Would Americans be this passive if Bush had invaded and occupied Canada?

[NNN0LHI]

By accident like with Iraq? Killing tens of thousands of Canadians in the process by "accident" like in Iraq? Would they be more concerned with American Idol than the Canadian people who Bush was killing by "accident" like they are with Iraqi people who are dying every day?

Don

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Are Canadians even people?

:shrug:

Besides, if we had invaded Canada, the war WOULD be Mission Accomplished already. :P

Seriously, though, yes - I think the American people actually would have done a double-take and asked, WHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?! when Fuckstick announced we were invading Canada.

[MadMaddie]

3. The American people would have said something...after all

Canada is a country we perceive as "white majority"!!

I just think that the * cabal demonized Iraq that some Americans thought of them less than human....

[Minstrel Boy]

20. okay, I see your smiley,

but I can't let "if we had invaded Canada, the war WOULD be Mission Accomplished already" slide by without raising it a :spank:

Seriouly, I'm a non-violent guy, but someone invades my country, I'll die trying to take it back.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. Sorry! I love Canadians, and love Canada,

and in my fraternity the Canadians and the Americans would constantly - but lovingly - rib one another over such things.

[jazzjunkysue]

47. Where's your proof we didn't invade already? That ship sailed.

We just did it the old fashioned way: With music videos.

[NYC]

2. No.

I'll bet 90% of Americans would have paid attention, and objected.

[hopeisaplace]

4. I use this example once in a while (I'm from Canada)

I've used lines like "oops sorry, your little one had to die" we really were not
trying to hurt him. He truly is a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong
time. We try desperately to control "collateral damage". Please accept our sincere
apologies on the death of your 2 year old. :sarcasm: He died to set canadians free :sarcasm:

Oh my, it was hard to even joke about this, don't mean to offend anyone, but I find
unless "you bring the argument home", people don't really hear themselves.

[Scoody Boo]

5. The Majority of the American People...

are not going to side with the "other team" no matter what the reason. They might question the motives, but go to that side? Not likely.

[earth mom]

6. Your post makes no sense.

No one is talking sides here, but rather right or wrong. It would be wrong to invade Canada just as much as it is wrong to invade Iraq. Iraq DID NOT have anything to do with 9/11 which was the reason given for the war. Iraq DID NOT have WMDs which was another reason given for the war.

* & Co wants us there for Oil and War Profits for his buddies and also because his racist base is chomping at the bit for a religious war against the Muslims-WHOM THEY HAVE DEHUMANIZED-because their god is the only god they want to see on this earth. :puke:

[Scoody Boo]

9. Even with no WMDs...

found and the rising causalty count, the slow ignition of a civil war in Iraq, the American public is not siding with the Iraqis. NO matter how much they may feel the war is wrong, they will not side with the Iraqis.

The same thing would happen if we fought Canada, Mexico or Venezuela.

[earth mom]

10. Why do you keep talking sides when the Iraqis did NOTHING to us

in the first place?! Your arguement holds no water and doesn't belong on DU.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

24. So it all boils down to picking a "TEAM"?!

Sorry, but that's not in my playbook when I am looking at whether it is ETHICAL to go over and KILL PEOPLE for NO reason.

BTW-no one is asking you to march lockstep, but rather to direct you to a site that better suits your "Go Team" ra ra ra attitude. You must know the one that works night and day to justify this hideous and evil war and the pretzledent behind it...

[Scoody Boo]

27. I have not said that I am in favor of the war...

I am not. My opinion was on what I felt the American people would feel. I am no fan of the President either, but I do not forgive the Democrats for being too incompetent to take advantage of a wounded administration either.

[Imajika]

15. That doesn't mean Americans have...

...any great love for Iraq. No they didn't have WMD's, no they didn't take part in the attack on 9-11 - but we had already fought a war with Iraq a decade previously, we know Saddam was violating some of the terms of the ceasefire agreements/UN resolutions, we know (if you believe the Clinton administration) that Iraq had a hand in an assasination attempt on an ex President, we know Saddam paid off the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories, etc. These are all things Americans don't like.

Basically, Americans may not be thrilled with the occupation of Iraq, but only because the effort has gone so poorly. Americans did consider Saddam and his Iraq an enemy nation, and that is a large part of why there is no "outrage" at what is going on in Iraq despite the fact that polls show most Americans no longer support the effort.

