suds

Your topic title is crude and disrespectful. But one has to consider the source.

If the answer to your question is.... probably none, then your second statement is purely hypothetical.

So what are we waiting for? Clean, abundant, modestly priced energy is everything. Build it (not for north/south export) but to attract business and manufacturing to Canada. Now that's what I'm talking about. According to this electrical engineer (Scott Jansen) it's doable. Beats tariffs trying to attract investment.

Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States. https://www.state.gov/duties-of-the-secretary-of-state/

It sounds a lot like Roosevelt's New Deal. You do what you have to do depending on the circumstances.

It's how things have always been. That's if you want to keep your job.

Here's what Rubio said .... "The President has made his argument as to why he thinks Canada would be better off joining the U.S. for economic reasons." As far as I know, Trump did say something like that and Rubio does represent the executive branch. So how is reiterating Trump's beliefs insulting when Trump might even be right? Why does it make Rubio an Ahole? Or uncivilized for that matter? It might be nice to know what Rubio actually thinks but that's not his job. I wonder how many times Melanie Joly had to stand before a mic as Minister and say things she didn't agree with? Rubio is a pretty level headed guy and possibly the next President. It might be wise to try and get along with him. You people have gone batshit crazy.

It is a bit hypocritical isn't it? First they're telling us we don't have a culture anymore, but now it's time to rally round the flag? Did anyone tell the Quebecois to stop being French? I've never bought into any of this post national shit. Personally, I think we should cut that dual citizenship crap out.

To reserve the right in determining our own destiny. But instead of getting into a big snit over it, I'd tell the Americans we appreciate the offer. Thanks, but no thanks.

Knock yourself out bud, but I know who I want as fearless leader and I vote accordingly. 😉

Well that's true because uncertainty is unsettling. I would say the best way to whether any possible storm is to vote for Poilievre instead of the guy who wants to get rid of oil, gas, pipelines, or anything that's energy intensive such as smeltering or mining. As I've said yesterday on another thread, we have a relatively low carbon footprint when it comes to electrical power and manufacturing. Let's put it to good use not only for our advantage but the world's as well.

Tariffs on aluminum isn't really going to affect Canadian smelters especially those in Quebec which has 8. Power is 1/2 of production costs, and due to low hydro electric power rates, energy prices can be 3 times lower than with U.S. counterparts. And get this... the aluminum association of Canada claims that 'most contracts between Canada and the U.S. have a clause built in agreeing that the American company purchasing Canadian aluminum pay whatever tariffs are put into place'. For some reason steel producers in Canada aren't quite so lucky, but they do have one thing going for them which is low energy costs meaning low carbon footprints. Beginning in 2026, the EU will introduce significant tariffs on materials based on carbon footprints which will make Canadian steel a bargain. If this lower carbon footprint tariff thing catches on around the world this might really be good for our economy.

Another government empowered 'regulator' that doesn't have to abide by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Civil rights groups in Canada have found rulings like this to be 'troubling'.

In 2022, Saudi Arabia hit peak oil. New oil discoveries peaked in 1964. Abundant mineral resources which were once easy pickings, are now being mined at higher monetary costs and are more energy extensive. When the costs and energy used gets so high it no longer makes sense to mine the stuff then what do we do?? Our living standards depend upon a growing economy mainly to pay off past and present debts. Growing economies require more energy. Renewable power will still require base load power sources. This is where nuclear makes sense. But you don't build a Bruce Nuclear facility overnight. It's not hard to get rid of fossil fuels, it's replacing them to keep our economy growing that's the hard part.

Approximately 60% of China's electrical generation is from coal fired plants and they're still building more. Canada's largest two manufacturing provinces are Ontario and Quebec which have no coal fired plants. Ontario relies mostly on nuclear and hydro electric power while 95% of Quebec's power generation comes from hydro electric. If more of the world's manufacturing was done in Canada.... sure, our GHG emissions would go up. But we'd be doing the world a favour.

Here's something interesting....two center right pro-independence parties came 1st and 2nd in Greenland's main election..... Who won Greenland’s 2025 election? In a surprising result, the centre-right Demokraatit Party won the most votes. Both Demokraatit ( the Democrats) and the second-place Naleraq, or Point of Orientation, favour Greenland's independence from Denmark but differ on the pace of change. Naleraq favours a more aggressive approach, but the Demokraatit wants a gradual transition. Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s party tripled its share of the seats to win the election, a major shock since they were not considered a key player. Demokraatit won 10 of the 31 seats, Naleraq secured eight, and Inuit Ataqatigiit, the party of former Prime Minister Múte B Egede, won seven. The result means that no party has overall control and coalition talks are now set to begin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/what-does-greenland-s-2025-election-result-mean-for-donald-trump-and-denmark-s-future/ar-AA1ALGid

Empires get old, too spread out, and decline. Or they go broke waging war such as after WW2. In other cases it comes at the barrel of a gun.

It's not exactly as if the U.S. hasn't done stuff like this before. They bought Alaska. Then there was the Louisiana Purchase which makes up 1/3 of the continental U.S. today. And if Montcalm had won on the Plains of Abraham, Napolean would likely have thrown in what is known today as Canada as well. Nothing stays the same forever. I wonder what the offer's going to be?

Do the countries such as the U.K. and Israel actually 'own' their F-35's? Because if they owned them, shouldn't they be able to sell one or two of them to the Russians or Chinese which I'm fairly sure they can't do. Or is it closer to leasing them? Having some kind of 'kill switch' sounds like a decent idea especially if an F-35 fell into the wrong hands. In that event my kind of 'kill switch' would blow the aircraft to smithereens.

It seems to be the general consensus in Europe and the U.S. As for Trump, who knows what he's got planned. I believe it's a war that right about now both sides would like to get out of.

I'm wondering though if that would apply to Nato's nuclear policies which fall under political control. All key principles of Nato's nuclear policies are established by all Nato heads of state and government. The 'nuclear planning group' (NPG) is the senior body on nuclear matters and is responsible for the implementation of these principles and policies. The NPG is chaired by Nato's Secretary General and generally meet at the level of defense ministers. This is done so that Nato allies retain political control of all aspects of nuclear decision making. The independent role of the nuclear forces of the U.K., France, and U.S., have deterrent roles of their own. Should an adversary attack they would have to deal with the independent decision making of the U.K., France, U.S., and Nato, which complicates the decision making of those potential adversaries. The U.S. for example, has absolute control over custody of all their nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe. So, who has the last say on the use of nuclear weapons or the arming of a CF-18 with a nuclear bomb? The 'Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe), or these other committees which specifically set nuclear policy? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm

Ok, I can't disagree with you on that. It was just the mentioning of the CF-18's carrying nuclear weapons in Europe that caught my eye. I just don't see any obligation or commitment on Canada's part to do any such thing. Not that I'd be totally against it if the circumstances were right.

Being part of a 'chain of command' or being part of a decision making process is not quite the same thing as Canadian CF-18's equipped with nuclear weapons for use in Europe.

Under what agreement is Canada prepared to do this? From what I understand Canada ending its 'nuclear sharing' in 1984 as a partner in Norad.

My post was in response to Ironstone's post which was in response to something Myata had posted. It had nothing to do Freeland. But I suppose it could have.