• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Greenland, Canada, Panama & Trumps Ambitions For Them --(CLOSED)

Status
Not open for further replies.
This conversation is perfect. Perfect in that reality that anyone has bought in to the US invading Canada.
First it would never be only 51 state.
It would be the number of provinces in Canada.
Personally I have no desire to introduce Ottawa’s insanity into US domestic politically.
So no thank you. That so many can chase troll down a rabbit hole is quite funny, and sad at the same time.

The desperation to inflame this imaged threat is more telling of those who hate Trump than it is of Trump.
 
1. Carney is one of 31 members of the WEF’s Board of Trustees.
2. He is a member of the Group of 30.
3. Served as the Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements Committee on the Global Financial System.
4. Carney is a Guardian for Inclusive Capitalism, working with the Vatican to reform capitalism into a "force for good", under the "moral guidance" of Jesuit Pope Francis.
5. Carney serves as a director for Brookfield Asset Management, a global investment firm.
6. He is a member of the board for Stripe, a global digital payments company, aligning with his advocacy for Central Bank Digital Currencies

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899474166216060996
https://x.com/DPerdo89/status/1899473877316599932/photo/1
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Yeah, its ridiculous to think that Canada State thing would ever happen. They won't even make Puerto Rico a State for the same reason. And DC? Ha! But yeah, let's incorporate 40 million Canadians into the electorate. It would have more Electoral Votes than California.

Please. Let's try to inject at least some intelligence here.
Click to expand...
It's not about that. It's about he is treating our ally and what he is saying. Doesn't matter if it's not going to happen. Jesus.
 
JPod said:
I would say for a few reasons: to create fortress NA. The USA can exploit all of the resources this land has to offer. With the coming climate collapse 100 - 200 years there will need to be room northwards for the southern AMERICAN population to migrate to when coastal regions and regions closer to the equator become less habitable. Basically the USA can sit tight in in the more habitable subarctic regions whilst extracting and using the vast untapped resources and have the great lakes secured to provide clean water for generations to come. As well, Oil will become more scarce within such a time frame and the fact of the matter is almost all people are alive today because of oil. Crude oil is synonyms with human survival, therefore if you want AMERICANS to survive you need to control as much of it as possible before it gets sold away or otherwise squandered.

What if the Canadians have realized this? Perhaps the reason the government has not develop further extraction is not about saving the environment but rather to preserve the reserves for when oil can not easily be found elsewhere? What if the Canadian government decides to keep these reserves for themselves when things get bad?

What if the moves we are seeing made are not necessarily to the benefit of those alive today but rather to ensure the survival of a countries future population.

The above is all hypothetical but it is my view of how the American government could be planning for the future. Governments must be thought of in terms of a living organism; they all have a innate desire for self preservation.

One other thing I believe to be true, the quality of life of the average person will peak within the coming decade(s) and continue to degrade until the global population falls to sustainable levels.
Click to expand...
So, lebensraum?
The only thing here the US does not get out of the current alliance is pretty much the land itself to flee from climate change to.
 
william said:
View attachment 6912
Click to expand...
It's surreal how fluidly he can shift between "We don't need it!" and "This is a serious threat to the life of innocent people!" and his base will somehow hold both ideas at the same time and be riled up by both statements instead of seeing how this is literally just urfascism 101 - "the enemy is simultaneously insurmountably strong and pathetically weak"
Something about this whole situation smells like artificially creating a clustertruck and a scapegoat to blame it on in order to rile people up and manufacture consent for a solution that is otherwise completely untenable and obviously not originally intended to solve the artificial crisis (see: annexing Canada).
 
DarkNoon said:
It's not about that. It's about he is treating our ally and what he is saying. Doesn't matter if it's not going to happen. Jesus.
Click to expand...
I agree, and it is a shame that Canada has been so unwilling to work to avoid this issue.
 
OReid said:
I agree, and it is a shame that Canada has been so unwilling to work to avoid this issue.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that this is entirely based on lies and all you sent me is reasons why in theory Canada could be a source of fentanyl, including simply the fact that it has good trade relationships.
When they keep changing the reason, how can you not see how these are not the reason? First it's fentanyl, then it's agriculture tariffs, and the whole time they're openly stating that there is nothing Canada can do to avoid it (his words not mine) and that the only concession Canada could make would be to become the 51st state (his words not mine).
If there was something Canada could do to avoid it, the massive border plan that Canada put in place which is already working (and funnily proving most of the fentanyl flow is from the US up into Canada and not the other way around), would have. The goalposts keep moving because there are no goalposts. This is an act of aggression and very little else.
Unfortunately, I think here these moving goalposts are simply games he's playing to justify things for the public.
 
Winnitude said:
So, lebensraum?
The only thing here the US does not get out of the current alliance is pretty much the land itself to flee from climate change to.
Click to expand...
Here we go…. another added to the herd.

The kind of climate change you’re implying will take hundreds of years.
 
Spyglass said:
Here we go…. another added to the herd.

The kind of climate change you’re implying will take hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
What herd? I'm literally replying to HIS assertion that the US would need it for climate change and that's why it would be a good thing to invade Canada in his eyes, LOL. Not asserting it myself. It's just the only thing he mentioned in @JPod's own list of why he supports invading Canada that isn't already provided by the current alliance.

At the very least, read before you reply?
 
Winnitude said:
What herd? I'm literally replying to HIS assertion that the US would need it for climate change, LOL. Not asserting it myself.
At the very least, read before you reply
Click to expand...
Trump doesn’t want it for climate change, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

He just wants the land, minerals, trees, and the insane amount of islands in the arctic with deep water access. Same with Greenland.
 