Canada is a friendly nation. Americans like Canada. Even rightwinger who claim to want to boycott Canada don't really dislike Canadians.

There is no way to make a comparison between an invasion/occupation of Iraq and Canada.

American's may not like the war in Iraq, but most simply are not "outraged" about it. Most will never "take to the street" and for most it may not even be the single biggest issue they vote about.

Additionally, as much as Americans NOW don't like Bush's policy in Iraq, don't assume they would like a Democratic alternative any better. Bush's polls sucked even before the 2004 election (one of the reasons so many here were sure Kerry would win), but those approval ratings don't count for much in an election season because to win you've got to actually put up a candidate the majority likes better. The Democratic Party failed. As much as Americans weren't thrilled with Bush or his policies, the majority of them still preferred Bush over what our party was offering at that moment in time.

[earth mom]

19. The 2004 election was STOLEN by Bush Co & so was the 2000 election

There was NO majority vote EVER for the guy. :rofl:

BTW-The 1st Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit & lies too. :puke:

[Imajika]

25. Ya, sure chief..

...I know the stolen election thing is basically accepted as fact by many on DU, but I consider it pretty much fantasy. I think many people would rather believe this grand conspiracy than accept the fact that Americans rejected their candidate, policies and worldview. There is no evidence of any grand election fraud, not for 2002 or for 2004. Don't even start with all the nonsense "evidence" that gets posted here endlessly. I've seen it all and argued it over and over with the likes of TruthIsAll and others in the old election forum. I consider it all so much crap.

Bush did not have a majority in 2000, but he did in 2004. Sad, but true.

The Republicans have generally won majorities in Congress for a number of years now to include 2002 and 2004 - despite what the likes of Bev Harris runs around shouting about.

[earth mom]

29. Oh oh. There goes that "conspiracy" word again.

My how that word is perfectly designed to poison any questions about voter disenfranchisement, election fraud or any other questions about the majority of lies, havoc and chaos that Bush Co has wrought ever since he was placed-NOT ELECTED-in office in 2000 & again in 2004 when the office was stolen for him thanks to his Diebold buddies. :grr:

[NYC]

8. I think more Americans would have acted to prevent

a war with Canada.

[Sinti]

7. I hate to say it, but I'm afraid many of us just don't see brown people

who speak a different language as being equal. We (meaning the West) do all manner of evil things in places that don't have white majorities: taking Hawaii by military force, because the Royal family was uncooperative with our industrialists; kidnapping the elected president in Haiti; installing a fascist, murderous dictator in Chile; aiding and abetting wars and murder in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, and elsewhere; standing by like spectators while Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army murders and kidnaps children in Uganda; Rwanda... There's plenty more, but these come to mind off the top. It's a pattern. Manifest destiny, you know.

Nah, we would never invade Canada. They'd have to actually attack us first.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Start war. Never fails.

Throw in a chorus of "God Bless America", shout "Support Our Troops", and voila!, most Americans will break out their little flags, ribbons, and bumper stickers to show off how patriotic they are on the way to the mall.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. No problem. Preemption, y'know. That, and Celene Dion, justifies it.

But seriesly, folks, no, I don't think there would have been this degree of passivity. After all, the Canadian folks are just like good Murkans, except for being more civilized and better at hockey.

[Aristus]

13. We've already invaded Canada several times in our history.

And got our asses handed to us each time.

It wouldn't be any different if we tried again. Canada is a Commonwealth country. If we invaded, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and every Crown Colony on the planet would send armies to the rescue. Canada has a pretty darn effective army of its own, too. We would be beaten out of sight in nothing flat.

[Flucius]

26. You are deluding yourself

The last time I checked, Canada had about 20,000 combat ready troops. I believe the Canadian military still has more paper pushers/military bureaucrats and people in support roles than actual fighting troops. They would have to defend the world's longest undefended border and second largest country, whence there would be smaller force-to-space ratios than in other places. Moreover, by virtue of proximity and comparatively good local infrastructure, the U.S. military would have a much easier time with supply and transport. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the average Canadian soldier, and in fact they have been widely praised. But in terms of numbers, and the tools they are given to work with, the Canadian military is in rough shape. I think the U.S. would have little difficulty in taking the country in less than a week. And for various reasons, I don't think an insurgency would have the same success in Canada as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor would a few Commonwealth troops make much of a difference; it's not clear that there would be the same type of response from the Commonwealth as there would have been a hundred years ago.

