• Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I’m in California, Canada - please annex us. We can draw up a map of the places you should leave behind. You know, the conservative ones.

  • Jhex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    How can anyone take this article seriously after opening with this clear misinterpretation:

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated he will return to the bargaining table “when the Americans start being serious.” How much more serious can the Americans be? The Americans have been very serious right from the beginning of Trump’s second term. Trump has constantly repeated 51ST state, governor of Canada statements and now Lake America.

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    True. I am very serious about thinking my President is a fucking moron for wanting to annex Canada. And also for every single other aspect about him.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Even if we came willingly, the Republicans wouldn’t really want another California.

      Trump doesn’t seem to get that’s what it would be, though. Except also add a raging insurgency, which would most likely spread.

      • sanzky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        in the hypothetical case of an annexation there is no way Canada would get statehood. they would be just another puerto rico

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Depends on the hypothetical, I guess. We’re already handwaving a lot of things.

          Trump is rhetorically pretty specific about it being a new state.

  • bedwyr@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The Americans are very much not serious about annexing Canada in fact.

    Best to be prepared anyway obviously, but no, the president is just talking shit, for leverage in other ways.

    The only way it would work is if a sizable percent of canada wanted to join, and even then, it’s doubtful, although finding an enclave that does support joining the US and then making a provocation to justify it is possible, as Russia did in South Ossentia in Georgia, that part of Moldova, and the Crimea. Or as hitler did in the sudentland in Czechoslovakia.

    But that is doubtful, not the least as he’s record unpopular, on the back foot with Iran and inflation, and looks like on old washed up bitch.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      As a general rule, when the leaders of a notoriously aggressive superpower next door spend years talking about annexing your country, it’s best to err on the side of caution and take it seriously.

  • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I don’t know about that article, but most of us don’t want to annex Canada. Just a vocal minority and their demagogue jackass are blabbering endlessly about it.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    They’ve been this way since the BNA act, it’s just how they are. (Technically longer but they wouldn’t mess with Britain)

        • ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          The requirements on those haven’t changed since the 90s. You want people to be ready for a possible guerilla war and basically still ban 15000 models of firearms by name without any reason other than ‘AR-15 bad’ and ‘this rifle looks military even though it is a plinker jam-o-matic in a civilian caliber’. They sent many to Ukraine and they threw the latter in the garbage because of useless they are. They even banned hunting rounds for arbitrary reasons, like single shot rifles from the 1880s and the Weatherby .460 magnum, a big game hunting round, because they banned anything with a muzzle energy of more than 20K joules… Calling it an anti material rifle, which it is woefully unsuited for. Even banning the .50 BMG, which has never been used in a crime in Canada, was done entirely on some ‘we have moved beyond this as a society’ or ‘weapons of war Canadians don’t need’ even though at this point the world has been regressing back to violent authoritianism at breakneck speeds AND they have done jackshit to counter any rightwing misinformation. Incels are getting worse and worse and they are still pushing for gun laws entirely due to the 1989 shooting done by a proto-incel.

          If anything I firmly believe they will discourage the average Canuck from resisting and those that and survive this war will probably have to deal with all manner of issues from the government going forward.

          • ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I get your point. And I agree with you. Those bans were not decided on factual information but on emotions.

            And we all know the actual crimes aren’t committed with legal weapons anyways. They’re mostly done with guns coming from south of the border.

            • oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I think you can learn the skills within our existing legal framework. If I were to introduce someone to firearms that has no prior firearms experience we’d be starting with a 22 or maybe even a pellet gun. Access to currently prohibited weapons to further advance individuals that already possess skills is a completely different topic. This doesn’t even start to address the realities of the role of firearms in modern conflict.

              There’s lots of more valuable ways for people to spend their time “preparing” for whatever the future holds for us. If someone thinks that prohibited weapons are the key to survival they can seek training through other means like joining the reserves. Or take an active role in politics and work towards changing the legislation. Or if things are so bad already then break the law and learn/possess those weapons anyway.

                • oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  39 minutes ago

                  I generally agree with that sentiment. With respect to Canada’s firearms laws I think the legislation we had was decent including the previously available restricted licenses for handguns. I’m not personally and advocate for handguns but I think the requirements for storage, transportation, background checks, etc. allowed those that wanted to pursue the hobby to do so while also maintaining a level of safety for the general public. There’s probably some tweaks to be made and loopholes to close but a decent framework.

                  I don’t think we’re at this point in Canada but I would condone breaking laws that are amoral or unethical. To take it to an extreme, I support the actions of the resistance fighters that were breaking the laws of nazi Germany. I was intending to convey something more along the lines that if someone believes so strongly that was the only path to keeping themself and their loved ones safe then they have the freewill to act accordingly, they’ll just have to live with the consequences of their actions.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The title seems to be generating confusion, but the author’s point is that there are billionaire oligarchs (not just Trump, people whose power is not term-limited) pushing to gain control of Canada’s resources. He’s not talking about ordinary Americans nor is he necessarily talking about an invasion or a war.

    The playbook here is generally to apply economic pressure with the aim of causing political discontent, while at the same time financing an opposition faction that’s more pliable, like they’re doing against Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    1 day ago

    And i am very serious about killing any doodle who sets foot in this country with that intent.

    I don’t care if i die.

    I am not living undet the rule of people who worship curtis yarvin.

    • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      24 hours ago

      MAGA dipshits severely underestimate how many Canadians would actually enjoy taking a break from the rat race to repel invaders.

