upvote
It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
reply
Is Canada an adversary of America? Or Greenland?

What position should Canadians or the people of Greenland take with regards to the people in the US military who are currently working to annex and invade their countries?

What position should the US military take with regards to the people in those countries who are currently working to resist those efforts to annex and invade their countries their homelands?

Do you consider Canadian and Icelandic civilians your adversary? If so, how did that come to be?

reply
I think you meant to write Greenland.
reply
Indeed I did, my brain was a bit foggy when I wrote after a night of partying.

Thanks for catching that.

reply
The times are wild enough that I first checked if Trump had been making any moves on Iceland, just in case I had missed something...
reply
Should the whole of the military quit because the American people were x enough to elect Trump?
reply
There is a Godwin in there somewhere.
reply
I can’t speak to what the American military should do in this situation but I’m curious to hear what HN users think the people of Canada and Greenland should do in this situation.

What would the American response to these kinds of actions be if the shoe was on the other foot?

Given the asymmetry in power how should Canada and Greenland respond?

If the American response to Iranian actions against American allies and interest in the Middle East is to spend half their missile stockpile to assassinate the leadership of Iran how should Canada respond to American threats of annexation and Greenland of invasion?

What’s proportional and sensible here?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwar...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-separatism-trump-ad...

reply
Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.
reply
I'm against the U.S.'s broken leadership as much as any sensible person. But even in normal times with sane leadership, national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed." This is certainly an uncomfortable truth, but that's the way of the world.
reply
In what "normal" times is a country down to the "kill or be killed" choice? It's only "kill or be killed" if you are under attack by an actual aggressor. When was the last time, say, Canada or New Zealand, felt their national defense choices were "kill or be killed"?
reply
> national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed."

You and Israel's current leadership are in agreement.

reply
Ukraine is also running headlong into the reality of kill or be killed.
reply
I mean it's not like we know those "adversaries" ever wanted to murder us. For example, the US has a long record of assassinating labor leaders in South America to protect our Banana Republics on behalf of Chiquita. I think it's absolutely fair to bring in skepticism towards the secrets our military keeps from us
reply
Do you believe that "death to America" chants should not be taken seriously?
reply
In short, yes. They should not be taken seriously. You should take Iranian actions on the ground seriously, and ignore that which is essentially compelled political theatre.
reply
I'm saying it is foolish and historically uninformed to hold a blind faith that everyone that the US labels an "adversary" is evil.

Would you like to engage with the comment I left?

reply
I agree that blindly assuming that all "adversaries" of the U.S. (per labeling by the U.S. government) want to kill us. But it does seem that some indeed do. It would further seem that proportionate countermeasures would be appropriate for those cases.
reply
If they have no practical way of acting on the chant, then it's just bluster.
reply
No they shouldn't because "death to" is simply a mistranslation. "Death to" is an idiom in Persian that means approximately "down with"- and in fact the official translation by the Iranian government itself is "Down with the USA". But I'm curious what you thought it meant.
reply
So rather than wanting to kill the USA, they merely want to bring it down? That sounds like a distinction without a difference if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist.
reply
I would say "down with Palantir". That doesn't mean I want every member of that organization dead. In the same way, it's absolutely fine to say down with a state. States/corporations don't have rights. People do.
reply
Yeah

To the younger generations it's just political theatre and gets laughed at as being the equivalent of boomer cringe

reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
I'm genuinely not sure how else to interpret your previous comment. Do you see any situations where defense by lethal force is appropriate?
reply
[flagged]
reply