We need people at the top who will resist when the shit hits the fan. They should tread lightly to hang on to their position.
I condemn the ones who resign out of principle, they are the very people we need to stay in.
Why do you think so many generals and admirals got fired under trump?
So he may do it
Paparo, who serves as U.S. commander for the Indo-Pacific region, visibly took issue with the question. He said: “I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous.”
He added: “I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question.”
Look at his left chest - a billboard of medals and citations. He didn’t get those by giving the wrong answer, or by basing his statements or actions on his personal opinion. His ‘preposterous’ statement would be a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. Here are some of the facts that are behind the factual ‘preposterous’ statement.
Any order that comes down the chain of command, keeps going down the chain of command. At every step of the way, the officers would have the option to follow the order by ‘advancing to the rear’.
From Google AI: Presumption of Legality: Routine orders carry a legal presumption of lawfulness, and a soldier must obey normal commands. However, that presumption breaks down when an order directs an overt, clear violation of domestic or international law (such as targeting unresisting civilians).
Also: The defense of “just following orders” (historically known as the Nuremberg defense) is not legally valid in the US military. If a soldier carries out an order that a person of “ordinary sense” would know is illegal—such as executing a surrendered enemy combatant—the soldier can be criminally prosecuted alongside the officer who gave the command.
Also: The Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties made by the United States are part of the “supreme law of the land.”
Treaty Conflicts: If the U.S. has a formal treaty or defense pact with an ally, attacking that ally could violate U.S. treaty commitments, which hold the status of federal law.
Since both countries are members of NATO, any order to attack Canada from the Commander-in-Chief could easily be interpreted up and down the chain of command as an illegal order. This would put every soldier in the predicament of possibly being prosecuted for obeying such an order, right up and down the entire chain of command. It also presents the possibility of the POTUS being charged and convicted of the crime of issuing an illegal order. Thus, answering the question as stated is factually ‘preposterous’. The POTUS could not, as Commander-in-Chief, be reasonably seen as being able to give a legal order to attack Canada.
But it is also very clear that he is indirectly accusing Trump of being needlessly emotional in even insinuating the possibility that Trump could give such an illegal order.
You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.
In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)
There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)
But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.
I have actually researched this in depth. The issue at the time was Greenland, not Canada, but the general principle still applies. Denmark is a NATO country. Article 1 clearly states that all disputes between members are to be resolved peacefully through negotiations. Here is an article discusses it in more depth.
Here is a rigorous legal clarification on the issue, that I am sure the general concept is familiar to all senior officers in the American armed forces.
And here is a legal brief on the principle that a peace treaty is the Law of the Land.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/16-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html
I sincerely doubt that an officer that has achieved his rank, position. and status would not be aware of all of these considerations when he claimed that the scenario was ‘preposterous’. I am sure these issues, given Trump’s emotional statements, have been thoroughly explored by officers in his, and more senior, positions. Their response to such an order would not be a knee jerk off the cuff on the spot response, but a response that has been well planned out and thoroughly vetted ahead of time.
Dude, if your commander orders you to invade Canada, hate to break it to you, but that’s lawful. Now if they tell you to use chemical weapons or target civilians you can push back on that. The law they are referring to is United States law and a couple of conventions like the Hague and Geneva conventions which cover war crimes. Other international law doesn’t count. Nato treaties don’t mean boo when it comes to the lawfulness of orders, nor should they.
No it is not. The Supreme Court of the United States made that perfectly clear. The NATO treaty is the Law of the Land. The POTUS can not ignore it. America can not by law attack a country that has a peace treaty.
There are no more laws in the US when it comes to what POTUS wants. trump can order the military to invade Canada (which is his constitutional power that grants him full immunity when he uses it), simultaneously issue a lifetime pardon for all US military service members, and no US court can legally prosecute anyone involved. The only hope is the Hague where I hope all living US presidents eventually end up.
