United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted his country is “not at war” with Canada, then proceeded to mock the threat Canada could pose to his country with “submarines from the Edmonton mall.”
The secretary also suggested Prime Minister Mark Carney was to blame for the current “political shouting match” between the two countries because keeping the fight alive is good for his poll numbers.
Bessent made the remarks Monday in an interview with the U.S. cable news network CNBC, where he was asked if his country is now in a trade war with Canada.
“Well, I don’t think you can be in a tit for tat with someone that’s 13 times larger than you are,” he said.
“I mean we’re not at war with Canada. How are we going to be at war with Canada? What, are they going to take their two submarines from the Edmonton mall and sic them on us?”
The plan is to fuel the separatists in Alberta, then after a massive campaign to legitimize them annex part of Alberta under the guise of a referendum. After all, if they vote to join, it’s democratic.
Read up on how they captured Hawaii. It doesn’t have to be a shooting war and it doesn’t have to be all of Canada.
We’re talking about a very different study, but thank you!
I’m not talking about a study, which means you (hopefully) misunderstood my comment. But thank you!
Sorry; we are talking about a specific study done by the canadian armed forces - slightly different from what you’re discussing. Said study did indeed address what you’re describing however! One of the scenarios for the civil-war-triggering military action was the annexation/secession/alberta-ness, which would need to be backed by the US military (given that all but the southern edge would be a strategic nightmare to hold, especially when surrounded on three sides).
I’m not sure there’s many parallels between hawaii and alberta, but I am super curious what you mean!
I’m not talking about a study. That’s fine if you are.
I think… Yes? I’m a tad confused, I confess: I don’t think anyone here has misunderstood anything.
A few comments implied I was referencing or talking about a study. I didn’t understand why they thought I was, because I wasn’t.
Ah, I see. Sorry for any confusion, I just meant we were talking about a specific study.
Then I guess the confusion isn’t recoverable and we just have to accept that we can’t communicate.
Sorry if I wasted your time, please have a great rest of your week.