[Minstrel Boy]

32. "little difficulty in taking the country in less than a week"

Like Iraq, marching to Baghdad was the easy part.

The issue wouldn't be the ability of Canada's regular troops to defend the world's second largest country, it would be the impossibility of US forces to hold it. You think a guerrilla war in Iraq is hard, try one along your own border, with people who look and talk like you, and an occupied landmass larger than your own nation.

[Imajika]

38. It wouldn't be as hard..

because they aren't Muslim.

We wouldn't be the crusaders in Islamic lands. We wouldn't be moving our forces around the globe.

We know how to basically relate with Canadian's because they are largely Western like us.

Besides, if we ever reached a point where we were actually invading Canada, we wouldn't be playing "hearts and minds" games. First, we'd probably issue an ultimatum and demand some sort of surrender. If the US were seriously in that aggressive a posture, my suspicion is Canada would capitulate simply because they have no serious hope of resisting the US military. If Canada did refuse to go along with any ultimatum, the US would probably be operating much more along the lines of the way it did back in the days when we were actually winning wars - that is, we wouldn't be playing patty cake trying to win over their affection we'd be pulverizing anyone and any town or city that stood against us. Not surgical strikes, overwhelming crushing blows.

It all doesn't matter, cause were not going to be invading Canada anyway.

If the US ever absorbed any part of Canada it would be because Quebec split off and parts of Canada chose to join the United States. Remember, not all of Canada is progressive - large rural tracts of it have more in common with Red State America than many people chose to accept.

[Flucius]

39. Precisely my point

They wouldn't have to garrison the whole country; when I said less than a week, I meant the main areas (i.e. large urban areas and locations of strategic importance). They could leave the rest to rot.

The premise of your insurgency scenario is flawed. Terrain-wise, large parts of Canada are not as suited to the type of insurgency seen in Afghanistan. That point notwithstanding, though, Canada doesn't have the right type of people for an insurgency of that nature to succeed. Canada does not have the culture of death found in Islamic countries, and you wouldn't see Canadians strap bombs to themselves to blow themselves up.

For all the nationalistic chest-beating that Canadians sometimes engage in, when push comes to shove I doubt very many would be willing to put their lives on the line to push out an invading U.S. army. Because for all the accusations levelled at Americans for being pampered and soft, Canadians are just as soft if not softer. In fact, for better or worse the U.S. has a much stronger military culture and a higher proportion of the population willing to fight and die. You can attribute this somewhat to the more religious nature of the U.S., just as religion is a driving force behind the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. A secular society, putting a higher premium on the here and now, is more reluctant IMO to shed blood. That's not a value judgment by the way, just a personal observation.

Also, while it's true that certain sections of Canada absolutely loathe the U.S., not just the Bush administration (since these feelings predate the Bush administration), in my view the parts of Canada that would be most resentful of an invasion would be the least likely to resist. I think most of the people in these places would be smart enough to realize the futility of resisting and would rather go on living their lives. And there are even a few places where the invading armies would be welcomed, places that, as another poster observed, are more like red state America than liberal Canada.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Canada like the deep sectarian divisions of the other two nations. Yes there are regional and linguistic differences, but nothing that couldn't be pacified. You also wouldn't need to install a radically different form of governance and political system. The transition for the locals would be minimal, and there would be little of the culture shock experienced by the Iraqis and Afghans.

[Bad Penny]

45. 20 million of us hitting you from in the hills

and watching your army try to deal with the winter, not to mention the incredible amount of real estate up here you'd be stretched to control, and the fact that your soldiers will be too busy pointing their fingers in the air the minute they roll over the border it's pretty safe to say you'll limp home in bloody tatters. A week. Yeah good luck with that. Mission accomplished and all that. Stick with small countries that are easy to conquer, Chip. like Vietnam and Iraq

[Imajika]

34. Your joking correct?

Canada has a pretty darn effective army of its own, too. We would be beaten out of sight in nothing flat.

Bwahahahahahahahaa. Get real. What little Canada has of a military is indeed fairly decent, but it simply too small to be any match against what the US could mass against it. Canada's military would crumble in days - if not hours.

If we invaded, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and every Crown Colony on the planet would send armies to the rescue.

LOL. No they wouldn't. All those countries combined don't have the military power to match the US. Of all these commonwealth nations, only Britain and Australia have any serious global reach - and that reach simply would not allow them to even remotely defend North America should the US decide it was going to seize it entirely.