I think he made it very clear as to what the military response would be if Trump ordered an invasion of Canada. The military pledges allegiance to the Constitution, not to the POTUS. He can only grant immunity to offenses against the United States. Murder is prosecuted at the state level. He can not offer blanket immunity in any case,and he cannot grant immunity ‘going forward’. This officer of the American armed forces has obviously done his due diligence, and has made a statement based on sound facts. He chose his wording carefully. Trump can not issue a legal order to attack Canada, and the officers collectively will refuse to follow an order that is not legal. End of discussion, as he made clear. Trump has obviously been made aware of that, given his concerns that the issue has become ‘overly emotional’.
Since when did they give a shit about things like law?
Since he can be imprisoned upon conviction, and conviction is a certainty.
Have they said no to any of the USA’s other illegal invasions? Don’t count on the bravery of Americans who tell you they would resist. Count on drones.
The military doesn’t promote officers for refusing orders.
That means he would.
I’m not sure actually, because had he said he wouldn’t, they probably would have just discharged him.
No matter what he says he would. You don’t become a General by refusing orders.
And even if he would refuse he’d be removed from command and something willing to obey would replace him.
He very clearly stated what he would do. He found the scenario ‘preposterous’, meaning ‘not possible’. He could not have stated with any more clarity that he and most of the American military officers above and below him would consider such an order as not legal. Further, he all but came right out and said that Trump, by his statements on the matter, are needlessly emotional.
There can be no doubt that his response was as strong a rebuke of Trump’s posturing as could be allowed.
So much for 1A I guess…
You better disobey or we’ll make sure that no one in the armed forces get any rights. We’d shoot you on sight along with anyone else that didn’t refuse the shitter in cheif. Behave and use your neglected moral compass.
easy to say
No it ain’t, I’ve been banned from so many places. I risk being cut off every time I say “hey go fight the real evil.” because people are such cowards.
I’m pretty sure that if he publicly says he’s going to disobey orders, that’s grounds for removal, even under a sane president. (Although a sane president might not choose to remove him)
As a Canadian I wish they would all get fired. Fuck em. Worthless disrespectful people. Never met a US soldier worthy of the air they breathe. Inbred illiterstes the lot of them. Suckers and losers.
This is almost certainly why he won’t answer the question either way. If he says that he wouldn’t, Trump would just fire him and replace him with someone that says they would privately, away from any public scrutiny at all.
It would be a net negative for everyone other than fascists.
It’s a pointless question. If he answers no truthfully he gets fired. If he lies and says ‘yes’ to keep his job we get undue anxiety when there already enough of that going around from memes and trade wars.
Especially if they’re lawful orders, like this.
It would not be a lawful order The POTUS does not have the authority to issue such an order. That is why he clearly stated 'it is preposterous;. Not an opinion, a statement of fact.
What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?
Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.
If anything, I’d give him credit for not saying yes. Hell in the current climate that might get you removed.
How is that a lawful order??
How is bombing a wedding a lawful order?
The military is trained to be mindless sychophants.
They weren’t ordered to bomb a wedding, they either thought it was something else or they missed another target. They just don’t give a shit that they bombed a wedding.
Source?
Cuz here’s one of many they did after 9/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
You see, if a single guest is on their kill lists that means anyone near them is a “valid military target by association” and “acceptable collateral damage”
It’s technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It’s illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.
No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called “war of aggression”. It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the “supreme international crime”. This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.
It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.
I guess if your shit hole country doesn’t adhere to international law.
It isn’t, but Congress is pretending it is which is the same thing.
War isn’t actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn’t. People say a war is “illegal” because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it’s “immoral”. I guess it’s somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.
He very clearly said that such an order from the POTUS would be illegal, and that no one in the chain of command would consider it as a legal order. The POTUS can not giver a legal order to attack a country that the US has a peace agreement with, and both countries are covered by the NATO agreement.
But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn’t approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.
Congress allows the executive branch to do so, this war is not an abuse of the legal system it’s being used as intended
Yes any order from the POTUS to attack a country that America has a peace accord with is not a legal order.
Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify “unlawful order”. Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.
Lawful /= you agree with it, basically.
To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap “Canada” for “Vietnam”, “Iraq” or “Iran”. For more detail, you’d have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.
Canada and America are bound bu the NATO agreement. Under American law that makes any order to attack Canada not a legal order. Any military officer who abides by that order commits an offense under American law. That is why it is ‘preposterous’. That was a factually correct term, not his opinion.
