Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: So nowhere in international law is “armed attack” defined? This is another asinine assertion by yourself. Now the pigeon has shit on the board! Then why is there an entire paper written by international legal experts on this subject that goes into what specifically it means? PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES IN SELF-DEFENCE. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad. Edited March 24 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: You’re the one who said PP meant departments are underfunded and understaffed when he said everything in Canada is broken. Thanks capt obvious, i did say that, but he also has not come out and say he was going to staff more governmental workers, just fully fund each department... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
TreeBeard Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: none of which comes to any conclusions, I will go by the legal experts opinion on the definition, rather than your whacky assertions. For the purpose of Article 51, an armed attack includes not only an attack against the territory of the State, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against emanations of the State, such as its armed forces or embassies abroad. An armed attack may also include, in certain circumstances, attacks against private citizens abroad or civil ships and airliners. An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an intentional intervention in or against another state without that state’s consent or subsequent acquiescence, which is not legally justified. An armed attack involves the use of armed force and not mere economic damage. Economic damage, for example, by way of trade suspension, or by use of a computer virus designed to paralyse the financial operations of a state’s stock exchange or to disable the technology used to control water resources, may have a devastating impact on the victim state but the principles governing the right to use force in self-defence are confined to a military attack. A purely ‘economic’ attack might however give rise to the right of self-defence if it were the precursor to an imminent armed attack. An armed attack means any use of armed force, and does not need to cross some threshold of intensity. Any requirement that a use of force must attain a certain gravity and that frontier incidents, for example, are excluded is relevant only in so far as the minor nature of an attack is prima facie evidence of absence of intention to attack or honest mistake. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad. Edited March 24 by TreeBeard Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 Just now, TreeBeard said: I will go by the legal experts opinion on the definition, rather than your whacky assertions 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. Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: For the purpose of Article 51, an armed attack includes not only an attack against the territory of the State, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against emanations of the State, such as its armed forces or embassies abroad. An armed attack may also include, in certain circumstances, attacks against private citizens abroad or civil ships and airliners. An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an intentional intervention in or against another state without that state’s consent or subsequent acquiescence, which is not legally justified. An armed attack involves the use of armed force and not mere economic damage. Economic damage, for example, by way of trade suspension, or by use of a computer virus designed to paralyse the financial operations of a state’s stock exchange or to disable the technology used to control water resources, may have a devastating impact on the victim state but the principles governing the right to use force in self-defence are confined to a military attack. A purely ‘economic’ attack might however give rise to the right of self-defence if it were the precursor to an imminent armed attack. An armed attack means any use of armed force, and does not need to cross some threshold of intensity. Any requirement that a use of force must attain a certain gravity and that frontier incidents, for example, are excluded is relevant only in so far as the minor nature of an attack is prima facie evidence of absence of intention to attack or honest mistake. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilpforce.doc#:~:text=For the purpose of Article,armed forces or embassies abroad. 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 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: I’m not sure if you’re dishonest or just really stupid….? “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Where does it state that if you can’t defend yourself then your sovereignty doesn’t mean anything? Article 51 gives nations the right to defend themselves in case of attack. It doesn’t say you lose your sovereignty if you can’t defend yourself. You need to follow the math here....nobody is saying Canada does not have the right to defend itself....he is saying in event that Canada is attacked by the US they ( Canada) if your not going to defend the nation you would surrendering it to the US, surrendering is giving up your sovereignty, you no longer control this ( Canada) country another nation controls it.... another nations flag would be flying in Ottawa...it's citizens would come under US military control... What would you defend the nation with our military? against the largest most equipped military in the free world...The best thing Canada could do is surrender, without risking the lives of our military...to throw them away on a useless endeavor is pretty selfish... US military has close to 2 million men and women under arms, we would be lucky to find 120 k of which maybe 1/3 of those would not be able to fight... and less than 5000 of those are combat troops... Canada could have a government in exile, but it would not have sovereign control over the nation...the US would have that... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Army Guy said: .he is saying in event that Canada is attacked 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 Edited March 24 by Dougie93 Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Army Guy said: What would you defend the nation with our military? 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 Edited March 24 by Dougie93 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: 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 No he is right, trump has not threaten to use military force, now he has said that in case of the panama canal, but not about Canada.. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5071665-trump-economic-force-canada/ panama https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-use-military-force-acquire-panama-canal-greenland-econo-rcna186610 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 1 minute ago, Army Guy said: No he is right, trump has not threaten to use military force, 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 Quote
