U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)

[Czech_pivo]

There is also an immense imbalance between Canada and the US. Would we have an equal vote and seat? Would we create a new currency with equal say on its policy? Would Americans accept a picture of Sir John A on the back of their dollar? All doubtful.

We already have a great integrated supply system and free trade agreement. The only improvement I would see is free movement. So create a North American passport? Sure. I’d rather like to see an anglosphere version of that.

I can see the argument for a ‘North America’ first policy towards the economic resources that are currently available to us - a ‘carrot’ that America could easily dangle in front of us is unfettered access to all federal government infrastructure contracts.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is also an immense imbalance between Canada and the US. Would we have an equal vote and seat? Would we create a new currency with equal say on its policy? Would Americans accept a picture of Sir John A on the back of their dollar? All doubtful.

We already have a great integrated supply system and free trade agreement. The only improvement I would see is free movement. So create a North American passport? Sure. I’d rather like to see an anglosphere version of that.

Prior to 1947 you had a passport that gave you safe passage throughout the Commonwealth.

 

[dimsum]

We don't like California.

The US sure likes the $ and clout that CA brings though. It is the single largest GDP in the US, followed by NY - I would have thought it was the other way around, with Wall Street.

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/stgdppi3q24.pdf

 

[KevinB]

The US sure likes the $ and clout that CA brings though. It is the single largest GDP in the US, followed by NY - I would have thought it was the other way around, with Wall Street.

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/stgdppi3q24.pdf

It has 40 million people, but many Corporations are fleeing CA, due to taxes and idiotic regulations.
When CA was supposed to upgrade its water supply three years ago it was stopped due to concern over a particular fish - and now face water supply issues to fight the fires in the dry conditions.

As L.A. Burns, Elon Musk Renews Fight With An Old Friend Turned Foe — Forbes

The Trump-aligned tycoon is attacking California’s leaders for their handling of the deadly wildfires, but his beef with the state’s Democratic leaders goes back several years.

apple.news

Would totally trade CA and Lower NY for Alberta.

 

[Baz]

I was wondering to myself ("self," I said, to myself) about how much of the United States desire for other countires in NATO to spend more on their militaries was driven by the size of the Arms Industry in th US. I looked at some available data and global arms trade is relatively small (but significant) compared to defence spending.

In no way should there be an expectation that NATO countries should match the US expenditure per GDP... none of them of the worldwide "aspirations" that the US does, and shouldn't be paying to shore up the US's ability to "lean on" people in the interest of the US.

In any case, although I agree that Canada needs to spend more on their military, I think that 3.5% is too high; and certainly 5% is ridiculous. Something in the range of 2-3% makes sense. For context, it was around 4% in 1960, around 2% 1970-90, bottomed out at 1% 2013-14 (for anyone watching, the end of the Harper era), and has been slowly climbing towards 1.5% since.

We need to get to 2% as quick as possible and spend it on recapitalizing current capabilites and regenerating (which includes higher pay for recruiting and retention reasons). Then we need to use the goal of 2-3% after that for adding the capabbilites that should be core (subs and sufficient AORs, airborne AEW and surveillance, expeditionary C2 and logisitics).

 

[Baz]

As a coralary to my last... I'm not sure a lot of people realize why the US is in NATO. It certainly isn't to defend Europe; quite the opposite, it's to control them.

There was a joke in NATO a long time ago that it was created "to keep Russia out and Germany in." The point was instead of Germany having a fourth go at controlling the place, being in an alliance would check their controlling instincts. And it worked.

I'm not sure that the US wants the EU to say "f' it, we're outta here" to NATO and create a European defence alliance. In addition to the first request (like the French a long time ago) for the Americans to get out of their countries (thereby losing one of their largest expeditionary basing areas), also losing the ability to be the de facto boss of NATO and access to the European defence market wouldn't be a win.

 

[QV]

Canada probably needs 4-5% just to get out of the hole it's in now and an ongoing 2.5% to maintain that.

The US is fair to say it shoulders the NATO burden disproportionately. The threat of Russian or Chinese aggression is higher then ever before. I'm not sure the US can handle two major peer conflicts anymore on it's relative own.

