• 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 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

If the U.S. wants to release what they have from their own intelligence, great. Their sources are theirs to partly or fully expose as they see fit.
I believe that would be the case. It’s up to Canada and what it discloses itself, and its plan to address the interference.

Hopefully they’d also be willing to let Canadian authorities disclose and use that information in court as evidence and see it challenged in the course of prosecutions as applicable.
I actually think there would be an interim step that we in general would not see, that is the US would provide evidentiary-grade info/intel to agencies that it believes are not the cause, or contributions deliberately to Canada’s extant, de facto willful ignorance.
 
If the U.S. wants to release what they have from their own intelligence, great. Their sources are theirs to partly or fully expose as they see fit. Hopefully they’d also be willing to let Canadian authorities disclose and use that information in court as evidence and see it challenged in the course of prosecutions as applicable.
"Gosh, I hope nothing bad happens if the US airs our dirty laundry."
 
"Gosh, I hope nothing bad happens if the US airs our dirty laundry."
Nope, I mean exactly what I said, precisely how I said it, exactly at face value. If they make that decision and it should serve Canada’s law enforcement and security interests, great.

Don’t mistake the significant and valid information sharing and disclosure concerns I raise in these discussions with me not wanting issues with our national security to be decisively and openly addressed. I can recognize the complexity of the problem without liking that complexity. If a foreign party has their own sourced info that can shortcut our legal barriers, cool.

Am I actually optimistic we would see this happen in a way conducive to judicial use in Canada? No I’m not. But a man can dream.
 
In support of Trump's position -

One of Trump's Executive Orders required withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

Which apparently resulted in this:

Pai said Tuesday that “everything went crazy” at the WHO headquarters when Trump’s executive order was signed Monday.

“Everybody here is absolutely stressed, devastated, and literally freaking out because some of their programs at WHO are extremely reliant on U.S. government funding,” said Pai, who is also a global health professor at McGill University in Montreal.

“They’re not even sure how to keep the lights on, keep their staff working, keep the programs going, so it’s a pretty massive crisis.”

Dr. Madhukar Pai, the Canada Research Chair in Epidemiology and Global Health, is at the WHO headquarters in Geneva this week


...

Why can't this international organization operate just because the US withdraws its support?

....

This is what Trump and the vast majority of Americans are concerned about. Every international body is reliant on US taxpayer money. And nobody else ponies up anything like their share. The institutions have been in place since 1944. Their budgets were set in 1944.

The world no longer looks like it did in 1944.

The Yanks can't foot everyone else's bill.
 
Nope, I mean exactly what I said, precisely how I said it, exactly at face value. If they make that decision and it should serve Canada’s law enforcement and security interests, great.

Don’t mistake the significant and valid information sharing and disclosure concerns I raise in these discussions with me not wanting issues with our national security to be decisively and openly addressed. I can recognize the complexity of the problem without liking that complexity. If a foreign party has their own sourced info that can shortcut our legal barriers, cool.

Am I actually optimistic we would see this happen in a way conducive to judicial use in Canada? No I’m not. But a man can dream.

Not all information needs to go before the courts to have consequential value. And not every miscreant needs to go to jail, as satisfying as that might be.
 
Not all information needs to go before the courts to have consequential value. And not every miscreant needs to go to jail, as satisfying as that might be.
Yes, I’m very well aware. I’m just engaging the hypothetical that was raised by G2G a few posts up.
 
In support of Trump's position -

One of Trump's Executive Orders required withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

Which apparently resulted in this:






...

Why can't this international organization operate just because the US withdraws its support?

....

This is what Trump and the vast majority of Americans are concerned about. Every international body is reliant on US taxpayer money. And nobody else ponies up anything like their share. The institutions have been in place since 1944. Their budgets were set in 1944.

The world no longer looks like it did in 1944.

The Yanks can't foot everyone else's bill.

Perhaps soros and gates will pick up the slack.


Maybe the new Conservative government should have a hard look at the WHO also. And while we looking for other expensive stuff to save money on the Paris Climate Agreement could use a magnifying glass also.

If for no other reason than we can't afford any offshore expenses until we pull ourselves out of the hole trudeau has dug for us.
 
Perhaps soros and gates will pick up the slack.


Maybe the new Conservative government should have a hard look at the WHO also. And while we looking for other expensive stuff to save money on the Paris Climate Agreement could use a magnifying glass also.

If for no other reason than we can't afford any offshore expenses until we pull ourselves out of the hole trudeau has dug for us.
If Bill Gates is so popular he can fund it.

Oh but he gave half his money to his ex when they divorced.....I am still curious about that.
 
Some thoughts about how Canada can/should move forward, instead of pretending that Trump’s words and actions are a huge surprise that no one could have predicted, and for which no preparatory actions could have been taken…

 
What does Trump want?

Secretary of State Mario Rubio's directive to State Department diplomats.

Sweeping changes are coming to a department that had mistakenly emphasized “ideology over common sense” and “misread the world.”

