What do you mean "IF" ?? There is no IF He just hasn't figured out how to succeed and get away with it. As soon as he has the answer to that..........
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
218 points (95.8% liked)
News
27864 readers
5437 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd bet a significant enough chunk of the US military is against annexation and would resist orders to invade. Canada and US have basically been brothers in arms for 100+ years, thats a hard culture to throw away for no real threat. The average US infantry is not going to feel like they are fighting for freedom by annexing Canada.
As an American even I don't have that faith in our military to do the right thing.
There's a good chunk of them that are indoctrinated in MAGA philosophies, and they are trained to follow orders. More likely that the pushback would come from leadership, however I certainly would not want to test it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'd argue they have a constitutional duty to refuse these orders and actually, to march on the President and Congress and put a stop to this. Their duty is FIRST and FOREMOST to the Constitution of the United States.
It would honestly take just a single brave "bodyguard" to end this all. Even if they are killed or jailed, it sure as shit beats having to die in combat while fighting an innocent neighbour because you followed orders from a clown.
On the upside, they'd be a global hero for preventing a needless war. No need to go back in time to drop an orange down a flight of stairs, either.
Yeah, lets see how many of them refuse to invade Canada after the first few dozen get executed in front of everyone else.
The world knows that leadership style already. It's the secret ingredient of the legendary russian army that allowed them to take Ukraine in 5 days.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They've already been firing generals that won't toe the line. They're in the process of ridding the military of trans soldiers. Gay/Lesbian soldiers will probably be next, and I don't doubt there will soon be incentives to rat out any fellow soldiers who are suspected of not being "Loyal Americans".
Agreed, the number of refusals, defections, and just straight up surrendering would cause massive problems for any sort of invasion.
Not to mention the basic fact that there's nothing to "capture" these days.
If they take the government buildings by force, does that change anything?
They've only "taken" Canada if the people start paying taxes to the US government, and that's unlikely to happen in an invasion situation. People would just stop paying their taxes entirely. It's not like troops could go door to door collecting, they may be able to collect it from some specific large businesses, but the rest of the economy immediately goes underground
There's no reasonable enforcement measure for the mass riots that would occur with the number of troops they could afford to deploy to Canada. If they start ordering troops to just gun down every riot, the fight back from the Canadians is going to make Afghanistan look like a cake walk.
If they start shutting down basic functions like electricity or banking to control the population, then the number of guns Canada owns is going to become a huge problem for the troops they have here. The US military would also have to secure the border somehow as some people will try to flee into the US, and some of those people "fleeing" would then turn around and start attacking US assets in the US.
And that's not to mention the almost million Canadians who currently live in the US, are they going to try Japanese internment camps again?
A physical invasion is just completely infeasible. He's going to keep pushing it economically and politically, and it's very likely he's long gone (either out of office or dead) before Canada would cave to those pressures.
load more comments
(33 replies)
90% the things Trump suggests are not something he actually does. The trouble is you're never sure which 10% are what he will do
He floods the zone with so much intentionally that it all looks like noise. Don't get twisted by it all. It's designed to make you numb and assume he is more powerful than he is. He's done that this term and he did it during his first term
Follow his direct actions more than his words. Based on actions, I'd actually be a bit more alarmed for Panama invasion than Canada right now. He directed military to create plans for that. Watch it more closely
Absolutely. “Flood the zone” is Bannon’s strategy, being employed again this term.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do you not remember when Justin Trudeau met with Trump, and shortly afterward telling people that Trump was serious?
Trump is serious. He's incredibly brash and stupid, rife with tiny dick energy, which makes it dangerous.
I kinda pick one of these land grab schemes as the tipping point. If the current armed forces can look at what's waiting for them when they discharge and still go "yeah fuck Greenland!" then there's no coming back from this.
I'm a gun owner. I'm a solid shot @ 300 yards with a T/C encore 6.5. I'm smart enough to know that Id probably be dead before I even remembered to chamber against any armed forces. The military is what worries me right now very much. Especially if they choose how i would like them to. There's major repercussions to refusing orders (i assume) and I won't be the one to bear those so i can only ask.
The military oath requires refusal to obey unlawful orders.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Everything he says, he's serious about. Annexing Canada, Greenland, Panama canal, tariffs, not leaving office (currently floated as running for another term after this one), getting revenge on all his enemies, etc etc. All of it. How much of it he can actually do is however much he isn't stopped from doing.
Would he order use of force? I don't know. But the question isn't whether Hegseth would go along with it--of course he would. The question is how many American troops would follow the orders. IMO many or most would refuse. They (and the US populace) would view using military force against Canada in the same way they would view using military force against American citizens (which I would not be surprised to be ordered at some point). Other than a few hardcore magats, I believe we would never go along with a war against our Canadian cousins.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think we left What If long ago.
