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

[McG]

The MAGA camp has already pontificated about using military force against Canada and about “liberating” Canada. It would possible to see a Trump administration conflating failure to meet the NATO 2% GDP commitment with a failure to meet continental defence obligations (it would not be unreasonable for any administration to connect these two things despite there being technically separate). It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.

It is interesting that the folks who rushed to call the possibility of a MAGA military intervention in a NATO nation a sign of a "mind virus" and a "conspiracy theory" with zero probability of happening are the same folks who later rationalized Trump's global tariff war as "tough love." Those same folks who dismissed his threats to economically subjugate Canada as being just talk, they are now rationalize why anschluss isn't really that bad a thing (in threads about both Canada and Greenland). Wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is now "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". This is quite disgusting on a board that is supposed to be populated by people committed to defending Canada.

 

[Haggis]

@Czech_pivo can you clarify your point 5?

"5) internal borders remain in place to ensure the current guns/drugs monitoring remains in place". Borders between CA/US or between provinces internal to the area formerly known as Canada? How would you reconcile the "gun traffic monitoring" without infringing upon the Second Amendment which should/may be afforded to all us "new Americans"?

 

[Czech_pivo]

@Czech_pivo can you clarify your point 5?

"5) internal borders remain in place to ensure the current guns/drugs monitoring remains in place". Borders between CA/US or between provinces internal to the area formerly known as Canada?

As a way of smoothing over things with Canadians concerned about guns from the US flooding into Canada, the existing ID controls between the 2 countries would remain in place initially. It reduces Canadians fear that Americans armed with weapons would simply cross over to Canada and commit whatever crimes they want (Detroit vs Windsor). It would also be a way to track Canadians crossing into the US and possibly committing acts of terror against US facilities.

This would be an interim process during the initial takeover period.

People scoff at these points, but how many of you had family living in Eastern Europe under the Soviets? How many of you heard first hand stories of what occurred in the summer months of 1945 in Poland? Throughout 1946 and 1947? Anyone have family locked up for their political beliefs? How many of you lived/worked in Eastern Europe a few years after the fall of Communism and dealt with the continued processes in some cases of how you were tracked daily or had your day to day activities known? How many of you lived in a country where entire cities/towns had all the street names changed, all the landmarks renamed, schools renamed? Had Churches either confiscated or the existing domination of the church changed overnight? Lutheran today and Catholic tomorrow or worse, taken over by the State and turned into a barn or a warehouse.

Laugh, mock all you want. You've not lived it, you've not seen it, you've not dealt with it. Annexation is brutal, its a mass form of lobotomy.

 

[Altair]

It is interesting that the folks who rushed to call the possibility of a MAGA military intervention in a NATO nation a sign of a "mind virus" and a "conspiracy theory" with zero probability of happening are the same folks who later rationalized Trump's global tariff war as "tough love." Those same folks who dismissed his threats to economically subjugate Canada as being just talk, they are now rationalize why anschluss isn't really that bad a thing (in threads about both Canada and Greenland). Wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is now "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". This is quite disgusting on a board that is supposed to be populated by people committed to defending Canada.

Somewhere along the line, country mattered less than ideology.

It used to be that one would side with a fellow Canadian of opposite political stripe than a non canadian of same stripe.

Those days are well and truly over. Those of opposite political stripe are now viewed as traitors and foreigners of same stripe are viewed as being on the same side.

Citizenships no longer matters, who you vote for at the ballot box does, regardless of nationality.

Makes for much more willing and shameless quislings.

 

[Kirkhill]

Somewhere along the line, country mattered less than ideology.

It used to be that one would side with a fellow Canadian of opposite political stripe than a non canadian of same stripe.

Those days are well and truly over. Those of opposite political stripe are now viewed as traitors and foreigners of same stripe are viewed as being on the same side.

Citizenships no longer matters, who you vote for at the ballot box does, regardless of nationality.

Makes for much more willing and shameless quislings.

It also used to be that one would side with their religion over their country.

In Canada.

 

[Brad Sallows]

At some point, it might be worth reminding the Americans that Europe and Canada hold $3.5T worth of their debt.

"Challenge accepted." rip rip rip

 

[Brad Sallows]

Those same folks who dismissed his threats to economically subjugate Canada as being just talk, they are now rationalize why anschluss isn't really that bad a thing (in threads about both Canada and Greenland). Wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is now "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". This is quite disgusting on a board that is supposed to be populated by people committed to defending Canada.