The Commonwealth would go through the UN as a means of tyring to stop us because that would be the only option they'd really have (short of Britian firing nukes at us). We would secure Canada in about a week, and then only diplomatic pressure could reverse things. If we were really at the point where we were invading Canada, my guess is most nations would so fear us they wouldn't even diplomatically challenge much we did.

Sorry, but Canada is utterly and completely defenseless against the US. Period.

[Flucius]

41. To add to this

New Zealand's military could probably be taken out by a single U.S. division. The Australian military, if I'm not mistaken, is in a similar position as its Canadian counterpart. The quality of the troops is there, but they haven't got the numbers and technologically/funding-wise they aren't much different than Canada. I'm not sure what their airlift capacity is, but it would not surprise me if they had limitations in this area just like Canada. Britain's military is respectable, but again no match for the U.S. The larger question is why any of the Commonwealth countries would do this. I'm sure they would protest via the usual diplomatic channels but from the standpoint of realpolitik, it would make little sense to go out of their way to antagonize the U.S. Not only would it be an unwinnable war, it would also not be in their best interests. These countries need the U.S. much more than they need Canada, especially Australia and New Zealand, who are isolated and rely on the U.S. for their security even more than Canada does.

[Aristus]

43. Well, all this is hypothetical, and as long as it is, let's imagine

that it's happening right now, while our tattered, overcommitted troops are fighting and dying in Iraq with not enough body armor, bad food and water from the privatized contractors like Halliburton, and a desire more than anything to just go home. What do we invade with? Do we bring the occupying army home from Iraq to do it? Hypothetically, if we invaded Canada, and Britain broke off its commitment to Iraq as a result, and rushed to defend Canada, they could pull out and redeploy much faster than we could because their Iraq contigent is so much smaller than ours.

BTW, probably most of Western Europe, including France, Belgium and Germany, would send forces to help repel the invasion of Canada. Are you ignoring how isolated America is on the world stage now?

[Bad Penny]

46. That's what Stalin thought about Finland too

Fvck you don't need to be a freeper to win the shithead of the hour award around here necessarily

[sweetheart]

14. free land for settlers!

Just pay the US Army protection tax.

Hey, its about time the war of 1812 was revisited.

[SoFlaJet]

16. All I could think of

was the John Candy Alan Alda movie Canadian Bacon LOL

[Botany]

18. we will have to invade Canada

Universal health care
low crime
follows the Kyoto CO 2 accords
free public education
bi-lingual people (need i say more)
sitting on all that shale oil

and MMDs

Moose of Mass Destruction

[newblewtoo]

22. and lest we forget...

WATER. It is more valuable than oil. Of course we have good reason to invade, didn't the hijackers come into Portland, Maine from Canada? We have plenty of reasons. Lots of land, lots of water. And a new conservative government. I am surprised we haven't invaded long before this.

Moose of mass destruction is what happens when your car hits one.........yuk.:-)

[glarius]

35. NO TERRORISTS CAME FROM CANADA!...see my answer #33

:)

[Jara sang]

23. I don't think 98% of Americans could find Iraq on a map.

[High Plains]

28. I wonder how many could find Canada on a map. Seriously.

[Jara sang]

30. It is kind of hard to find...

all tucked away down there. -Homer Simpson:rofl:

[Make7]

31. If God didn't want us to invade Canada, ...

... why did he put all of our tar sands under it?

:) Make7

[glarius]

33. I believe your gov't would convince your people that it was necessary.

Already, most Americans, according to what I hear and read, still believe that the terrorists on 9/11 all came from Canada. This was put out as a fact to the American people in the beginning and though proven wrong (none came from Canada), it was only half-heartedly withdrawn as being true...I have from time to time, even read in this forum of the so-called invasion from Canada on 9/11. It wouldn't take much propoganda to demonize Canada as a threat to the U.S.A. and I'm afraid most of the population would go along with the invasion....It's sad, but I believe true.

[sadiesworld]

36. The majority of people in this country want us out of Iraq.

The politicians see things differently.

[shadowknows69]

37. Sure, no more import tax

on Labatts and Molson

[Rocknrule]

40. Are you kidding? They'd all be singing a rousing chorus of "Blame Canada"

And our poor and minority soldiers would be "Operation Human Shield"

[NNN0LHI]

42. Freedom bacon? n/t

[cassiepriam]

44. Yes I think so..... nothing seems to get to the American people.

Nothing.