top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 82 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I'm pretty sure that if he publicly says he's going to disobey orders, that's grounds for removal, even under a sane president. (Although a sane president might not choose to remove him)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago*

    This is almost certainly why he won't answer the question either way. If he says that he wouldn't, Trump would just fire him and replace him with someone that says they would privately, away from any public scrutiny at all.

    It would be a net negative for everyone other than fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    It’s a pointless question. If he answers no truthfully he gets fired. If he lies and says β€˜yes’ to keep his job we get undue anxiety when there already enough of that going around from memes and trade wars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    As a Canadian I wish they would all get fired. Fuck em. Worthless disrespectful people. Never met a US soldier worthy of the air they breathe. Inbred illiterstes the lot of them. Suckers and losers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago*

    Have they said no to any of the USA's other illegal invasions? Don't count on the bravery of Americans who tell you they would resist. Count on drones.

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 2 months ago (28 children)

    If the USA invades, the white house gets burned down again and Trump gets ICC arrested.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago* (25 children)

    Jokes aside its quite possible. Ukrainian partnerships with canada on domestic drone production, the US would burn perpetually if they dared. They are projecting a weak canada to save face, but they dare not mistaken canadian politeness for weakness. There is a reason Trump says we are the hardest do deal with of any country. Because we are done putting up with their shit. To be Canadian means to not be Amerikkkan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    The military isn't my concern. I'm interested how many of us would form gangs jumping the vast undefended border to cosplay as MAGA while attacking infrastructure and lighting forests on fire for years and years. Hopefully I never find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The US is the only country to have used nukes in war

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

    Remember the wildfires earlier this year? The US would irradiate themselves if they nuked Canada. Sure, Trump might try to piss into the wind, but the rest are way too selfish to let him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

    The Canadian military relies heavily on the US partnership, not to mention the average urban Canadian has never seen, held or heard a firearm, as much as liked to say that we have a chance it’s certainly would be a slim one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The fuck kind of argument is that? How hard could it be to learn to use a gun? Students in the USA use it all the time.

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

    Guns are stupidly easy to use. They do need training to use WELL but the most it would take is a few weeks for basic firefight skills. Most of it is knowing how to move from cover to cover and not exposing yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    During the first flair up of annexation threats the Canadian Forces revealed they were preparing for a possible conflict that would require them to learn from their loss to the Taliban. There is no true dependency on the US if push comes to shove.

    https://futurism.com/science-energy/canadian-military-insurgent-techniques

    Edit: also, the US is actively losing to Iran, dont count Canada out so quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Forget the Canadian military, if the US couldn't defeat the Taliban with NATO help, what hope do they have against Canadians without it?

    Canadians aren't even a different skin color - what is the US going to do, stop and question every white person with a gun? Every white person traveling long distances in a car?

    Oh hey look now the Rocky Mountains are impassable by land because there are Canadian resistance hidden in caves all the way down to Mexico. But surely the western seaboard and its population will be loyal to Trump, right?

    And so it goes. An invasion of Canada would dissolve the USA in a few years.

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

    One major difference. Canada has had more Intel and data integration with the US for much much longer than Iraq or Afghanistan. This means palantir and other Intel gathering companies have far, far more shit on Canadians that might have an inkling of resistance against the US, and do not think they will spare or be nicer to Canadians. They will absolutely round up everyone they can or their families. It will actually be harder for Canadians to fight back than the others.

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

    Sure, lots of people will get rounded up, but how many will slip the net? How many hundreds of thousands of partisans are spread over tens of millions of square kilometers of rural Canada? How thin can US patrols and round-up efforts spread themselves before they become convenient sources of weapons and ammunition as they are set upon by IEDs and household drones with weapons taped to them? What does it help the US if they know the porn preferences of the guy living in the woods sniping US servicemen?