Since a country will need to go to war with the army it has (vs wants) it might behoove us to get more serious in this regard. I estimate going to war with peer adversary's on a paltry 1.5% GDP army is a losing prospect. I don't want to lose... I don't even want it to be close. The deterrence factor alone is going to save us huge in the long run.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was wondering to myself ("self," I said, to myself) about how much of the United States desire for other countires in NATO to spend more on their militaries was driven by the size of the Arms Industry in th US. I looked at some available data and global arms trade is relatively small (but significant) compared to defence spending.

In no way should there be an expectation that NATO countries should match the US expenditure per GDP... none of them of the worldwide "aspirations" that the US does, and shouldn't be paying to shore up the US's ability to "lean on" people in the interest of the US.

In any case, although I agree that Canada needs to spend more on their military, I think that 3.5% is too high; and certainly 5% is ridiculous. Something in the range of 2-3% makes sense. For context, it was around 4% in 1960, around 2% 1970-90, bottomed out at 1% 2013-14 (for anyone watching, the end of the Harper era), and has been slowly climbing towards 1.5% since.

We need to get to 2% as quick as possible and spend it on recapitalizing current capabilites and regenerating (which includes higher pay for recruiting and retention reasons). Then we need to use the goal of 2-3% after that for adding the capabbilites that should be core (subs and sufficient AORs, airborne AEW and surveillance, expeditionary C2 and logisitics).

I think the only way we get to the 5% range is by including a raft of Emergency Preparedness expenditures and dual function Civil-Military Infrastructure in the back of beyond.

 

[mariomike]

Would totally trade CA and Lower NY for Alberta.

Would Albertans join as full U.S. citizens?

Should Canada have full state rights?

The mechanics of Canada joining the U.S. are complicated, were it to actually happen. Notably, there are territories of the American empire that enjoy less than full statehood, such as Puerto Rico, a status which comes with less political representation. However, only half of Americans (52%) say Canada should join as a full citizen:

https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/519.png

https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/519.png

 

[GK .Dundas]

I think the only way we get to the 5% range is by including a raft of Emergency Preparedness expenditures and dual function Civil-Military Infrastructure in the back of beyond.

That would probably be the only way your be able to do . God knows there's a hell of lot of infrastructure to be improved replaced or built duel function or not.

 

[Remius]

Would Albertans join as full U.S. citizens?




https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/519.png

The territory of Alberta sounds about right. But I bet it gets renamed to Northern Montana.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Our problem is aside from our political leadership is now we have to deal with American leadership where the first thought that goes through his head at 5:00 am becomes a tweet and simultaneously becomes policy.

 

[KevinB]

The territory of Alberta sounds about right. But I bet it gets renamed to Northern Montana.

Just North Montana.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Just North Montana.

Maybe they'll do something about the roads...and possibly make the trains run on time ....

 

[mariomike]

The territory of Alberta sounds about right. But I bet it gets renamed to Northern Montana.

Or, North Puerto Rico?

 

[QV]

Or, North Puerto Rico?

But would they be treated better than by the natural governing party? How would their wealth look I wonder? Peter Zeihan has some comments on that which, if circulated, might change the public opinion poll by a lot.

 

[Remius]

But would they be treated better than by the natural governing party? How would their wealth look I wonder? Peter Zeihan has some comments on that which, if circulated, might change the public opinion poll by a lot.

How is Puerto Rico treated? I suspect it would be similar.

 

[MrWhyt]

How is Puerto Rico treated? I suspect it would be similar.

the inhabitants of Peurto Rico are american citizens who don't get a vote in the federal elections. So if alberta were to become puerto rico north we'd be worse off than before, at least in regards to representation at the federal level.

 

[Remius]

the inhabitants of Peurto Rico are american citizens who don't get a vote in the federal elections. So if alberta were to become puerto rico north we'd be worse off than before, at least in regards to representation at the federal level.

Population would be roughly the same once you factor in a number of Canadians leaving Alberta after a secession.

 

[dimsum]

How is Puerto Rico treated? I suspect it would be similar.

Speaking of Puerto Rico:

https://thehill.com/latino/5085427-puerto-rico-trump-venezuela-maduro-gonzalez-colon-greenland-panama-canal/

Did I miss the brief that everyone was going to try and annex everyone else today?