Sounds like it’s high time America was dissolved and balkanized, then.
There isn’t any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it’s only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).
That said, yeah, America isn’t looking so good these days.
In America it is illegal for a member of the military to obey a command that is not legal. If they do obey, or even issue a command that is not legal, they can be prosecuted and if found guilty imprisoned.
It never did. It was founded on genocide and slavery.
Yes, .ml person. I’m sure you believe that. And also that North Korea is better, somehow. 'Nuff said.
Edit: Clearly, the username is ironic, with this much effort to get into a fight.
If you don’t believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.
I believe in history, lol? Why are you bringing up North Korea?
Is your brain okay?
Edit: clearly this person wasn’t interested in a conversation at all, based on my instance, lol?
If the USA invades, the white house gets burned down again and Trump gets ICC arrested.
Jokes aside its quite possible. Ukrainian partnerships with canada on domestic drone production, the US would burn perpetually if they dared. They are projecting a weak canada to save face, but they dare not mistaken canadian politeness for weakness. There is a reason Trump says we are the hardest do deal with of any country. Because we are done putting up with their shit. To be Canadian means to not be Amerikkkan.
The military isn’t my concern. I’m interested how many of us would form gangs jumping the vast undefended border to cosplay as MAGA while attacking infrastructure and lighting forests on fire for years and years. Hopefully I never find out.
The US is the only country to have used nukes in war
Remember the wildfires earlier this year? The US would irradiate themselves if they nuked Canada. Sure, Trump might try to piss into the wind, but the rest are way too selfish to let him.
Depends how they use the nuke. Airbursts are pretty clean
Vapourising/torching cities would be an unlawful order, though. And still far fetched; they want to own us, not kill us all.
Not really. People love in Hiroshima today. I visited the dome where the nuke landed.
They could drop several without any real issues, and they’ve already planned for that.
The Canadian military relies heavily on the US partnership, not to mention the average urban Canadian has never seen, held or heard a firearm, as much as liked to say that we have a chance it’s certainly would be a slim one.
The fuck kind of argument is that? How hard could it be to learn to use a gun? Students in the USA use it all the time.
Guns are stupidly easy to use. They do need training to use WELL but the most it would take is a few weeks for basic firefight skills. Most of it is knowing how to move from cover to cover and not exposing yourself.
During the first flair up of annexation threats the Canadian Forces revealed they were preparing for a possible conflict that would require them to learn from their loss to the Taliban. There is no true dependency on the US if push comes to shove.
https://futurism.com/science-energy/canadian-military-insurgent-techniques
Edit: also, the US is actively losing to Iran, dont count Canada out so quickly.
Shutting down the St. Lawrence seaway would probably not be difficult for a determined insurgency.
The strait of Hormuz might be pennies compared to that.
Forget the Canadian military, if the US couldn’t defeat the Taliban with NATO help, what hope do they have against Canadians without it?
Canadians aren’t even a different skin color - what is the US going to do, stop and question every white person with a gun? Every white person traveling long distances in a car?
Oh hey look now the Rocky Mountains are impassable by land because there are Canadian resistance hidden in caves all the way down to Mexico. But surely the western seaboard and its population will be loyal to Trump, right?
And so it goes. An invasion of Canada would dissolve the USA in a few years.
One major difference. Canada has had more Intel and data integration with the US for much much longer than Iraq or Afghanistan. This means palantir and other Intel gathering companies have far, far more shit on Canadians that might have an inkling of resistance against the US, and do not think they will spare or be nicer to Canadians. They will absolutely round up everyone they can or their families. It will actually be harder for Canadians to fight back than the others.
Sure, lots of people will get rounded up, but how many will slip the net? How many hundreds of thousands of partisans are spread over tens of millions of square kilometers of rural Canada? How thin can US patrols and round-up efforts spread themselves before they become convenient sources of weapons and ammunition as they are set upon by IEDs and household drones with weapons taped to them? What does it help the US if they know the porn preferences of the guy living in the woods sniping US servicemen?