    And then there's the American partisans who understand this is the best time to rebel they are ever going to get. With so many loyalists deployed to Canada, are there still enough to respond to riots, sieges of police buildings, prison breaks, acts of sabotage, etc. in the US? Maybe they can be tracked (or maybe the cameras will be destroyed en masse), but are there enough boots on the ground to stop them?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Why don't you google per capita firearm ownership, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    2.4 million folks who have their PAL in this country with a population of 40.5 million people, that’s 6.17% of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence

    https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/

    It’s important to note while people may have their PAL, they don’t necessarily own firearms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    We'd run out of ammunition first

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

    Sharp sticks with shit on them will do, as we've seen from history.

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

    History may have a cadence but it doesnt repeat.

    If we want a chance we need nukes and mass drone production.

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

    Said it before and will say it again. This is why I feel running to another country you have to think about. We have this insanely large military and a lot of damage can be done with it. We need to protest and refuse to work and whatever else we can do.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    We need people at the top who will resist when the shit hits the fan. They should tread lightly to hang on to their position.

    I condemn the ones who resign out of principle, they are the very people we need to stay in.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The reporter pointed out that Paparo did not answer the question. The U.S. admiral said he was dismissing the issue, adding: β€œWould you ask me please also what my attack plans are for the Martians?”

    The reporter replied: β€œYou belittle it and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue.”

    A Nanos poll taken in February found that three in five Canadians are concerned about the U.S. being a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty. A majority also support making it illegal for Canadians to serve in the U.S. military, according to a poll commissioned by The Maple in April.

    Despite Trump’s threats, however, Canadian government ministers have continued to stress Canada’s continued cooperation with the Americans on military affairs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    I've got some family in the military, and they've served in Europe both before and after Trump. They said there hasn't been any actual decrease in cooperation while overseas between the US and us, and everyone they talk to makes it clear how ridiculously an order would be taken to invade.

    That being said, their last deployment was July last year, so things may have changed. Also he did note that none said they'd reject the order - just how ridiculous the whole situation was. Hoping we never have to find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 42 points 2 months ago (18 children)

    What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?

    Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It's illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.

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

    No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called "war of aggression". It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the "supreme international crime". This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.

    It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Lawful /= you agree with it, basically.

    To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap "Canada" for "Vietnam", "Iraq" or "Iran". For more detail, you'd have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.

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

    Sounds like it's high time America was dissolved and balkanized, then.

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

    There isn't any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it's only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).

    That said, yeah, America isn't looking so good these days.

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

    It never did. It was founded on genocide and slavery.

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

    Yes, .ml person. I'm sure you believe that. And also that North Korea is better, somehow. 'Nuff said.

    Edit: Clearly, the username is ironic, with this much effort to get into a fight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    If you don't believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.

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

    War isn't actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn't. People say a war is "illegal" because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it's "immoral". I guess it's somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.

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

    But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn't approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify "unlawful order". Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You better disobey or we'll make sure that no one in the armed forces get any rights. We'd shoot you on sight along with anyone else that didn't refuse the shitter in cheif. Behave and use your neglected moral compass.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    If the US tried it Canada would make Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc look like a casual sunday stroll in the park. If the US couldn't handle Guerrilla warfare against people who DON'T look like them, imagine how well they'll do against people that do. And the further north they got the more fucked they'd be. Ever been in a fight with a pissed off Indigenous individual? try it, see how far you get. Not only that you got all the dudes living in the bush with rifles and god knows what else.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago*

    People who look like them, sound like them and know all the same pop culture, including supposedly local stuff like news anchors.

    There's not many shibboleths they could use, and usually they pick a really obvious one. I pledge...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    And the further north they got the more fucked they’d be

    Doesn't like 90% of Canada's population live within 100 km of the border? Not much reason to even go that far north unfortunately

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    No need to take the minerals, oil and water that are abundant in those northern places?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Ehhh. Most of the extraction happens in the south too, because you need workers (edit: and reasonably low shipping costs). Like, Fort Mac is a little further north, but it's still below 60N, in Alberta.

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

    Mining and O&G put together are like 5% of Canada's GDP. All the valuable real estate and I suspect much of the industries other than mining and logging are concentrated in the major cities. You'd get like 90% of the benefits from controlling 10% of the country. Not that I'd expect Trump to realize this. Luckily he seems to be as dumb as he is evil.

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

    But it's a good portion of our exports. Hairdressers aren't super relevant for an occupying force.

    Although, resource extraction wouldn't be the point of this war. There's lots of much softer, easier to propagandise about targets out there, if they just wanted an encore of colonialism.

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

    Hairdressers aren't super relevant for an occupying force.

    That's fair. But I'm pretty sure most of the manufacturing is still near where the population is since workers are needed. And if they decide to go full settler mode, all the urban areas will be free to occupy if Canadians are out in the forests defending the homeland.

    But tbf, it is Trump we're talking about. He would probably want the oil more than anything, even if there's so much else that would be much easier to take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    The plan is to follow the Taliban's example, it sounds like, so there'd be both rural and urban activity reinforcing each other, and the point would be to make properly occupying all cities at once fairly impossible.

    Trump's main motive seems to improvement of the US's size and border shape on a map. Probably, Like in Afghanistan, resources are besides the point. Although he's not going to say no if he can manage it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I don't think it would be nearly as difficult as Vietnam. Vietnam had direct military aid from China coming over the land border, whereas the united States had to stretch their logistics halfway around the world.

    If the U.S. hadn't used up our missile and artillery supplies in Iran and Ukraine, I think the majority of the Canadian military and government could be taken out all at once.

    Obviously attacking a friendly neighbor is a villainous thing to do, but I don't think the Vietnam comparison is apt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Taking out bases with missiles is different than invading and dealing with guerilla warfare tactics and a bunch of really angry citizens who have guns...we just don't talk about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, maybe Europe would help, and the other commonwealth countries would have an awkward time not helping at all, particularly the UK. But, there's an ocean in the way. Nobody can just hop on the Hoser Chi Minh trail and cross into ice Laos.

    On the other hand, you absolutely could walk accross into America itself and mess things up. Honestly, that might be even better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Vietnam has a total area of approximately 331,344 square kilometers (127,933 square miles)

    The total area of British Columbia is 944,735 square kilometers (364,764 square miles).

    Canada has a total area of approximately 9,984,670 square kilometres (3,855,100 square miles)

    Stretching your logistics is an entirely different challenge than spreading your logistics out.

    The USA built up many bases in South Vietnam to launch the invasion. So it's not like they were operating on a major handicap.

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

    They don't need to capture empty land. They need capital cities and a few other strategic points.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Invade with what?

    Didn't they waste all their armament on Iran? And I doubt U.S. soldiers would actually follow that kind of order without any objection. They're stupid, but not that stupid.

    However. Maybe it's time I apply for that gun license...

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Realistically, the US could still defeat us pretty quickly, militarily. The ensuing Canadian insurgency though, that’s another matter. It’d be like Iraq all over again.

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

    USA has shown time and time again that they can do absolutely nothing against a barely structured insurgency. If the canadian military has been paying the slightest bit of attention for the past 70 years, they know not to defend against USA by conventional methods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Population of Iraq: 48 million

    Population of Canada: 41 million

    Area of Iraq: 438,000 kmΒ²

    Area of Canada: 9.98 million kmΒ²

    US-Iraq Border: 0 km

    US-Canada Border: 8,900 km

    A US invasion of Canada would make Iraq look like a pleasant afternoon picnic in the park.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    So he may do it

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    I get everyone is making jokes here, but that is serious. Even if many of you genuinely believe Canada could contend with something like a US invasion, I don't think most of us could bear the cost of even a short conflict. How many of you are already having a hard time affording to live here or have dependents?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Now that they charge themselves 100% tariff on drones …

    Jokes aside, I say we should get ready. Everybody can gain or polish some relevant skills that come in handy if it comes to it.

    Best case you have a new hobby, worst case we make their life miserable if they decide to try and attack us.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί
    7 comments in c/globalnews@lemmy.zip view that post