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?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 53 points 2 months ago* (27 children)

Your white house burned down long before modern submarines existed dude.. sit down.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (26 children)

    Trump has already started the tear down for us, it would not be as glorious this time but seeing a bunch of piss drunk Canadians do it again would be fun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] [S] 38 points 2 months ago (24 children)

    The Canadian military did an analysis of how to fight a war with America. The study's conclusion was the most devastating and effective strategy is to sit back and watch them destroy themselves.

    Best we can do for ourselves is to unplug from their systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

    If we're thinking of the same study, that was because the US attempting to invade canada would be such a drastically unpopular move that it would kick off a US civil war in response. Also Canada wasn't planning to sit back, but to not engage directly / do a guerilla for the actual invasion while supporting the pro-canada/sanity side with intelligence and materiel.

    It was never "watch them destroy themselves", the last damn thing Canada wants is a gutted former superpower with an uncertain political outlook next door.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    We're talking about a very different study, but thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    I'm not talking about a study, which means you (hopefully) misunderstood my comment. But thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    I'm not talking about a study. That's fine if you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

    I think... Yes? I'm a tad confused, I confess: I don't think anyone here has misunderstood anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    It was assymetrixal warfare because any Canadian under US rule would join terrorist groups.

    Not the US destroying themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't trust the Ontarians I know who still keep a place in Florida and still plan to retire there, despite everything that has happened in recent years. The only things they pay any attention to are money and sunshine, and they won't stand up for anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Yup, I wish autoshops used more canadian parts though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What Canadian parts though? We willingly gave all our manufacturing of aftermarket parts to China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Industrial base of US is all very close to border. Very active lobbying of those states to join as Canadian provinces should be made, making it clear that their entire base of wealth/employment is dependent on factories not burning. It's not enough for them to just complain that tariffs are inconvenient to them.

  • source
  • parent