What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[HVC]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

I think that the US will need to fight a war to annex Canada. Canada seems unlikely to agree to be annexed short of war.

Why would the US need Canada's agreement to annex it?

You either need agreement or force, don't you? What's the third way?

[The Brain]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

I think that the US will need to fight a war to annex Canada. Canada seems unlikely to agree to be annexed short of war.

Why would the US need Canada's agreement to annex it?

You either need agreement or force, don't you? What's the third way?

Force != war. If the US annexes Canada tomorrow, then there is no "Canada" recognized by the US to go to war against. Force to take effective control of the now 51st state will be necessary, but this won't be war (from the US perspective). The US wasn't at war with the Waco compound. The US wasn't at war with North Vietnam.

[grumbler]

Force != war. If the US annexes Canada tomorrow, then there is no "Canada" recognized by the US to go to war against. Force to take effective control of the now 51st state will be necessary, but this won't be war (from the US perspective). The US wasn't at war with the Waco compound. The US wasn't at war with North Vietnam.

Newspeak seldom disappoints.

[crazy canuck]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

No. Trump has repeatedly said that he is going to try to force annexation through economic means.

I wish you guys would stop putting some patina of legitimacy on what he is doing.

[The Brain]

Force != war. If the US annexes Canada tomorrow, then there is no "Canada" recognized by the US to go to war against. Force to take effective control of the now 51st state will be necessary, but this won't be war (from the US perspective). The US wasn't at war with the Waco compound. The US wasn't at war with North Vietnam.

Newspeak seldom disappoints.

I don't follow.

[grumbler]

No. Trump has repeatedly said that he is going to try to force annexation through economic means.

But that assumes that the Canadians are willing to be annexed to avoid some vague "economic means.".

I wish you guys would stop putting some patina of legitimacy on what he is doing.

I wish you guys actually read what you respond to rather than just assume some sort of on-existent "putting some patina of legitimacy on what he is doing."

[grumbler]

Force != war. If the US annexes Canada tomorrow, then there is no "Canada" recognized by the US to go to war against. Force to take effective control of the now 51st state will be necessary, but this won't be war (from the US perspective). The US wasn't at war with the Waco compound. The US wasn't at war with North Vietnam.

Newspeak seldom disappoints.

I don't follow.

Your word salad was amusing, though detached from reality. It assumes that Canada has somehow become the 51st state without ever becoming a territory of the US, without ever petitioning Congress for a enabling resolution, without having written a state constitution, without ever conducting a statehood referendum, without holding a constitutional convention, without having that state constitution approved by Congress, without a join resolution of Congress granting statehood, and without the President having signed such a grant.

This isn't 'Nam.  There are rules.

[HVC]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

I think that the US will need to fight a war to annex Canada. Canada seems unlikely to agree to be annexed short of war.

Why would the US need Canada's agreement to annex it?

You either need agreement or force, don't you? What's the third way?

Force != war. If the US annexes Canada tomorrow, then there is no "Canada" recognized by the US to go to war against. Force to take effective control of the now 51st state will be necessary, but this won't be war (from the US perspective). The US wasn't at war with the Waco compound. The US wasn't at war with North Vietnam.

That seems like a weird line of reasoning to me. You don't let the aggressor dictate the definition of a conflict. I mean no one calls it the "Vietnam Show of Force". With that line of reasoning do you see what's going on in Ukraine as a special operation in line with the Russian definition?

[Josquius]

A thought. Trump is always going on about expansion and wanting to be the guy who makes America bigger and all that crap....

Puerto Rico has been after statehood for a while. And it's just sitting eight there.
They just trying to slip under the radar?

[The Brain]

That seems like a weird line of reasoning to me. You don't let the aggressor dictate the definition of a conflict. I mean no one calls it the "Vietnam Show of Force". With that line of reasoning do you see what's going on in Ukraine as a special operation in line with the Russian definition?

The whole discussion was about "Congress has the sole power to declare war.", ie the US legal perspective. There are several examples in history where the US engaged in major armed conflict (colloquially known in the US as war, and known as war by actors who are not bound by the US legal framework) without Congress declaring war, which is my point.

[crazy canuck]

No. Trump has repeatedly said that he is going to try to force annexation through economic means.

But that assumes that the Canadians are willing to be annexed to avoid some vague "economic means.".

I wish you guys would stop putting some patina of legitimacy on what he is doing.

I wish you guys actually read what you respond to rather than just assume some sort of on-existent "putting some patina of legitimacy on what he is doing."

I realize more and more why Trump took power and democracy is dead.

Hanging with the euros will be much more fun anyway.

[Oexmelin]

This isn't 'Nam.  There are rules.

 

[mongers]

This isn't 'Nam.  There are rules.

 

I'm presuming when the US invades* Canada, it won't feel bound by ICC war crimes laws.


* That may sound extreme, but who knows were another 1,399+ days of the BS will lead us?

[grumbler]

The whole discussion was about "Congress has the sole power to declare war.", ie the US legal perspective. There are several examples in history where the US engaged in major armed conflict (colloquially known in the US as war, and known as war by actors who are not bound by the US legal framework) without Congress declaring war, which is my point.

I see the confusion now. It's not called "declaring war" any more, it's called "Authorizing the Use of Military Force" (AUMF), but it's still the sole prerogative of Congress. Congress passed a AUMF for Vietnam in the wake of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (the creation of which was for the very purpose of justifying an AUMF), Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.  The switch to AUMF was because it allowed Congress to "declare war" on non-state actors.

[The Brain]

Interesting, thanks.

Just because I'm curious: the US managed to wage what was in every practical way a major war against the CSA, without Congress declaring war and without the help of AUMF. How did this work legally?