And then there’s the American partisans who understand this is the best time to rebel they are ever going to get. With so many loyalists deployed to Canada, are there still enough to respond to riots, sieges of police buildings, prison breaks, acts of sabotage, etc. in the US? Maybe they can be tracked (or maybe the cameras will be destroyed en masse), but are there enough boots on the ground to stop them?
But the opposite is also true, and it’s much easier for Canadians to counter attack on US soil than for anyone else.
Why don’t you google per capita firearm ownership, lol.
2.4 million folks who have their PAL in this country with a population of 40.5 million people, that’s 6.17% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/
It’s important to note while people may have their PAL, they don’t necessarily own firearms.
Also important to note most who do have a PAL and who do have firearms, usually have more than one.
Canada is 7th in the world in terms of firearms per capita. I’m sure we’d be okay.
We’d run out of ammunition first
Sharp sticks with shit on them will do, as we’ve seen from history.
Don’t threaten us with a good time
I’ll bring the marshmallows
If the US tried it Canada would make Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc look like a casual sunday stroll in the park. If the US couldn’t handle Guerrilla warfare against people who DON’T look like them, imagine how well they’ll do against people that do. And the further north they got the more fucked they’d be. Ever been in a fight with a pissed off Indigenous individual? try it, see how far you get. Not only that you got all the dudes living in the bush with rifles and god knows what else.
People who look like them, sound like them and know all the same pop culture, including supposedly local stuff like news anchors.
There’s not many shibboleths they could use, and usually they pick a really obvious one. I pledge…
And the further north they got the more fucked they’d be
Doesn’t like 90% of Canada’s population live within 100 km of the border? Not much reason to even go that far north unfortunately
No need to take the minerals, oil and water that are abundant in those northern places?
Ehhh. Most of the extraction happens in the south too, because you need workers (edit: and reasonably low shipping costs). Like, Fort Mac is a little further north, but it’s still below 60N, in Alberta.
Mining and O&G put together are like 5% of Canada’s GDP. All the valuable real estate and I suspect much of the industries other than mining and logging are concentrated in the major cities. You’d get like 90% of the benefits from controlling 10% of the country. Not that I’d expect Trump to realize this. Luckily he seems to be as dumb as he is evil.
But it’s a good portion of our exports. Hairdressers aren’t super relevant for an occupying force.
Although, resource extraction wouldn’t be the point of this war. There’s lots of much softer, easier to propagandise about targets out there, if they just wanted an encore of colonialism.
Hairdressers aren’t super relevant for an occupying force.
That’s fair. But I’m pretty sure most of the manufacturing is still near where the population is since workers are needed. And if they decide to go full settler mode, all the urban areas will be free to occupy if Canadians are out in the forests defending the homeland.
But tbf, it is Trump we’re talking about. He would probably want the oil more than anything, even if there’s so much else that would be much easier to take.
The plan is to follow the Taliban’s example, it sounds like, so there’d be both rural and urban activity reinforcing each other, and the point would be to make properly occupying all cities at once fairly impossible.
Trump’s main motive seems to improvement of the US’s size and border shape on a map. Probably, Like in Afghanistan, resources are besides the point. Although he’s not going to say no if he can manage it.
That means there’s all the more wilderness area to retreat and disappear into.
I imagine people would start moving away from the border if an actual fighting war broke out
Regardless that at least 70% of Americans would join the Canadians
Or at least passively support us, which works.
Quebec’s revenge would land on Trump
I don’t think it would be nearly as difficult as Vietnam. Vietnam had direct military aid from China coming over the land border, whereas the united States had to stretch their logistics halfway around the world.
If the U.S. hadn’t used up our missile and artillery supplies in Iran and Ukraine, I think the majority of the Canadian military and government could be taken out all at once.
Obviously attacking a friendly neighbor is a villainous thing to do, but I don’t think the Vietnam comparison is apt.
Taking out bases with missiles is different than invading and dealing with guerilla warfare tactics and a bunch of really angry citizens who have guns…we just don’t talk about it.
Yeah, maybe Europe would help, and the other commonwealth countries would have an awkward time not helping at all, particularly the UK. But, there’s an ocean in the way. Nobody can just hop on the Hoser Chi Minh trail and cross into ice Laos.
