Trump Plan for Takeover of Canada?

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Gaétan said:

You are naive, Trudeau is trying to light the patriotic flame to increase the popularity of his party, this guy is nothing but a corrupt scum, punto final. Borders between countries are barriers invented by kings for their own needs and which have lasted until today but are of no moral use. Is preventing Mexicans from coming to eat in the United States or Canada really morally right. Is it morally right to be afraid that our blood will be mixed with other ethnicities? Is it fair for a rich and resourceful country not to share with an arid and poorer country? It harms trade and the sharing of wealth. Borders between countries must be abolished. Abolishing borders does not abolish local governments and administration for the needs of the population. It is also necessary to abolish money, which in the past was a system that benefited kings, today the rich, but which does not meet the needs of the population and is a source of waste of resources; if there is no consumption, there is famine and misery..

It doesn’t matter what radical views you have, the population decides.

Your views are essentially Marxist.  No working person who has saved to buy a home and a small piece of the American Dream (or Canadian for that matter) will accept having to give that up in the name of property redistribution or high taxation to pay for the upkeep of new arrivals.   The new arrivals have to bring something to the table unless there’s some extreme instance of injustice they are fleeing, in which case they can claim refugee status.  Most people are willing to give up some of their earnings and property to help people who are desperate and fleeing a situation thrust upon them, against which they have no recourse.  That’s not what is being questioned here.  It’s the rapid and illegal immigration or the government supported mass immigration without clear purpose that people are justified in questioning.  Otherwise the purpose of the nation state as a polity operated by the citizens for the citizens falls apart.

No rational person would take the risk of supporting your free for all, which essentially amounts to anarchy and redistribution of property at gunpoint based on whoever wields the most power, because public safety requires social organization, collection of taxes, electoral jurisdictions, and borders.  

Edited February 9 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The day the U.S. invaded a country simply to take its stuff under false pretences of national security or open theft is the day that the U.S. loses any moral authority that it has left.  Not only would it be internationally condemned but it would be domestically condemned by millions of Americans as an unamerican act, in violation of its own constitution and supposed values.  The rules based order of the West and the pacts that support it, from NATO to the WTO to other economic treaties, would be abrogated and dissolved in one fell swoop, returning the world to medieval power grabs and atrocities, without regard to the Geneva Convention, international law, or any moral codes.

Could the U.S. do it?  Sure, but Russia could also nuke the world.  Just because one can do something doesn’t mean one should do it.  Occupying a country is a much bigger challenge than invading it, which is why we all had to leave Afghanistan eventually.  It’s why Napoleon and Hitler retreated from Russia.

Conventional warfare is neither advisable nor necessary for the U.S. to have control of Canada.  Trump was stating a fact when he pointed out that without access to the U.S. market Canada struggles to an extent that Canadians would not want to endure.  Nevertheless, the U.S. would struggle too without our purchasing of their exports and without affordable access to our goods, especially energy and minerals.  That doesn’t change if the U.S. invaded Canada, because those mines require minors and companies and local businesses.  Local people do the extraction.  If they tried to bring in Americans to do it, they would become locals and have to occupy the lands against hostile Canadians who are indistinguishable in appearance from Americans.  It would weaken export markets for America and turn the world against America. It’s really that simple.

The US already has access to our resources through USMCA, so what’s the upside of subjugating a population?  The only way Canada could become part of the U.S. in a way that benefits the U.S. is if the Canadian citizens choose it because they perceive it as beneficial to Canadians, so if Trump is serious about Canada joining America, make the case to Canadians and Americans.

As of right now Canadians are not feeling the love.  They perceive Trump as coercive and threatening, so the reaction is Canadian nationalism, unity, and greater independence from the U.S., despite the costs of pursuing it.