Since you've quoted exact phrases I used, I am free to assume your remarks are in part about me.

What I've written about Greenland is that Greenlanders might choose to switch sovereignty. In particular, if aboriginal Greenlanders want to switch, how far does Denmark's respect for the UN (UNDRIP) and the general principle of self-determination of peoples go? I don't care whether that sets your teeth on edge, but it has nothing to do with forcible annexation. It's a question. Some might find it interesting to explore it.

What I've recently written about defending Canada is that spontaneous civilian uprising in defence of Canada is not an unconditional expectation. It depends on who is doing the invading. What I get back are some kind of appeals to loyalty approximately the same as feudal lords demanding oaths. An oath is useless to require of someone not willingly and inherently loyal, and irrelevant to insulting to require of someone loyal. The history of demands for oaths and loyalty usually amounts to dishonourable people and governments trying to bind honourable men to participate in the formers' dishonourable, and often ruinous to no advantage, behaviour. At best in the modern era an oath is a reminder and a guideline. Moreover, it's past a threshold of ridiculous to wonder/hope that people will rise up in defence when they are essentially denied the means, and it is not even clear that the kinds of people who like to control others that deeply would themselves rise in resistance.

Again, as I wrote, whether I'd defend Canada depends on who invades. I was prepared to defend NATO members for a little over 20 [all Res F] years. Part of that time was back when the worry was that the USSR with all the weight of the Warsaw Pact would extend its eastern boundary to approximately Brest, from a start line on the inter-German border. Now people fret whether Russia might try to reach the eastern shores of the Baltic again, against the approximate weight of all of the rest of Europe that matters.

Finally, if I really need any shit from someone trying to set the frame of my mind and morals, I'll squeeze his head.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As a way of smoothing over things with Canadians concerned about guns from the US flooding into Canada, the existing ID controls between the 2 countries would remain in place initially. It reduces Canadians fear that Americans armed with weapons would simply cross over to Canada and commit whatever crimes they want (Detroit vs Windsor). It would also be a way to track Canadians crossing into the US and possibly committing acts of terror against US facilities.

This would be an interim process during the initial takeover period.

People scoff at these points, but how many of you had family living in Eastern Europe under the Soviets? How many of you heard first hand stories of what occurred in the summer months of 1945 in Poland? Throughout 1946 and 1947? Anyone have family locked up for their political beliefs? How many of you lived/worked in Eastern Europe a few years after the fall of Communism and dealt with the continued processes in some cases of how you were tracked daily or had your day to day activities known? How many of you lived in a country where entire cities/towns had all the street names changed, all the landmarks renamed, schools renamed? Had Churches either confiscated or the existing domination of the church changed overnight? Lutheran today and Catholic tomorrow or worse, taken over by the State and turned into a barn or a warehouse.

Laugh, mock all you want. You've not lived it, you've not seen it, you've not dealt with it. Annexation is brutal, its a mass form of lobotomy.

Sure, if we were contemplating annexation by the USSR or Russia or China, all of that might be a worry.

We're not contemplating that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Somewhere along the line, country mattered less than ideology.

If country matters more than ideology, what's the critique of patriots of countries like Russia supposed to be?

It used to be that one would side with a fellow Canadian of opposite political stripe than a non canadian of same stripe.

In some circles, sure. "My country right or wrong" hasn't usually been held up as a moral exemplar. Here we are talking about loyalties, which apparently can be exchanged by the simple act of emigration/immigration.

This you?

"Traitor-Definition
1)A person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc."

How do you square it when country and principle are in direct opposition?

A more interesting question: should "country" matter more than "principle"? Readers are invited to decide for themselves.

 

[McG]

What I've recently written ...

... is that wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". Yes, those were your words. You have made clear, not only that you would not fight for Canada, but that you don't see American anschluss as an all bad thing. You can't seem to look at any hostile behaviour from Trump and say that it is bad without defending it and telling us why it isn't really that bad.

 

[Haggis]

As a way of smoothing over things with Canadians concerned about guns from the US flooding into Canada, the existing ID controls between the 2 countries would remain in place initially.

But everyone would be US citizens following annexation/assimilation. How would you deny their constitutionally guaranteed 2A rights? How would that dovetail with the mobility rights in both our charters/constitutions?