          • codydodd@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Yupp…

            Act 1 US war of independence founded modern Canada because a) the quebecois ever fearful of cultural erasure, ever relevant today given those US demands, b) those not in favour of a racist dictatorship (yes the anglosphere was turning their backs on a monster they helped create), my family moved to loyalist country, fitting, and c) Britain’s desire to legitimize presence by recognizing first nations,… founded canada. The US invaded thinking we would join but Quebec and the indigenous wanted nothing to do with that genocidal regime. An asymetrical response ended American interests.

            Act 2 The war of 1812, the US claims they kinda won because they genocided the Iroquois nation and paved a way for continental-scale genocide … but another goal was conquest of Canada. A goal they failed on every county…britain, its loyalists, and later founders of Canada fought back and said fuck you. Canada 100% repelled the US invasion using asymmetrical warfare.

            Act 3 Fuck around and find out.

            • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              21 hours ago

              I think they’d find out Washington Stste, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, New York and probably Massachusetts, California and Oregon would all join Canadian resistance.

            • Reannlegge@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Act 2 the US claims they kinda won? Is that not the war that is not taught in schools down there because Canada got shit faced and burnt down the white house.

              • kestrel7_7@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Oh they teach it in schools, but they leave that part out. It is framed as a US victory due to hype and cope

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I don’t think you can say that if you’ve never been invaded/occupied by a superior army.

          Maybe come over to vietnam and go to some museums or talk to some people if you want to know what asym warfare is like.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yes, Canadians have no idea what it’s like. We’ve seen even less ugliness than Americans, and when this whole thing started, we had to go to hockey for martial metaphors.

            Living in a warzone is a learning curve you can go up fast, though, because you have no choice.

          • cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            It’s also worth noting that Canada has a land border with the USA. They can also pass as generic American, if required.

            Asymmetric warfare wouldn’t only be focused in Canada. E.g. a coordinated set of drone strikes could basically shatter large portions of the American power grid. There are too many soft, unmanned targets to viably protect, and the lead time of spares is measured in months to years, on some parts.

            • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Do you not remember covid? Your treatlerites rioted in Montréal and tried to do a J6 over the most tepid restrictions. The ones jerking off over a romantic idea of fighting a war aren’t prepared to spend years living without the lifestyle they’re accustomed to and have themselves and their families randomly imprisoned or murdered by the evil empire they’ve served so faithfully. You’d be closer to the conditions of the IRA than Vietnam or Iran, except even they had a history of genocides to radicalize people.

              • cynar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 hours ago

                FYI, I’m not Canadian. Just an observer from the other side of the pond, watching America die in morbid horror.

            • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Heck a large portion of the American power grid is in Canada since we sell them so much.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Plenty of Americans are hoping a dumb ass move like that is enough to weaken the morons in charge and join your side.

      Like both coasts and most of the bordering states would have majorities on Canada’s side.

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      I wouldn’t. Why conduct the destructive mess that is a war in our own living room?

      I’d contribute to any effort to make long range drones that strike energy and electronic infrastructure deep inside the US instead.

      Keep the destruction over there. Watch American arrogance melt away as they realize that fighting a war isn’t just some thing they send troops elsewhere to die over while they get to stay comfy and safe at home anymore.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If you’re in a war, you’re going to get people dying on both sides of the border.

        And it’s going to be hard to procure that many drone parts under occupation, so if that’s your job, you might end up doing car/ATV bombs instead.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The answer is going to be both.

        Drones are the future of warfare. Ukraine has proven that.

        But if the US decides to invade, it absolutely WILL send troops over the border. And we’ll be there, shooting them down. Carney may have to undo Trudeau’s silly handgun restrictions for us RPAL holders for the good of Canada.

        I’m too old to be a soldier, but I can still hold a rifle. I’m not a violent person, but I will defend my country. I don’t believe that most people in the US support this, but I will shoot to kill any that come across the border with plans to invade.

        In my nearly 60 years on this planet, this is the first time I’ve said I will die defending my country.

        So yes, in a situation of war we support drones. We support attacks deep within US territory, rather than traditional face-to-face combat.

        But we will do whatever it takes to protect our country.

      • potter2010@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        23 hours ago

        If they’re in your living room, they’re in effective control of your area. At that point there will not be long-range drones going (maybe coming in), there will only be direct action by the local populace.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Why conduct the destructive mess that is a war in our own living room?

        shorter supply lines?

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Well you better call it a whoopsie doodle or I’m gonna cry. Do you really want making me cry on your conscience after that?

  • remnant2652@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I’m American (unfortunately) and I want no part in annexing any country. I actually can’t recall anyone else here who does… Well except big orange wrinkly pimples in DC.

        • Jarbles@fedi.ohpossum.ooo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          110%, and unfortunately nothing will get better until we Americans get up and do something about it. But THAT won’t happen until more of us are personally inconvenienced by this fuckery.

          Simply voting them out has a pretty low chance of working long term, made worse by the actions of the elite to sow uncertainty in our election system. On top of that, we’ve been shown that peacefully protesting makes little to no change at all in this situation. When peaceful protesting continually fails, it makes violence inevitable. I have no doubt in my mind that a major violent event will happen eventually here in the US. When will it happen? In November, when fraud runs rampant in the election? If the grift succeeds and Repubs win the midterm, I think all bets will be off at that point.

          Peacefulness has failed, it’s guillotine time.