On the other hand, you absolutely could walk accross into America itself and mess things up. Honestly, that might be even better.
Yea 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of a 6,416 kilometre (3,987 mile) largely unsecured border. The counter insurgency would be unparalleled in human history.
Vietnam has a total area of approximately 331,344 square kilometers (127,933 square miles)
The total area of British Columbia is 944,735 square kilometers (364,764 square miles).
Canada has a total area of approximately 9,984,670 square kilometres (3,855,100 square miles)
Stretching your logistics is an entirely different challenge than spreading your logistics out.
The USA built up many bases in South Vietnam to launch the invasion. So it’s not like they were operating on a major handicap.
They don’t need to capture empty land. They need capital cities and a few other strategic points.
Well that’s where the oil, rare earth metals, and thousands of guerilla insurgents will be.
Maybe go back to whatever you were reading about Vietnam and finish it. Clearly you didn’t.
You think a comparison between Canada and Vietnam is meaningful.
This might be the most delusional thing I’ve ever seen commented on Lemmy.
Why?
Like, it’s a little imaginative in parts. But Canada is bigger than Afghanistan in every way, and not weak in any of the same ways.
Because it is delusional. Afghanistan is a world away, has strong cultural influence for that kind of combat, and isn’t filled with people who came to the country with the intention of going to the USA.
When surveyed about 49% of Canadians say they wouldn’t fight for their country. 10% would welcome being annexed by the USA- after all, many people only come to Canada because they couldn’t get into the usa. We don’t have anything close to the resolve afgans have, and we don’t have the stomach for war. Sure, we have some elite snipers, but snipers an army do not make.
There’s no point in this conversation though, because anybody who thinks Canada stands a snowballs chance in hell against the USA is a full scale invasion isn’t going to respond to reason.
and isn’t filled with people who came to the country with the intention of going to the USA.
Not really a common thing, as someone who lives here. Do you live here? You have a .ca user, but that’s a really weird take.
There’s no point in this conversation though, because anybody who thinks Canada stands a snowballs chance in hell against the USA is a full scale invasion isn’t going to respond to reason.
Oh, we’d lose. For a bit. So did the Taliban.
If you want to stop there, so be it. There is more to say, though.
The US military does not have the capability to invade and control Canada, not even close. While the US may pay the most for military they don’t really get their monies worth much like healthcare.
Could the US invade Canada? Certainly, but it would be short lived and unsustainable.
They don’t need to take all of Canada. It would probably just be Alberta. And they would have help from the separatists which gives what many yanks will see as legitimacy.
Fair enough.
deleted by creator
Said it before and will say it again. This is why I feel running to another country you have to think about. We have this insanely large military and a lot of damage can be done with it. We need to protest and refuse to work and whatever else we can do.
Now that they charge themselves 100% tariff on drones …
Jokes aside, I say we should get ready. Everybody can gain or polish some relevant skills that come in handy if it comes to it.
Best case you have a new hobby, worst case we make their life miserable if they decide to try and attack us.
I get everyone is making jokes here, but that is serious. Even if many of you genuinely believe Canada could contend with something like a US invasion, I don’t think most of us could bear the cost of even a short conflict. How many of you are already having a hard time affording to live here or have dependents?
The reporter pointed out that Paparo did not answer the question. The U.S. admiral said he was dismissing the issue, adding: “Would you ask me please also what my attack plans are for the Martians?”
The reporter replied: “You belittle it and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue.”
A Nanos poll taken in February found that three in five Canadians are concerned about the U.S. being a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty. A majority also support making it illegal for Canadians to serve in the U.S. military, according to a poll commissioned by The Maple in April.
Despite Trump’s threats, however, Canadian government ministers have continued to stress Canada’s continued cooperation with the Americans on military affairs.
I’ve got some family in the military, and they’ve served in Europe both before and after Trump. They said there hasn’t been any actual decrease in cooperation while overseas between the US and us, and everyone they talk to makes it clear how ridiculously an order would be taken to invade.
That being said, their last deployment was July last year, so things may have changed. Also he did note that none said they’d reject the order - just how ridiculous the whole situation was. Hoping we never have to find out.