It reduces Canadians fear that Americans armed with weapons would simply cross over to Canada and commit whatever crimes they want (Detroit vs Windsor).

Or, as is possible, would the Carney government give away 2A rights for the new American territory under his governorship? Create another non-workable gun free zone?

It would also be a way to track Canadians crossing into the US and possibly committing acts of terror against US facilities.

Why not attack new US facilities that would spring up in Canada? Or mobilize the expat Canadians living in the US right now to could carry out "homegrown" terrorist acts. Many of them are already armed.

This would be an interim process during the initial takeover period.

Like income tax was an interim program? And, when the process ends, what do you do with the 8600 Canadian Border Services Officers?

 

[Brad Sallows]

... is that wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". Yes, those were your words. You have made clear, not only that you would not fight for Canada, but that you don't see American anschluss as an all bad thing. You can't seem to look at any hostile behaviour from Trump and say that it is bad without defending it and telling us why it isn't really that bad.

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. The US government isn't some kind of authoritarian hellscape. I've measured the lamentations of the people whose noses are out of joint against the definitions and examples, and found them laughably wanting. The change of circumstances simply doesn't merit it. Fools who want to die for public health insurance and gun control and ruinous environmental policies and racial and identity politics are free to do so if they wish. I doubt many would.

Go on: explain why living under US government would be sufficiently miserable to die over, or to pull the trigger on another human being.

If all you've got is "well, country" then we're back to "abstract fluff" - if the shoe fits you, wear it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a lot of preoccupation with Canadians not sufficiently narrow-mindedly patriotic to fight for the country against any invader.

The worriers ought to worry about those so dissatisfied with whatever imbalances have put them at a disadvantage that they will fight for the other side.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm merely pointing out that if the US acquires Greenland, then the next logic step if for them to state that the North West Passage is an International waterway as it gives them in essence unfettered ability to traverse from west-east and east-west to and from Alaska to Greenland without the need to 'consult' us.

There is nothing at all new with the US position. It was always maintained that the NW Passage waters are international waters. They already pass freely, above and below the surface…

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure, if we were contemplating annexation by the USSR or Russia or China, all of that might be a worry.

We're not contemplating that.

Sure, whatever you say.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, whatever you say.

"Whatever I say" is that there's no equivalency here.

Not everything these days is practically Hitler or Stalin, practically Nazism or Soviet Communism.

 

[McG]

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. The US government isn't some kind of authoritarian hellscape. I've measured the lamentations of the people whose noses are out of joint against the definitions and examples, and found them laughably wanting. The change of circumstances simply doesn't merit it. Fools who want to die for public health insurance and gun control and ruinous environmental policies and racial and identity politics are free to do so if they wish. I doubt many would.

Okay, so anschluss is not inherently bad and it depends on context, people do not have right to a voice before their country is annexed by another, and you might defend Canada from some countries but you will defend rolling-over for the one country that actually could invade. You seemingly cannot even bring your self to acknowledge a forced annexation would be wrong.

Go on: explain why living under US government would be sufficiently miserable to die over, or to pull the trigger on another human being.

Well, for just a few

• The Trump Kleptocracy.
• School shootings.
• democratic backsliding.
• Price gouging of Health Care & Health Insurance (Canada's system may not be great, but the US has the least accessible system of anything in NATO).
• Politics that is more corrupt & more open to being bought.
• The rising class of oligarchs.
• gerrymandering.
• binary political choice.
• emaciated public education.
• The relative autonomy that comes from being 10 provinces and three territories vice being one big US state or territory.

 

[Czech_pivo]

But everyone would be US citizens following annexation/assimilation. How would you deny their constitutionally guaranteed 2A rights? How would that dovetail with the mobility rights in both our charters/constitutions?

Or, as is possible, would the Carney government give away 2A rights for the new American territory under his governorship? Create another non-workable gun free zone?

Why not attack new US facilities that would spring up in Canada? Or mobilize the expat Canadians living in the US right now to could carry out "homegrown" terrorist acts. Many of them are already armed.

Like income tax was an interim program? And, when the process ends, what do you do with the 8600 Canadian Border Services Officers?

You assume that we would have the same rights as Americans - massive assumption. I’m not that naive.