The lengthy cable was sent shortly after Rubio arrived at his new post in Foggy Bottom and was obtained exclusively by RealClearPolitics. It signals a fundamental shift in foreign policy and a realignment of all diplomatic efforts toward putting American needs first.

Toward this end, President Trump’s new diplomat promised to focus on mass migration, terminate DEI policies within the department, end the “censorship of the American people,” and pursue “energy dominance.”

“Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions,” Rubio wrote. The questions: Does the action make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous?


...

Alberta's oil sands has the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, after Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

....

Does Trump want Canada inside his tent or outside selling to China?

....

We have what he wants. And he wants to pay as little as possible.
 
Last edited:

The shade of Theodore Roosevelt is grinning. President Donald Trump has been holding forth about matters of geopolitical import. Some of his remarks reflect his tongue-in-cheek style. Not for nothing has the president earned the title of galactic overlord among trolls. There is no political constituency either north or south of the border for making Canada the fifty-first U.S. state. Nor is there any constituency for changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” And I say that as someone who grew up alongside the Gulf. The historic name of that body of water offends no one—least of all residents of states abutting the Gulf of Mexico.

His musings about Greenland and the Panama Canal are a more serious matter. He broached a purchase of Greenland from Denmark while declining to rule out a military seizure of the island. There would be strategic logic to such a move. Greenland fronts on the Arctic, an emerging theater of strategic competition, while abutting the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap, Russia’s access to the North Atlantic. It abounds in critical minerals. China has been nosing around for mining rights along with its other activities as a self-proclaimed “near-Arctic” state. And then there’s the Panama Canal. Shutting the canal in times of war would compel U.S. maritime forces to default to much longer, more time-consuming, more arduous voyages to swing between the oceans. U.S. control would hold that prospect at bay.

Control of the two sites would the bolster strategic defense of the Americas.

The Three Phases of the Monroe Doctrine

1823-1890 - Free-Rider Stage - Monroe Doctrine guaranteed by the Royal Navy on behalf of the biggest investor in the USA, the UK.
1890-1901 - Strongman Stage - Grover Cleveland's presidency - UK acquiesced to Cleveland over a dispute between Venezuela and Guyana
1901-1948 - Constabulary Stage - Theodore Roosevelt - policeman of Latin America - Big Stick and USMC Small Wars

1948 was the year the Organization of American States was formed by Marshall and the year that Latin America supported the American position on Israel at the UN guaranteeing the State of Israel.

Is Trump creating a fourth phase?


In the spirit of Roosevelt, Trump could assert a right to intervene diplomatically, or perhaps even militarily, to prevent some extraregional red team from ensconcing itself in Greenland, Panama, or elsewhere in the Americas. Presumably, Roosevelt would approve. It’s important to note, however, that today’s circumstances differ in one drastic way from the age of Roosevelt, Cleveland, or Monroe. The first three phases of the Monroe Doctrine involved defending American states confronting extraregional aggression, an unwelcome act. No society relishes the prospect of foreign bullying or subjugation. But here’s the wrinkle for Trump: what if a government in the Western Hemisphere welcomes an outsider onto its sovereign territory?

By what right would Washington deny a willing American state its sovereign rights?

It’s hard to say. Such contingencies, moreover, are far from hypothetical. They have happened. In recent years, China has pursued commercial access to seaports all around the world’s rimlands, often garnering notable success. Not long ago, for example, Xi Jinping traveled to South America to inaugurate a Chinese-bankrolled container port at Chauncey, along the Peruvian seacoast. China made inroads in the Western Hemisphere not by bombast, or by sending the People’s Liberation Army Navy to collect debts, but by appealing to the self-interest of a Latin American state. Xi wooed Peruvian leaders, promising to further the two countries’ well-being through seagoing trade and commerce.

Prosperity confers leverage on its bringer. Beijing might attempt to parley commercial into military access at some future time, as imperial powers have throughout history. But then again, it might not. What-ifs make a flimsy basis for demanding that Western Hemisphere governments deny foreigners control of their harbors—especially when such access profits them.

The nature of the current strategic competition, then, suggests that Trump will need to craft a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine radically different from Roosevelt’s. It will depend on consent from fellow American governments. U.S. diplomats will need to convince their regional counterparts that intentions can change on a dime. In other words, China is not a partner pursuing agreements for mutual, apolitical economic gain. It is pursuing power—including forward-deployed military power. Covenants guaranteeing mercantile access could morph into something altogether more sinister at the discretion—or even the whim—of Beijing. In short, Washington must persuade governments throughout the Americas that the risks of intimacy with China outweigh the benefits. And to go with diplomatic outreach, the dealmaker-in-chief must offer them economic, diplomatic, and military inducements to bandwagon with the United States.

Imagine that. Far from being blustering or coercive, a Trump Corollary could give rise to a hemispheric-defense effort that manages hostile outsiders’ access to the Americas while advancing the common weal. Let’s make it so.

....

So Mario Rubio has got a crazy boss.

You don't want to talk to the boss.

So what will Mario be saying in Ottawa?
 
Back
Top