Goddess Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 3 hours ago, blackbird said: No, Canadians are sick of hearing Liberals apologizing for everything, on behalf of Canadians, that happened in the past that had nothing to do people alive today. All of this. ☝️ 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Army Guy said: panama 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 Edited March 24 by Dougie93 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: 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 Our balls are in some warehouse buried deep in the states... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: 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 Not sure we would have a rush of NATO or any other nations coming to our assistance...i think this one would be Canada your alone on this one.......and since we have the military we have always wanted then we are stuck with learning the american anthem... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Our balls are in some warehouse buried deep in the states... Canada is afraid, Canada is cowering, in the face of an American reality tv star, might as well just disband the CAF at this point, as Canada is not prepared to fight a real war under any circumstances, not even existential threat 11 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Not sure we would have a rush of NATO or any other nations coming to our assistance... doesn't matter, Article V doesn't bind them to fight anyways, the point is escalation dominance ; call Trump's bluff already, this is the way to beat him, to include in the trade war even Republicans are turning on him over these Canada threats, now is the time to go on the attack, press the advantage Edited March 24 by Dougie93 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Canada is afraid, Canada is cowering, in the face of an American reality tv star, might as well just disband the CAF at this point, as Canada is not prepared to fight a real war under any circumstances, not even existential threat I think our military is unprepared, it's under equipped and under manned but if told to do so would go over the wall if ordered..it would be a terrific waste of the finest Canadians we have....outnumbered 1000 to one....that sacrifice would be quickly forgotten by Canadians, along with their names of the dead... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
TreeBeard Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said: just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo All that matters is legal mumbo jumbo by international law experts. Your opinion has zero importance on international law. 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said: Canadian leftist academic It’s a British group. 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said: justify why America has Canada's balls sitting in a jar on Trump's desk in the Oval Office You didn’t read it at all. It had nothing to do with the state of Canada/USA affairs. 53 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: even the AI agrees You have issues with critical thinking. Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 3 hours ago, TreeBeard said: All that matters is legal mumbo jumbo by international law experts. Your opinion has zero importance on international law. Canada's opinion has zero importance on international law, Canada's ambassador to the UN has already stated that America's threats of annexation are illegal, nobody cares apparently, Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 8 hours ago, Army Guy said: I think our military is unprepared, it's under equipped and under manned but if told to do so would go over the wall if ordered..it would be a terrific waste of the finest Canadians we have....outnumbered 1000 to one....that sacrifice would be quickly forgotten by Canadians, along with their names of the dead... the entire Canadian military would be encircled while still on its bases, the troops wouldn't even have a chance to draw ammo before they were surrounded, so again, Canada is claiming that this is a serious threat, but Canada is making no preparations to defend itself therein, nobody know what Trump might do, Trump doesn't even know, so Trump's assurance that he would not use military force can't be trusted, but because Canada is not acting like it is taking Trump seriously, none of the rest of the world is taking it seriously, the UK is literally going to invite Trump to join the Commonwealth, at the personal invitation of the King, Quote
I am Groot Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 On 3/22/2025 at 9:48 PM, Barquentine said: You wish evil on people, not me. Why do you say it's evil? You were just praising the Canadian healthcare system! Quote
I am Groot Posted March 24 Report Posted March 24 On 3/22/2025 at 9:57 PM, Barquentine said: Just highlighted ONE of the many stupid, racist, hate-filled comments. You sit in your armchair shaking your cane at the tv, no doubt, or listen to Rogan or some equally ludicrous podcasts. The US has MAGAtts. We don't need them. Pakistan IS, by almost any measure, a shithole country. 23 hours ago, TreeBeard said: Where is policy mentioned? “Everything in Canada is broken” is not a useful policy critique. I mentioned a whole bunch of things. Pick one and tell me how it's okay. Quote
WestCanMan Posted March 24 Author Report Posted March 24 (edited) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-mark-carney-is-offering-voters-the-other-guys-ideas-without-the-other/ Mark Carney is offering voters the other guy’s ideas, without the other guy https://torontosun.com/news/national/federal_elections/goldstein-carneys-theft-of-poilievres-platform-has-turned-into-a-farce During the Liberal leadership campaign, Carney said that over their decade in power the Liberals had lost control of immigration, the federal budget, deficits and debt, hired too many civil servants and overspent and overtaxed the middle class, and for that reason he’s promising a middle class tax cut. IOW, LPOC policy was rife with failure, just like the CPC's said it was. The CBC never treated those LPOC policies as failures this whole time, but for some reason Carney is suddenly admitting that they were wrong about all those things, and he's going to fix them. According the CBC, they're right to reverse course, although they were never wrong at any point... 🤔 People like @Boges just consider it "centrism" when you abandon a laundry list of your own gov't's failed policies and then steal the other parties' election promises (axing the tax and eliminating GST from house prices under $1M weren't even mentioned on the list above), and say it's enough to win an election 🙄 Edited March 24 by WestCanMan Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
WestCanMan Posted March 25 Author Report Posted March 25 On 3/23/2025 at 5:20 PM, Army Guy said: He may be gone but his cabinet is still here , do you really want us to think Justin was smart enough to screw the nation up by himself... No he had plenty of help But Carney axed the tax... That means that the whole party changed to centrist overnight, according to Boges. They also like Canada now 😉 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
Army Guy Posted March 25 Report Posted March 25 17 hours ago, WestCanMan said: But Carney axed the tax... That means that the whole party changed to centrist overnight, according to Boges. They also like Canada now 😉 Carney has stolen a good portion PP platform, the same platform that leftists were screaming about just weeks before....and suddenly they like it now... PP should delay all his announcements and one up Carney for the rest of the Election...lets see how unimaginative the liberals can get...Like when carney announced No GST on people building their first home...then PP announce NO GST for anyone building a new home up to 1.2 million...Canadians like money more than they like anything else...including party lines... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
WestCanMan Posted March 25 Author Report Posted March 25 14 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Like when carney announced No GST on people building their first home...then PP announce NO GST for anyone building a new home up to 1.2 million... PP came up with the "No GST on homes up to $1M" back in Oct. Carney stole that from him. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.