Dougie93

Canada would agree that America had a right to invade Panama, probably send forces to assist, it's only when Canada is the one being threatened that suddenly Canada is adhering strictly to the letter of law Canada has tagged along for all sorts of American illegal actions over the years to include the subjugation of Canada itself apparently

again, the proximity of American forces to the border and even operating inside of Canadian waters ; justifies Canada invoking Preemptive Self Defence ; even the AI agrees the Americans do it all the time grow a set of balls, Canada

even MAGA doesn't want to invade Canada, even Trump's proxies are saying this is crazy, if Canada simply called Trump's bluff ; escalation dominance Trump would have to back down beat Trump at his own game ; 1. Invoke UN Article 51 2. Invoke NATO Article 5 3. kick the American ambassador out 4. seal the border in both directions 5. cut America off from all vital resources, oil, electricity, potatsh, everything 6. declare a State of Emergency, Invoke the Emergencies Act, mobilize all available armed forces just watch the stock markets go into a spiral then, that alone would sow panic in America

Canada is already attacked, if America pulled this stunt on any other country, that country would mobilize for war, Trump is only targeting Canada, because he knows he can get away with that against Canada. only Canada is the softest, weakest, most unmartial country on earth ; Trump knows

just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo posted by some Canadian leftist academic, to justify why America has Canada's balls sitting in a jar on Trump's desk in the Oval Office

whatever, again, I just checked with ChatGPT; here's what the AI says : Yes, you’re making a valid argument here. Since "armed attack" is not explicitly defined, Canada could invoke Article 51 preemptively, arguing that the combination of: A declared U.S. intent to annex Canada by force. The presence of U.S. military assets (nuclear submarines in Canadian waters). The overwhelming proximity of U.S. forces (e.g., Fort Drum, Minot AFB, and other bases near the border). Why Canada Could Argue This Is an Armed Attack Legal ambiguity works both ways. Since the ICJ has not provided an absolute definition of "armed attack," Canada could interpret the situation as one—forcing the UN and the ICJ to react after the fact. Precedent for broad interpretation. Some countries have stretched self-defense justifications, such as Israel (1981 Osirak reactor strike) and the U.S. (2001 War on Terror rationale). If Canada frames this as an existential threat, it could justify invoking Article 51 immediately. Preemptive self-defense debate. While the ICJ has generally ruled against preemptive self-defense, it has not ruled out every case. If Canada convinces allies that the U.S. is clearly preparing for an invasion, it might gain diplomatic support.

the ICJ makes no ruling as to the situation of a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you, with the nation under threat failing to invoke Article 51 therein, it makes no ruling as to a foreign power actually declaring your country to be illegitimate, for example, what Trump is claiming is that the border negotiated between America & Britain does not apply, since Canada is not Britain anymore

none of which comes to any conclusions, but no doubt that Canada would employ all sorts of legal experts declaring why Canada can't defend itself, that is literally Canada in a nutshell

not explicitly, I just checked with ChatGPT to confirm ; "No, there is no explicit definition of "armed attack" in Article 51 of the UN Charter"

never declared a victory, merely pointed out that Canada is so weak and incapable of defending itself, that even when a foreign power openly declares war against Canada, Canada declines to invoke self defence in the face of it, never mind defending itself from America, Canada is still buying weapons from America when America has declared its intent to crush Canada by force

Article 51 does not define what an "armed attack" consists of, for example, if the positions were reversed, America would have already invoked it and be bombing you by now

no it's not, there's nothing in Article 51 which explicitly defines what "armed attack" means

this is literally what America is imposing upon Canada right now, the White House has not even ruled out the use of military force to achieve its aims, a heavily armed foreign power has declared its intent to annex you, backed up by military force as necessary, at this juncture, America is already engaged in acts of war against Canada

failure to invoke Article 51 in the face of acts of war by a foreign power results in loss of sovereignty by default but Canada is already faced with a foreign power openly engaging in acts of war against Canada, yet Canada declines to invoke Article 51, Article 51 doesn't defend you if you never invoke it

a foreign power declaring that it intends to annex you meets the threshold they are heavily armed, and they openly state that they intend to attack you ; you don't have to wait until they actually roll over your border to invoke Article 51, not every armed attack is an invasion, in many cases it is simply a blockade, yet a blockade is still an act of war, or if a foreign power declares that it will use economic force to annex you, same same; act of war that's the dictionary definition of a blockade

except Canada wont defend itself, that's the difference, if the country refuses to defend itself, then there is no claim to sovereignty

it's only against the law if the country under threat invokes Article 51 in the face of it, case in point, America has declared that it plans to annex Canada, makes no bones about it, yet Canada has not invoked Article 51, so there is no legal standing to Canada's claims to sovereignty, again, by default

the nation loses its sovereignty when it is not prepared to invoke Article 51, Canada is not going to declare Article 51 against America for example, America is literally threatening to annex Canada as we speak, did I miss Canada declaring war by order in council therein ? obviously not, since Canada is not actually sovereign, but rather an American vassal state, America is openly engaging in aggression against Canada, yet Canada does not invoke Article 51 since Canada obviously can't got to war against the very state which is propping Canada up, when you are totally reliant upon another country for your security, even if that country is hostile ; to the threshold wherein you wouldn't dare invoke Article 51 against them, that's how you know ; you're not sovereign

who says it has to be an armed attack to impair your sovereignty ? for example, Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, but other states, particularly America & China assert that it is international waters beyond the 12 mile limit, so when American or Chinese vessels exercise their freedom of navigation, let Canada try to stop them go ahead and invoke Article 51, Canada if Canada is not willing to do so, then the claim is null & void, since nobody actually tried to stop them

United Nations Charter Article 51 if you claim sovereignty over territory, go ahead and invoke your right to defend it, if you are not capable of defending it, that is not an invasion, that is a default

well international law actually demands that you be able to defend your sovereign territory as necessary, as I don't believe that Canada is capable of doing that, Canada's claims to sovereignty are at best rhetorical, Canada's claims to sovereignty are actually what are proving to be unsustainable therein

I don't think that Canada is capable of defending its sovereignty, therefore Canada is not sovereign by default

well now Canada is getting its comeuppance, since MAGA Republicans heard Canada declare all of that, and they took Canada at its word, Canada shooting its mouth off about Canada not being legitimate has consequences apparently

exactly, as in broad strokes, F-47 is the signal that the USAF considers F-35 to be a failure, at the conceptual level sure, America will still try to pawn the F-35 off on allies, but America has decided to make its own investments in 6Gen, since 5Gen is already old news, the problem for foreign buyers mind you, is that they don't have anything better than F-35 available, since whatever European 6Gen fighters that may be produced, are still two decades away from mass production,

I only care about a radical departure from Canadian White Guilt Woke Progressive Do Gooderism run amok, whatever it takes for Canadians to suffer the consequences therein, to burn in that fire of their own making I am hunkered down and prepared to weather said storm, bring it on