Spyglass said:
Trump doesn’t want it for climate change, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

He just wants the land, minerals, trees, and the insane amount of islands in the arctic with deep water access. Same with Greenland.
Click to expand...
Again, you're responding to the wrong person here. @JPod says he supports annexing Canada because the equator will become less habitable and the US will need the space for its people, among other things which are already part of the alliance that exists. I simply responded that those other things are already part of the alliance that exists, and that needing more land due to climate change is the only thing in his list that isn't covered. I did not at any point suggest Trump wants it for climate change.

Again, maybe read before you reply? If you want to laugh at the ridiculousness of that, try responding to the person who actually proposed it as a serious reason they personally support the idea of Trump annexing Canada.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Yeah, its ridiculous to think that Canada State thing would ever happen. They won't even make Puerto Rico a State for the same reason. And DC? Ha! But yeah, let's incorporate 40 million Canadians into the electorate. It would have more Electoral Votes than California.

Please. Let's try to inject at least some intelligence here.
Click to expand...
I think we are missing the forest for the trees by focusing on the word state when the US already has other territories that it does not allow statehood. The important part IMO is the substance here when they ignore all concessions made and openly state that there is nothing Canada can do to avoid it besides becoming the 51st state insofar as the threat on sovereignty and the desire to make it a part of the US' territory, not the detail about exactly how that would go down from an administrative perspective. To me "51st state" sounds like it's to resonate with people as a sound byte more than it is to provide actual detail on any kind of plan (and sounds a bit better than "self-governing unincorporated territory").
 
Last edited:
The immediate benefit would be the untapped resources, the long term benefit would be the future habitable regions. I'm in no way suggesting that any hypothetical invasion would be because of climate change first, just that it would be a benefit that future generations of Americans could enjoy.

Wouldn't it be nice to ride out the proverbial storm in a land so far almost untouched by man (Canadian sub arctic)? And to watch as the world in more "disadvantaged" regions become inhospitable? I'm thinking of the AMOC collapsing and lowering temperatures in Europe by a significant amount (this would be in concurrence with limited fossil fuels such as those used for heating) and as well as the rise in sea temperature increasing creating devastating storms around the equator and higher humidity leading to the increased in demand for electricity for air conditioning.

It's only a matter of time I think but that's just my opinion. For clarity I am not an American, nor do I live in America.
 
Socom7 said:
Just because something is ridiculous on its face, don't assume the current US administration is not stupid enough to attempt it. I thought we would have learned that lesson by now.
Click to expand...
It's also pretty obvious I think that the specific wording used in the rhetoric is more of a sound byte to rile people up and that it would look more like a Puerto Rico situation, unincorporated self-governing territory. Seems also to be pointed to in the way that he has described the future of Canada as a state (ie. you'd still sing your anthem, etc..). It's not like there isn't precedent for the US having such territories and keeping them as such specifically to avoid their votes disadvantaging the GOP.

The threat to Canada's sovereignty is the forest, the wording about administrative details is the trees. Even if statehood would be ridiculous, the people who have openly said they support annexation and given non-ridiculous reasons as to why (while just ignoring the consequences) even just here, show me that to a non-significant portion of Trump's base, the actual core issue of taking Canada for its resources is not.
 
Last edited:
Winnitude said:
It's also pretty obvious I think that the specific wording used in the rhetoric is more of a sound byte to rile people up and that it would look more like a Puerto Rico situation, unincorporated self-governing territory. Seems also to be pointed to in the way that he has described the future of Canada as a state (ie. you'd still sing your anthem, etc..). It's not like there isn't precedent for the US having such territories and keeping them as such specifically to avoid their votes disadvantaging the GOP.
Click to expand...
I don't see any possible circumstances under which the majority of the Canadian populace would agree to become an "unincorporated self-governing territory" of the United States - which is politically even worse than just becoming the 51st state. Trade wars will not accomplish this goal.

The only path forward - if Trump is serious on delivering on this mad vision - is military conquest, followed by terror on a mass scale. The latter would be somewhat hampered by the fact that in order to pursue mass terror, you need a strong state apparatus - and one Elon Musk is currently wrecking the US state apparatus (which was never that strong to begin with).

The US in its present shape is ill suited to ruthless imperialist land grabs. If you want to pull a Putin, you need to be ruling a Russia; otherwise it doesn't really work. 💁‍♂️
 
Socom7 said:
I don't see any possible circumstances under which the majority of the Canadian populace would agree to become an "unincorporated self-governing territory" of the United States - which is politically even worse than just becoming the 51st state. Trade wars will not accomplish this goal.

The only path forward - if Trump is serious on delivering on this mad vision - is military conquest, followed by terror on a mass scale. The latter would be somewhat hampered by the fact that in order to pursue mass terror, you need a strong state apparatus - and one Elon Musk is currently wrecking the US state apparatus (which was never that strong to begin with).

The US in its present shape is ill suited to ruthless imperialist land grabs. If you want to pull a Putin, you need to be ruling a Russia; otherwise it doesn't really work. 💁‍♂️
Click to expand...
Yeah, obviously Canada will never capitulate to this for economic reasons - military though - I have my concerns with what happens when he has to either back down and swallow his ego and admit this was retarted from the beginning or double down for his pride.
People even on this very forum where you'd expect a subdued, long-term approach to geopolitics having followed and understood this stuff have expressed jingoistic sentiments about invading Canada, this stuff is working for a non-insignificant amount of his base to rile them up for such events.
And make no mistake - there are some pretty good parallels with where the US is going, especially in terms of one Elon Musk, and Russia from the 1990s to today. I would not say that Russia had a strong state apparatus early in this process nor would I say the same thing about Weimar Germany.

I have a feeling this crisis is being engineered to manufacture consent for a false solution, but it probably won't be invading, just more power-grabs at home. Hopefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom