Hypothetical invasion of Canada, Mexico, Panama, Greenland.

[dolf]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

 

[Lazaran]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

Bad???

Not good???

100 % Deplorable???

Is this some kind of trick question???

 

[Hel_Books]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

Are we living in the early years of the "Bearded Spock" alternate universe now?

 

[dolf]

Is this some kind of trick question???

Not today.

Are we living in the early years of the "Bearded Spock" alternate universe now?

Yes.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

 

[Rightguide]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

There will be no military attack on Greenland or Canada. If things go south in Panama you may see a repeat of 1989.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

The largest mutual fund company in America announced yesterday it had just purchased the management of the Panama Canal from the dastardly Chinese. Trump can now grift from Americans there, so no invasion of Panama now. USA! USA!

The feud with Canada is 100% Trump posturing. Not gonna happen. Americans will not tolerate a war against white people who also speak English. Unpossible.

Trump envies the Israeli genocide in Gaza. I'm guessing he envisions some sort of aerial war against 'Mexican Cartels" with the same end game; claiming the valuable beach front locales as spoils of war.

Greenland is an odd one....there are a handful of delusional globalists who have Trumps ear who insist that complete control of Greenland (to be renamed Trumpland) would be a splendid little forward base for military adventuring in Europe or anywhere above the equator, and we wouldn't have to rely on pesky foreign permissions or rules.

 

[Rightguide]

The largest mutual fund company in America announced yesterday it had just purchased the management of the Panama Canal from the dastardly Chinese. Trump can now grift from Americans there, so no invasion of Panama now. USA! USA!

The feud with Canada is 100% Trump posturing. Not gonna happen. Americans will not tolerate a war against white people who also speak English. Unpossible.

Trump envies the Israeli genocide in Gaza. I'm guessing he envisions some sort of aerial war against 'Mexican Cartels" with the same end game; claiming the valuable beach front locales as spoils of war.

Greenland is an odd one....there are a handful of delusional globalists who have Trumps ear who insist that complete control of Greenland (to be renamed Trumpland) would be a splendid little forward base for military adventuring in Europe or anywhere above the equator, and we wouldn't have to rely on pesky foreign permissions or rules.

That isn't true Rob, we're killing Russians in Ukraine some of whom speak English...at least we were until Trump was elected.

 

[UltraChad]

Assuming that they hadn't attacked the US militarily,
Maybe an ugly trade war, a refusal to cooperate, etc..

Forget the "It'll never happen!" for a moment.
Pretend that a refusal to rule out military force wasn't a bluff.

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

Mexico is the only legit military target. They are the MOST legitimate. Unlike Russia.

Totally unnecessary for the other 3....just buy/economically lean on them.

 

[Rightguide]

Mexico is the only legit military target. They are the MOST legitimate. Unlike Russia.

Totally unnecessary for the other 3....just buy/economically lean on them.

Mexico has become a military target.

 

[Politruk]

What, all at once?!

Well, Mexico would be the tough one. We'd have to fight the army and the cartels.

Panama we could take just by sending a few Navy ships loaded with Marines into the canal -- advantage of surprise there, Navy ships pass through all the time.

Greenland, we could build up a force bit by bit at Thule Base, then when they're ready they strike south.

Take Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal and Vancouver, and the rest of Canada should fall in line.

 

[Politruk]

Are we living in the early years of the "Bearded Spock" alternate universe now?

We always were -- you didn't notice? The Terran Empire's Starfleet is institutionally continuous with the U.S. Space Force.

 

[Hel_Books]

We always were -- you didn't notice? The Terran Empire's Starfleet is institutionally continuous with the U.S. Space Force.

That would make Musk your Emperor Elon the First!

 

[LLCox]

I'm all about letting trump dig is own hole, his way. You couldn't pay trump to say and do the the things he does for free.

 

[UltraChad]

Mexico has become a military target.

The cartels have.....Mexico proper, that's in a grey space and the ball is a bit in their court.

Will they start doing their jobs as the state with US assistance?? Or will we find out just how much the Mexican state and cartels one in the same with the state defending the cartels ?? I'm not really sure and I think it could go either way.

 

[Bray123]

It sounds a great recruitment drive. 'Join the army and you get to choose whether you fight Mexican Cartels in Durango, or dodge polar bears somewhere on an icy wasteland for the benefit of Trump's bank balance'.

 

[dolf]

There will be no military attack on Greenland or Canada.

But, hypothetically, how would you feel if there was?

Mexico is the only legit military target. They are the MOST legitimate. Unlike Russia.

Totally unnecessary for the other 3....just buy/economically lean on them.

Interesting. Why is Mexico a legitimate target?

What, all at once?!

Well, Mexico would be the tough one. We'd have to fight the army and the cartels.

Panama we could take just by sending a few Navy ships loaded with Marines into the canal -- advantage of surprise there, Navy ships pass through all the time.

Greenland, we could build up a force bit by bit at Thule Base, then when they're ready they strike south.

Take Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal and Vancouver, and the rest of Canada should fall in line.

That's your practicality judgement. I'm more interested in your thoughts on the morality of an attack.

 

[dolf]

It sounds a great recruitment drive. 'Join the army and you get to choose whether you fight Mexican Cartels in Durango, or dodge polar bears somewhere on an icy wasteland for the benefit of Trump's bank balance'.

According to other recent hypotheticals, the female soldiers will choose the polar bear.

 

[Politruk]

Mexico has become a military target.

The U.S. Army has no more business crossing the border to chase the cartels without Mexico's permission than General Pershing had crossing it to chase Pancho Villa -- which was a crime.

 

[Bray123]

Mexico will return the compliment and bomb the firearms manufacturers that are destroying their country in the name of profit.

 

[Lance_Castro]

What's your moral judgement on a military attack on each of these locations?

I’m having trouble hypothesizing the USA with morals.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I’m having trouble hypothesizing the USA with morals.


View attachment 2507826

I'm having trouble embiggening your attachment.

 

[Rightguide]

But, hypothetically, how would you feel if there was?

I’d be against it in both cases. If we’re looking to expand, we’d be better off making a deal with Denmark for more access to Greenland, at least that way, we’d get some strategic Arctic real estate without inheriting Canada’s quirks.

The problem with Canada isn’t just the cold; it’s the baggage. Too many offspring of former American traitors and draft dodgers have settled there, and then there’s the whole French-speaking situation in Quebec. If Canada joined the U.S. with Quebec included, we’d be signing up for an endless governance headache. Quebec would almost certainly demand bilingual federal institutions, special exemptions, or even its own distinct legal framework within the U.S. system. Next thing you know, Congress would be debating whether to fund a Department of Poutine and whether "liberté, égalité, fraternité" belongs on our money.

Excluding Quebec beforehand would sidestep these complexities. That way, the rest of Canada could join as a more manageable set of states, ones that don’t require translation services at every level of government or threaten to secede every election cycle. It’s not personal, it’s just practical.

 

[Politruk]

Mexico will return the compliment and bomb the firearms manufacturers that are destroying their country in the name of profit.

Well, they already tried the courts . . .

 

[Politruk]

The problem with Canada isn’t just the cold; it’s the baggage. Too many offspring of former American traitors and draft dodgers have settled there

, and then there’s the whole French-speaking situation in Quebec. If Canada joined the U.S. with Quebec included, we’d be signing up for an endless governance headache. Quebec would almost certainly demand bilingual federal institutions, special exemptions, or even its own distinct legal framework within the U.S. system.

All the Southwestern states will demand the same eventually -- no matter how tightly the border is controlled, they will have Spanish-speaking majorities. There is no avoiding multilingualism.