I still don’t think it’s too late to make the case for concrete guarantees against future tariffs in exchange for assurances that are reasonable, and this could include the free movement of goods, services, and people, like in the European Union, but America is more protectionist now, not less, and it is talking about expansion through economic pressure, causing Canada and other governments to take protective measures against American belligerence and unpredictability.  There’s simply no choice for Canada if we wish to protect our interests and bargain from a position of strength.  

there is only one thing Canada can do to defend itself from annexation

that is to project state power at the geopolitical level

there is only one thing that Canada could purchase in the near term

which would assert sovereignty to foreign powers

nuclear submarines

there is a window of opportunity right now

since the Royal Navy is receiving its final Astute class SSN this year

so that's a hot production line, ready to build immediately

if Canada was willing to buy off the shelf, no modifications,

joining the British program as a customer with cash in hand

BAE Systems could actually have an SSN ready for delivery in 2028

which also solves Canada's NATO 2% problem on the spot

since it would be a single class with the British providing maintenance in the UK, leveraging economies of scale

Canada could replace the four SSK-876 Victoria class SSKs

with four SSN-880 Astute cllass SSN's

and have them all in service by 2034

just have the Royal Navy train the RCN crews while the subs are being built

you could start off with joint UK - Canadian crews until the RCN was able to recruit more submariners

[Zeitgeist]

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

as I always say; Canada is a giant Ulster

contrary to popular sentiment ; America has gone to war against the British Crown since the Second World War

America backed the Irish Fenians against the Loyalists in Northern Ireland

the actual fault line in Canada is the same

Fenians ( Post National State ) v. Loyalists ( Old Stock Canadians )

it's not the Republicans who have invaded and occupied Canada with their ideology

it is the Democrats who have subjugated the Laurentian Elite ruling class with American Woke Progressivism 

no wonder His Majesty The King is not interceding on Canada's behalf ;

as the ruling class in Canada is not Loyalist, quite the opposite

the Laurentian Elites are the traitors

Cuidich 'n Righ

 

I know you always give preference to the British Protestant foundation of Confederation over the Vatican-influenced side of the Canadian equation, though Britain enshrined Catholic rights in the British North America Act of 1867.  Sadly those foundational forces have been weakened and essentially walked away, relinquishing authority to something outside both of those cultural forces.  I’d call it Cultural Marxism, the idea that the state is the ultimate authority and has the right to tell you what to think and how to live.  It’s what has filled the cultural vacuum created by Post-National State, China’s heavy influence, and a capitulation to radical left woke ideology. Constitutionality protected Catholic education in Canada is one of the last vestiges of protecting Canadian values and culture, and it too is being attacked at the highest levels of the Vatican.  Where are the royalists?  Where are the Churchillians?  Where are the Catholics? Where are the Protestants? Where are the Canadians?  The leftist posters on here don’t understand where the strength of Canada dwells.

Edited February 9 by Zeitgeist

[Gaétan]

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It doesn’t matter what radical views you have, the population decides.

Your views are essentially Marxist.  No working person who has saved to buy a home and a small piece of the American Dream (or Canadian for that matter) will accept having to give that up in the name of property redistribution or high taxation to pay for the upkeep of new arrivals.   The new arrivals have to bring something to the table unless there’s some extreme instance of injustice they are fleeing, in which case they can claim refugee status.  Most people are willing to give up some of their earnings and property to help people who are desperate and fleeing a situation thrust upon them, against which they have no recourse.  That’s not what is being questioned here.  It’s the rapid and illegal immigration or the government supported mass immigration without clear purpose that people are justified in questioning.  Otherwise the purpose of the nation state as a polity operated by the citizens for the citizens falls apart.

No rational person would take the risk of supporting your free for all, which essentially amounts to anarchy and redistribution of property at gunpoint based on whoever wields the most power, because public safety requires social organization, collection of taxes, electoral jurisdictions, and borders.  

Humanity is facing challenges and every man for himself will prevent us from surviving. For example: Trump wants to exploit more oil because he thinks he is enriching his country, but it will hurt others. Borders are a kind of withdrawal and selfishness. They built a wall between the United States and Mexico out of selfishness. European countries prevent immigrants from coming there out of selfishness, but it is not a fair value that can allow humanity to survive but that will lead to its destruction.

Edited February 9 by Gaétan

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

Humanity is facing challenges and every man for himself will prevent us from surviving. For example: Trump wants to exploit more oil because he thinks he is enriching his country, but it will hurt others. Borders are a kind of withdrawal and selfishness.

Incorrect.  The highest form of democracy is the most local and based on the idea of subsidiarity.  It starts with respect for the family unit and the local community.  The members of that community must have as much political control over their community as possible to ensure that the people have the greatest level of self-determination. What do you think the Indigenous beef with Canada is all about?  Self-determination.  A local community is a jurisdiction with its own voters.  Jurisdictional self-determination is the origin of the border, because polities must protect their interests.  It goes back tens of thousands of years, before the Mesopotamian cities that protected their interests no differently from today.

Communities come together to form regional higher levels of government such as states or provinces, and on it goes to the level of the nation states.  Self-determination is at the heart of social organization, and a healthy liberal democracy respects that, which is why healthy democracies don’t subjugate citizens of any countries.  

Edited February 9 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

there is only one thing Canada can do to defend itself from annexation

that is to project state power at the geopolitical level

there is only one thing that Canada could purchase in the near term

which would assert sovereignty to foreign powers

nuclear submarines

there is a window of opportunity right now

since the Royal Navy is receiving its final Astute class SSN this year

so that's a hot production line, ready to build immediately

if Canada was willing to buy off the shelf, no modifications,

joining the British program as a customer with cash in hand

BAE Systems could actually have an SSN ready for delivery in 2028

which also solves Canada's NATO 2% problem on the spot

since it would be a single class with the British providing maintenance in the UK, leveraging economies of scale

Canada could replace the four SSK-876 Victoria class SSKs

with four SSN-880 Astute cllass SSN's

and have them all in service by 2034

just have the Royal Navy train the RCN crews while the subs are being built

you could start off with joint UK - Canadian crews until the RCN was able to recruit more submariners

Good thinking.  Make an immediate assertion of hard power to protect our sovereignty.  That solves multiple problems at once, including meeting NATO commitments.

Without thinking on the level of the power over life and death, as well as our economic strength, tough words are meaningless.

Edited February 9 by Zeitgeist

[Gaétan]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Incorrect.  The highest form of democracy is the most local and based on the idea of subsidiarity.  It starts with respect for the family unit and the local community.  The members of that community must have as much political control over their community as possible to ensure that the people have the greatest level of self-determination. What do you think the Indigenous beef with Canada is all about?  Self-determination.  A local community is a jurisdiction with its own voters.  Jurisdictional self-determination is the origin of the border, because polities must protect their interests.  It goes back tens of thousands of years, before the Mesopotamian cities that protected their interests no differently from today.

Communities come together to form regional higher levels of government such as states or provinces, and on it goes to the level of the nation states.  Self-determination is at the heart of social organization, and a healthy liberal democracy respects that, which is why healthy democracies don’t subjugate citizens of any countries.  

Selfishness is not a fair value but a devil's value, it is out of selfishness that migrants are expelled

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I know you always give preference to the British Protestant foundation of Confederation over the Vatican-influenced side of the Canadian equation, though Britain enshrined Catholic rights in the British North America Act of 1867.

I honour the Peace of the Canada's

my regimental pub, where I met my wife, is a Fenian pub; McVeigh's New Windsor House Tavern

Jimmy McVeigh was a personal friend of mine

none the less, the modern liberal state itself ; Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy

was founded by we Ulster Scots Protestants

Victoria Hanover is Mother Canada

as I always say ; if/when Canadians cease to be Loyalist ?

then they are rendered into Americans by default therein

realpolitik there is no third way, not even for Quebec

the British Crown in North America is the only binding force of Confederation

God Save The King & HM Mohawk Warriors

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Gaétan said:

Selfishness is not a fair value but a devil's value, it is out of selfishness that migrants are expelled

Should anybody be able to enter your home, take your things, rape your wife/children simply because they want to or perceive themselves as needing to?   Protection of property is a condition of respect for the individual and sanctity of the person.  Without it you have no real rights, because your stuff can be taken, including your dignity, in the service of anyone else’s interests.

You don’t make distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, nor do you understand that a country’s citizens decide who can enter the country for the sake of the safety of the citizens.  Self-determination, a condition of any democracy, requires this.  

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I honour the Peace of the Canada's

my regimental pub, where I met my wife, is a Fenian pub; McVeigh's New Windsor House Tavern

Jimmy McVeigh was a personal friend of mine

none the less, the modern liberal state itself ; Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy

was founded by we Ulster Scots Protestants

Victoria Hanover is Mother Canada

as I always say ; if/when Canadians cease to be Loyalist ?

then they are rendered into Americans by default therein

realpolitik there is no third way, not even for Quebec

the British Crown in North America is the only binding force of Confederation

God Save The King & HM Mohawk Warriors

I don’t disagree.  But where is our King?  Where are the Loyalists?  Are there enough of them to make the case for Canada?  As Chrétien said in the last referendum on Quebec separation, “Who will speak for Canada?”

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t disagree.  But where is our King?  Where are the Loyalists? 

HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps

the brothers to the left & right of me

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

Victoria Regina Imperatrix & Victoria Patricia

Mother Canada & Granddaughter

Ducimus

[Gaétan]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Should anybody be able to enter your home, take your things, rape your wife/children simply because they want to or perceive themselves as needing to?   Protection of property is a condition of respect for the individual and sanctity of the person.  Without it you have no real rights, because your stuff can be taken, including your dignity, in the service of anyone else’s interests.

You don’t make distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, nor do you understand that a country’s citizens decide who can enter the country for the sake of the safety of the citizens.  Self-determination, a condition of any democracy, requires this.  

There are no just reasons to have borders or to expel migrants, you are a student of the devil.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

There are no just reasons to have borders or to expel migrants, you are a student of the devil.

You come across as uninformed.  Your position would truly cause suffering, because you don’t seem to understand the millennia old origins of our social order. You mention the devil but don’t seem to understand the basic lessons of history explained in the testaments.  

Edited February 9 by Zeitgeist

[Gaétan]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

You come across as uninformed.  Your position would truly cause suffering, because you don’t seem to understand the millennia old origins of our social order.  You mention the devil but don’t seem to understand the basic lessons of history explained in the testaments.  

The basis is to be fair, there is no other

[herbie]

While not agreeing with Gaetan, I have to point out this is Canada and our society has not formed over millennia.
It has evolved over a couple hundred years, will keep evolving and I point out once again our country is far from finished being built.

Norms are not what they were when your Grampa moved here, they are not what they were when your Dad grew up, or when you did and your kids better understand it will be the same in their case.

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

While not agreeing with Gaetan, I have to point out this is Canada and our society has not formed over millennia.
It has evolved over a couple hundred years, will keep evolving and I point out once again our country is far from finished being built.

Norms are not what they were when your Grampa moved here, they are not what they were when your Dad grew up, or when you did and your kids better understand it will be the same in their case.

It was founded over millennia, because the founders imported personal family histories and institutions based on a thousand year old parliament in Britain, which was itself based on Roman administration, the German assembly, and other distant precursors.  It’s exactly this misunderstanding that makes revolutionaries think they can and should erase history and impose their flavour of the month.  

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Norms are not what they were when your Grampa moved here, they are not what they were when your Dad grew up,

if it's not Loyalist British North America like our grandfathers & great grandfathers before us

then there is nothing left to kill nor die for here

let the Americans hang the Liberal NDP Marxist Leninist traitors from the nearest yardarm ; good riddance

Edited February 10 by Dougie93

[PIK]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

there is only one thing Canada can do to defend itself from annexation

that is to project state power at the geopolitical level

there is only one thing that Canada could purchase in the near term

which would assert sovereignty to foreign powers

nuclear submarines

there is a window of opportunity right now

since the Royal Navy is receiving its final Astute class SSN this year

so that's a hot production line, ready to build immediately

if Canada was willing to buy off the shelf, no modifications,

joining the British program as a customer with cash in hand

BAE Systems could actually have an SSN ready for delivery in 2028

which also solves Canada's NATO 2% problem on the spot

since it would be a single class with the British providing maintenance in the UK, leveraging economies of scale

Canada could replace the four SSK-876 Victoria class SSKs

with four SSN-880 Astute cllass SSN's

and have them all in service by 2034

just have the Royal Navy train the RCN crews while the subs are being built

you could start off with joint UK - Canadian crews until the RCN was able to recruit more submariners

We don't need nukes subs. Top line diesel/electric subs. Get more for our buck,and cheaper to operate.