True, but I worry that only very left individuals are really talking about this probability. In the big picture, centrists and right wingers don’t believe it will happen. Mother Jones is left, but it’s also a large media company. If we can get more media companies to report on what we think is obvious, it will force the centrists and “I don’t do politics” people to hear it. I hope this article is the start of the discussion in the media, which will take time to happen, unfortunately.
He always is. The only question is if anyone with the power to stop him from doing whatever dumb as fuck thing has entered his diseased mind at the moment will stop him.
Reminder that Canada has a population of over 40 million people and the Canada-US border is three times the length of the Eastern Front in WWII, which is by a long shot the largest front of any war in human history.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Send rump up here to Canada. We'll take care of the problem that muricans cannot
There is no if. He's serious.
What if? He is definitely serious about his Anschluss.
MAGA path to success
- Leave NATO
- Invade Canada, a NATO country, triggering Article 5
- ???
- Profit
“Why would we do that?” said Frank Haynes, a 94-year-old Korean War veteran, who seemed utterly baffled by my absurd question.
That's pretty much what every American is thinking.
Half of all Canadians support joining the EU, and while I haven't seen a poll for us Europeans I'm sure we'd love to see it.
He is. This is about climate change. Rich Americans need new lands to destroy.
Given that Canada will never voluntarily join the US—which it is adamant about—would Trump try to use force to annex it? And would Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth go along with this crazy plan?
No. Also, the US tried this in 1812 and it was extremely unpopular with the American public, even moreso than the Vietnam War. And while Trump has a lot of leeway not to act on foreign policy, Congress has considerable power to constrain a President's actions in terms of war.
John Bolton did an interview recently with Kyiv Post, which addresed this specific question of Trump WRT Canada. I think a lot of people would benefit from watching the thing. Bolton worked in Trump's first cabinet, spent a long time watching him operate as President. The two did not part on good terms. Bolton's an internationalist, for context, bit of a hawk, and supports NATO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99JIvjq9t0
I really think that the interview is a worthwhile watch, but I can give a pretty short summary:
"Trump is not part of some sort of grand master scheme run by Russia. He just has very little idea about how government works, or how to accomplish what he wants done, and tends to operate largely in terms of his own personal relationships, which is not really how international affairs actually work. Either Trump thinks of you as friendly to him or not. Trump treats international affairs more-or-less as being how much he likes a given leader personally. He doesn't like Justin Trudeau, so he insults and snipes at Canada. Sadly, it doesn't go a lot deeper than that. The chance of an actual attempt to annex Canada is slim to none."
EDIT: I should note
Bolton has discussed Trump's positions on Greenland prior to this, to give prior material on the matter
that Trump actually does want to buy Greenland and that this came up repeatedly in his first administration, that he'd like it to kind of be his legacy for the US. Bolton points out that isn't new to Trump, as prior administrations have made offers to buy it. That isn't a joke. Trump just has no idea how to actually go about trying to buy the thing, and so is busily pissing off both Denmark and Greenland, which pretty much ensures that he can't.
EDIT2: Bolton did point out that he would say that Putin probably considers Trump to be an "easy mark", someone who probably would do a poor job negotiating and who can be manipulated.
I’m pretty sure we’ve all figured out our own personal insurrection style already.
Mine is penises in the dead mouth like the Viet Cong did. And blowing up Americans.
There’s no “what if he’s serious” here, the rest of the world with half a brain saw it already.
Yes, it all sucks, but this is just diversion to distract from the actual authoritarian takeover of the us government. Canada is safe from a military action by the US.
These are modern social psychological wars. If he doesn't use military he will use social psychology, they same way they did in USA. The idea is to make you guys annex yourself.
Understand American politics like Mafia life. That is the mentality and style. They will get naive people to become their pressure machine. The people won't even understand what they are doing. Joe Nobody will put pressure on his neighbors for a political mob boss to gain power, but Joe Nobody will think he's an American hero and not understand the politics is nothing but business and he won't be on the receiving end of the Bosses gains. Its similar to how gangs and organized crime use people in the street.
This is how I've seen it work in USA since 2016.
Trump is only serious about it because if Canada isn't part of the United States, Vice President Musk can never take over when he is gone.
He's probing. If there's no resistance, he'll grab whatever he can.
I remember last time around, Trump talked in his press conferences about Muslim prayer rugs being found at the Mexican border, which is a thing that did not happen in reality, but was a plot point in "Sicario". I'm guessing this time around, he's basing his foreign policy on "Canadian Bacon".
view more: next ›