound to fight
You have argued that Canada is not worth fighting for; not worth dying for. You have presented your imagined positives of being annexed. These are not arguments that discriminate between military or civilian audiences, and you are not addressing ordinary citizens. You are making these arguments to an audience that is disproportionately military. You are advocating to a large military audience that Canada is not worth defending if US annexation comes.

You have defended a lot of crap behaviour from the current US administration on this site, but take your arguments as to why it’s not worth fighting for Canada and stuff them somewhere that we don’t have to hear it anymore. I don’t care that you imagine some positives for yourself in the event of annexation. The proposal and threats are vile. Any attempt would be evil. There is no moralizing threats of annexation against a democracy. There is no rationalizing threats of annexation against a democracy. There should be no normalizing or minimizing threats of annexation against a democracy. And this is not the place to argue Canada is not worth fighting for. This is the place for the people who will give it all to keep Canada strong & free.
 
Sure, for those who take them seriously. "51st state" and "Greenland annexation" are so far off the wall, though. I can't take them seriously.
You characterize the latter threat as being routine, or a negotiating tool.

Despite my attempts to avoid it, I suppose I got dragged a bit sideways by the people trying to frame me for supporting the annexation.

My response to JLB50

My response to MrWhyt

My response to Altair
To be clear, I only questioned how (in your reply to McG) you are able to square "principle over country" with the hypothetical scenario where the US disregards many principles that are seen to be sacrosanct, by invading an allied democracy. The response in question here:

There you go again, trying to fit me to "would not fight for Canada". I've repeatedly written that it depends on which country invades. How difficult is that to comprehend?

I won't fight for Canada against the US. Principle over country. By my principles, in the sum of everything there is not enough difference worth killing or being killed for in an exchange of US government for Canadian government.


Regarding Greenland, I wondered about a consensual annexation, not a forced one.
Here. Not sure how that became advocacy of forcible annexation of Greenland.
I haven't accused you of any such advocacy. I've merely pointed out that administration officials musing about annexing allied democracies is not normal. Minimizing these musings as routine, or being part of a negotiating strategy, or dismissing them as unserious doesn't change the fact that they are unprecedented, and inconsistent with what the US has historically stood for.

Regarding consensual annexation, 85% of Greenlanders surveyed are against joining the US.

 
Animated GIF

How so ? It shouldn't be hard to form a long recruiting line from army.ca members, should it ?
 
You have argued that Canada is not worth fighting for; not worth dying for. You have presented your imagined positives of being annexed. These are not arguments that discriminate between military or civilian audiences, and you are not addressing ordinary citizens. You are making these arguments to an audience that is disproportionately military. You are advocating to a large military audience that Canada is not worth defending if US annexation comes.
You are being serially dishonest. I have argued that Canada is not worth fighting for, by some people, against the US. Stop strawmanning the position. I am making the point to anyone here who thinks citizens ought to spontaneously rise, under any kind of conditions, to defend Canada. This country does not own its people.
You have defended a lot of crap behaviour from the current US administration on this site, but take your arguments as to why it’s not worth fighting for Canada and stuff them somewhere that we don’t have to hear it anymore. I don’t care that you imagine some positives for yourself in the event of annexation. The proposal and threats are vile. Any attempt would be evil. There is no moralizing threats of annexation against a democracy. There is no rationalizing threats of annexation against a democracy. There should be no normalizing or minimizing threats of annexation against a democracy. And this is not the place to argue Canada is not worth fighting for. This is the place for the people who will give it all to keep Canada strong & free.
You've got it wrong. Either a country owns its people and can demand they do anything, or it does not and can not. If it's the former, it's not a democracy. If it's the latter, people have a right to require reasons better than appeals to patriotism. If this is the place for arguing to make Canada strong, let the community of professionals add Swiss-style self-defence institutions.
 
You characterize the latter threat as being routine, or a negotiating tool.
For Trump, it is. I ceased to be surprised or distraught by anything he'll say long ago. That's my frame. Others may differ.
To be clear, I only questioned how (in your reply to McG) you are able to square "principle over country" with the hypothetical scenario where the US disregards many principles that are seen to be sacrosanct, by invading an allied democracy. The response in question here:
In another reply, I wrote that principles sometimes contradict, but in my frame almost everything has a number which is not infinity. Aggressive war is wrong. The US isn't Russia or China. Weigh the balance of costs. Some people might be willing to risk throwing away the balance of their lives over the difference between living as a Canadian or American. I'm not; and I'm not willing to do so just to fail to teach the US a lesson about aggressive war it has obviously not already learned.
Regarding consensual annexation, 85% of Greenlanders surveyed are against joining the US.
Excellent. And that question is resolved. And whatever it was Trump meant to do by sounding off about military options to take over Greenland, I doubt it ever happens and I suspect the purpose was to goad a bunch of people into doing whatever it is the administration is really trying to achieve.
 