Edited February 10 by PIK

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, PIK said:

We don't need nukes subs. Top line diesel/electric subs. Get more for our buck,and cheaper to operate.

it's not all about going for the cheapest option

when global military powers are coming for your territory

SSK's don't project power, and they are of no use whatsoever in the arctic

so not actually more bang for the buck at all

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It was founded over millennia, because the founders imported personal family histories and institutions based on a thousand year old parliament in Britain, which was itself based on Roman administration, the German assembly, and other distant precursors.  It’s exactly this misunderstanding that makes revolutionaries think they can and should erase history and impose their flavour of the month.  

This is just a bunch of Doctrine of Discovery hooey that was dreamed up by some of most sadistic and inhumane bastards the planet has ever seen. Interestingly I notice you left Christianity and especially the Catholic church out of the list of institutions you used to justify your attitude.

 

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It was founded over millennia, because the founders imported personal family histories and institutions based on a thousand year old parliament in Britain, which was itself based on Roman administration, the German assembly, and other distant precursors.  It’s exactly this misunderstanding that makes revolutionaries think they can and should erase history and impose their flavour of the month.  

It was 'founded' on artificially imitating European ideas and has since evolved incorporated elements of native, Indian, Chinese and republican revolutionary elements that evolved and will continue to do so. Your comment about erasure is bullshit hyperbole, clarification and correction does not amount to erasure.

All those woke things over the last 200 years that upsets the stubborn.

Edited February 10 by herbie

[Zeitgeist]

39 minutes ago, herbie said:

It was 'founded' on artificially imitating European ideas and has since evolved incorporated elements of native, Indian, Chinese and republican revolutionary elements that evolved and will continue to do so. Your comment about erasure is bullshit hyperbole, clarification and correction does not amount to erasure.

All those woke things over the last 200 years that upsets the stubborn.

You can’t like Canada no matter how hard you pretend to be patriotic, unless it involves getting free stuff through redistribution of wealth.  Can you explain what you like about Canada?  Genuinely curious.  

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

This is just a bunch of Doctrine of Discovery hooey that was dreamed up by some of most sadistic and inhumane bastards the planet has ever seen. Interestingly I notice you left Christianity and especially the Catholic church out of the list of institutions you used to justify your attitude.

 

Oh yeah, so you would choose to live like the 17th century natives right?  None of that colonial European bourgeoisie lifestyle for you.  So why don’t you do it?  It’s never too late.  Who needs literacy either, right?   You’ve clearly attended your equity training and swallowed the radical nonsense.  It’s attitudes like yours that put Canada in its current position of weakness.  Seriously, why would you want to be part of this “settler-colonial genocidal” state?

Indigenous are also part of Canada’s story, good and bad.  They were no better than the settlers and had fought and enslaved each other.  People are people.  Indigenous ideas contributed to the culture along with many other groups.

Edited February 10 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s attitudes like yours that put Canada in its current position of weakness. 

Seriously, why would you want to be part of this “settler-colonial genocidal” state?  

Because it has a justice system that's proven to be quite effective at changing it into something better.

It also makes people stronger in the face of the state.

I would have thought that's something you'd like given how authoritarian and oppressive you seem to think our state is.

New World revolutions seem to have a way of coalescing around indigenous aspirations. You're on the wrong side of history and the future is forward not back.

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Because it has a justice system that's proven to be quite effective at changing it into something better.

It also makes people stronger in the face of the state.

I would have thought that's something you'd like given how authoritarian and oppressive you seem to think our state is.

New World revolutions seem to have a way of coalescing around indigenous aspirations. You're on the wrong side of history and the future is forward not back.

 

 

Be careful what you support, because that future might remove property from future generations of your family. You don’t seem to understand what’s at stake.  It really is all about that. Money and land.  There’s an illusion that there was an original tribe with the deed of deeds, though historical records indicate that Indigenous were invading each other’s territories with regularity, the ones that stayed in one area for more than several years after the soil was degraded, which was mostly the coastal settlements.  They were also the wealthiest and most brutal, enslaving tribes from the south.  Anyway, treaties were signed and people are free to bring their land claims to court.  If you want more claims and reparations for the deeds of people living centuries ago, that’s your choice.  I would estimate that if too much of that happens, the younger generation paying the price for your foolishness will happily turn the country over to America to release Canadians from these millstones.

Edited February 10 by Zeitgeist