Attacking US facilités impacts who the most on Canadian soil? The most effective form of insurgence warfare is striking the enemy at home, where they feel the safest.

Income tax - cuts both ways in the US and Canada as they both were to be short term.

The 8,600 border agents move down to the US/Mexico border, enjoy.

 

[QV]

It is interesting that the folks who rushed to call the possibility of a MAGA military intervention in a NATO nation a sign of a "mind virus" and a "conspiracy theory" with zero probability of happening are the same folks who later rationalized Trump's global tariff war as "tough love." Those same folks who dismissed his threats to economically subjugate Canada as being just talk, they are now rationalize why anschluss isn't really that bad a thing (in threads about both Canada and Greenland). Wanting self-determination before being forcibly absorbed into another country is now "abstract fluff" and "hand-waving at cloud-shaped diagrams". This is quite disgusting on a board that is supposed to be populated by people committed to defending Canada.

I don't want to derail this thread - it's getting interesting!

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the Alberta independence movement. Some of those folks believe in self-determination and don't want to be economically subjugated by what they perceive as the federal and some provincial government's (BC, Qu) economic sanctions against the O&G sector which Alberta relies on. They may also believe the country has changed around them for the worse.

Feel free to jump over to the appropriate thread to respond. No need to pollute this one any further then my small tangent.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Okay, so anschluss is not inherently bad and it depends on context, people do not have right to a voice before their country is annexed by another, and you might defend Canada from some countries but you are ready to defend rolling-over for the US to invade. You seeminglycannot even bring your self to acknowledge a forced annexation would be wrong.

Definitely forced annexation depends on context. Maybe you want to measure it by means, but I measure it mostly by ends. Some people would obviously be better off if their governments were extinguished and they were annexed, provided the new government gave them everything it already gives its citizens and possessions and is not worse than the previous one. That doesn't negate my belief that people prefer self-rule, even if they're miserable, but as a utilitarian measure there are some outcomes that I regard as beyond doubt. Given that, everything else is just discussing points on a spectrum.

People should have a voice in self-determination or annexation. Forced annexation is wrong, as is keeping a people that want to be independent in their region/homeland. Now the part that is apparently difficult to understand: forced annexation can be all of these at once: morally and legally wrong, AND not worth killing/being killed over, AND result in better outcomes for some of the newly annexed people.

• The Trump Kleptocracy

Doesn't matter. They're just an egregious example of what I expect and observe from many politicians. Sham foundations, insider trading, nepotism. Lots of examples.

• School shootings.

Bad. So are people running amok with blades, or running people down with vehicles. The US undeniable has this particular problem in spades. Doesn't weight how I feel about the big picture.

• Price gouging of Health Care & Health Insurance (Canada's system may not be great, but the US has the least accessible system of anything in NATO).

Depends on coverage. I have coverage 100% of the time, but no expectation of being able to access any particular service without unreasonable delay. People in the US who have coverage better than Medicaid generally seem to report being able to get what they want in timelines much shorter than I think I ever could expect. I'm educated and informed enough to know the usual game played with "life expectancy" and other statistical comparisons depends mostly on life factors beyond health insurance and health care.

• Politics that is more corrupt & more open to being bought.

Adscam.

• The rising class of oligarchs.

Power Corp.

• gerrymandering

Acceptable cost for being able to vote separately for House, Senate, and President.

• binary political choice

More than satisfactory, particularly with a near 50/50 balance.

• emaciated public education

Absolutely a problem, but confined mostly to deplorable inner city neighbourhoods, fortunately almost all under the control of the binary party choice most openly dedicated to alleviating such problems.

• The relative autonomy that comes from being 10 provinces and three territories vice bing one US state or territory.

I doubt Canada would end up as one state or territory.

Also:

A well-designed constitution, arrived at with a great deal of thought and deliberation
1A
2A
Other very strong and useful amendments
No more "notwithstanding clause"
No more "reasonable limitations"
Bicameral legislature
Functional separate executive
No more PMO
More checks/balances/opposing powers between three proper parts of government
Strong currency
Strong economy
Lots more flexibility finding a place to live that aligns more closely with my interests and aspirations
No more aboriginal guilt politics
One class of citizenship

The sum of the differences is the sum of things good and bad. The sign of the sum doesn't even matter: I re-emphasize that the magnitude of the sum isn't worth killing/dying over.