Excellent. And that question is resolved.
Regarding Greenlanders... I don't think it is. There has not been any offer of detail. I suspect that 85% could change dramatically depending on how bad the US wants to control Greenland.
 
I suspect there are different tiers of lists from watch all the way from "watch" to "make disappear day one". I know which list I prefer being on lol.
Here's one example of how the concept (and fear) of being 'on a watch list' was in Czechoslovakia - during Communism and for certain 3-4yrs after the fall of Communism.

Back in 95-96 when I worked in Prague the subway system was a complete 'honour' system. There were no turnstiles, no gates, no barriers to entry or exist - nothing preventing a person just walking right onto the trains. But, at the entrance to every station were ticket kiosks which depending on the time of day were either manned or unmanned where you could buy a ticket, in addition there were automatic ticket dispensers along the wall. In practice you were to buy a ticket from the kiosk or the dispenser and then 'validate' the ticket at a little machine at the entrance before walking onto the train. The 'validation' basically just printed a date/time stamp on the ticket. Afterward you were to keep the ticket on your person as 'proof of payment.' This process was not clear to me as a foreigner working there, there was no English signs explaining the process, no one in the little booth explained anything to me and more often than not didn't speak English and my basic Polish/Czech was useless. So, I just would walk on the train every morning and every evening to and from work. I did see people buying these tickets and getting them 'validated' but no one was checking and no one was prevented from just walking straight on.

After about 2 months I finally asked a Czech co-worker after work while having a few pints. They were about 35yrs old, educated and quite happy with where things were moving in the newly free Czech Republic. When I told them what I was doing they went white in the face, they got agitated and starting talking fast and quiet saying that I shouldn't be doing that and that I needed to stop this immediately. I asked what the big deal was, yes it was fare evasion, but not murder. They said that in the 'old' days that everyone knew to pay because very randomly, without warning the city police would block the exit of an entire metro station and demand to see 'validated' tickets - NOT to fine anyone but to get their name, address, employer, etc and that this would go into 'the system.' My co-worker said that you NEVER wanted you name to be put into 'the system' because that meant that you were someone to be watched, someone who was not conforming to the rules, to the system and if it occurred often enough, you'd be kicked out of your field of study in university and have only limited options in other fields, you'd lose your job, not be allowed for promotion, your name removed from the list for a larger apartment, your ability to go to certain Warsaw Pact countries for your holidays. This 'honour system' was still in place 4yrs after the fall of communism.

After this I started buying and validating a ticket. A few months after this I was caught up in one of these event's when the city police would seal the exits, it happened at Staro Mesto station, and every single person trying to leave the station had to present a 'validated' ticket before leaving the station. There were people (mostly tourists) who didn't have validated tickets and the Czechs were having to present to internal identity papers where their contact information was being copied out. In the case of the tourists, they were being shaken down for on the spot 'fines', in just about any western currency they had before being allowed to leave. These 'fines' for certain were going directly into the pockets of the police because no receipt was being issued.
 
I am imagining something along the lines of this conversation occurring in Czechoslovakia, Austria or Poland right before the Nazis took over those lands, either through Anschluss, threats or outright invasion.
 
I am imagining something along the lines of this conversation occurring in Czechoslovakia, Austria or Poland right before the Nazis took over those lands, either through Anschluss, threats or outright invasion.
Yes - 100% correct. Except that your ability to speak your native Czech language would have been replaced with German. Your kids schooling would have switched over to German, with limited Czech. The list would have gone on and on.
 
I am imagining something along the lines of this conversation occurring in Czechoslovakia, Austria or Poland right before the Nazis took over those lands, either through Anschluss, threats or outright invasion.

That is to say if you equate the USA to the same degree as Nazi Germany. It is not. And the USA won't be marching its military into any friendly country for anschluss despite some hysterical interpretation of 47's words.
 
That is to say if you equate the USA to the same degree as Nazi Germany. It is not. And the USA won't be marching its military into any friendly country for anschluss despite some hysterical interpretation of 47's words.
You put alot of faith into someone that a number of medical doctors question their mental state.
 
That is to say if you equate the USA to the same degree as Nazi Germany. It is not. And the USA won't be marching its military into any friendly country for anschluss despite some hysterical interpretation of 47's words.
To “the same degree as Nazi Germany”??? Wow. That in itself speaks volumes.
 
Back
Top