A case for a Canadian invasion

It takes a lot to make Canada mad, but former diplomat Scott Gilmore has pretty much had it.

“We were there to accept their wayward American aircraft after 9/11,” he writes today on McLean’s. “We fought and died beside them in Europe, Korea and Afghanistan. For decades, we’ve shared our intelligence, our maple syrup and our comedians. And in return we graciously took their draft dodgers, reality TV shows and light beer with nary a complaint.”

Until now, apparently, after President Trump turned the country into America’s latest punching bag over grievances real and imagined.

It’s been a bonding experience, however, for many Americans of varying political stripes, who are uniting in a common expression following the president’s weekend rants. “Canada? What?”

Gilmore says there’s only one thing for Canada to do: invade America.

Others might have you believe an invasion is impractical, expensive or even doomed to bog Canada down in a quagmire. This is all untrue. The United States military is currently deployed in over 150 countries around the world. That must leave almost nobody on this side of the Atlantic. And while it is true the Pentagon has the world’s largest navy, Canada now has so few seaworthy ships, the Americans will be hard pressed to even find them.

Our invasion may be slowed due to the usual congestion at the border crossings, but if we time our attack mid-week, traffic on the Ambassador Bridge should be manageable. And, of course, we have our secret weapon—the Canadian fifth column of actors and athletes. Justin Bieber and Nickelback have already done more to dull American senses than even the most sophisticated propaganda or psy-ops campaign could ever achieve.

I concede, this does seem like a drastic step. But, these are drastic times. And invading the United States will allow us to help the Americans help themselves. Once stabilization operations are complete, we can begin a nation-building campaign so they finally obtain the peace, order and good governance they have longed for over so many years.

Once Canada conquers us, he says, people here will be required to attend training programs, during which Canadians will explain gender equality, democracy and climate science.

  • davidz

    I, for one, will welcome our new Canadian overlords. (Hey, I got to use a Slashdot meme on NewsCut).

    Just the fact that Canada doesn’t have two entrenched (by law) political parties allows for a certain amount of nuance that’s lost in our system.

    • BJ

      Most elections are 6 weeks long as well!

    • Al

      Beat me to it!

    • jon

      Imagine a beawolf cluster of them though! (I’m old school).

      Seriously though, greet our Canadian Invaders as liberators… Also are they bringing the universal healthcare with them?

  • 212944

    Perhaps they will annex us …. then we can truly be part of “The Bold North.”

    P.S. – Sorey about the beer, Canada.

    • Our craft beer is fine…

      /i have my puck bag and hockey equipment all ready to go…

      • 212944

        I should’ve specified “light beer” as that is what he was calling us on.

        Agreed, (much) of our craft beer is fine.

  • Sonny T

    All very amusing. But unfair trade is the issue.

    • RBHolb

      Canadian tariff rates are, on average, half of US rates (0.8 percent vs. 1.6 percent).

      It’s not at all amusing to refer to Canada as a security threat to the US.

      • Sonny T

        Are you saying it’s fair for Canada to manipulate pricing?

        • RBHolb

          I’m not sure what you mean by “manipulate pricing.” Tariffs add to the cost of imported goods, or goods manufactured with imported materials.

          Is it fair for Canada to manipulate the price of goods sold domestically? It depends on your point of view. Taking a quick gander at the beam in our own eye, the US has long imposed tariffs for the purpose of protecting domestically influential industries. Sugar, anyone?

          • Jerry
          • Sonny T

            By manipulate pricing I mean get involved in an unfair support of an industry so they can undercut American prices. Canada does this in wood, for instance.

            In modern (recent) history the U.S. has not manipulated pricing in this way. We only imposed tariffs in RESPONSE to the unfair trade practices of other nations.

            This is the crux of the Trump threat.

            There is something more insidious at work here. Both political parties oppose Trump’s trade policies. As do major manufacturers, who save by buying cheap raw materials. The only loser is the American worker.

            We all have to decide whose side we’re on. As a worker’s rights person, I will hold my nose and go with Trump.

          • Jerry

            I don’t know how the destruction of international trade helps the American worker. Cars from Canada are assembled from parts made in china…and Ohio

          • Sonny T

            Asking our partners to treat us fairly is not the destruction of international trade.

          • Jerry

            Because we have a history of treating them fairly? Picking a fight with German automakers, who are net exporters from, not to, the US is sound business sense?

          • Sonny T

            Yes. See my post above.

          • Jerry

            Thanks for proving my point that Americans would have no problem with fascism, as long as it provided competitive concentration camp jobs.

          • RBHolb

            >In modern (recent) history the U.S. has not manipulated pricing in this way.

            Sugar (since 1789–a classic!).

            Tobacco.

            Clothing.

            Footwear.

            Steel (back in 2003, if I recall. That one ended badly).

            The average tariff for goods imported into the US is 1.6%, which is the same as the average for goods imported into the EU.

          • Sonny T

            Steel was a straight up defensive measure against unfair trade. Again, the U.S. does not manipulate like others.

          • RBHolb

            What about sugar or tobacco?

          • Sonny T

            Not an expert so I don’t know what happened. But TYPICALLY, the kind of trade abuse Trump is addressing is not practiced by the U.S.

            Would also like to add that both political parties and the major manufacturers are practically the evil triumvirate in this country. As I said, the worker gets my support.

            Have to run but thanks for your input and perhaps we can take this up another time.

          • I’m curious how many people in this discussion have checked the claims of whatever side their on vs. accepting what the side they’re on says are the facts?

            If everyone is just parroting what they’ve been told,vwhat are we doing here?

          • Sonny T

            The internet is a great resource. I try to use it when possible, as do others.

          • Rob

            Cite some sources. Breitbart and Fox don’t count.

          • Rob

            What do you call ag price supports? I call it manipulation.

          • KTFoley

            It’s easy to deceive ourselves into thinking the U.S. is refraining if one compares apples to wrenches: the average tariff rate across all countries is around 5% because the majority of products are traded without any such restrictions.

            However, today’s edition of Marketplace on NPR noted that every country protects its own agricultural industries.

            Trump went off on Canada charging a 200% tariff on imported milk. The U.S. charges a 350% tariff on imported tobacco. Not a typo: three hundred and fifty percent. So it’s only abuse if another country does it?

          • Rob

            If you were a workers rights person, you’d be in favor of paid sick time and a living wage. Those aren’t things T.Rump and his kakistocracy support.

          • Sonny T

            Wasn’t aware he was against those things. If you want to refer me to something go ahead.

          • Rob

            You show me where he has indicated proactively support for them.

          • Sonny T

            Let’s move on.

          • Jay T. Berken

            On wood! Seriously, that is all you can come up with. Your whole argument is cruxed on a 20th century economy. We are in the 21st century.

        • Rob

          Cuz the U.S. doesn’t manipulate pricing. (Eye roll)

    • Jerry
      • kevins

        Pant size issues for The Donald?

      • chlost

        Or hair.

        • JamieHX

          Or beauty and vigor.

      • MrE85

        Or depth of character.

    • Rob

      On the U.S. side, you mean? Like our huge tariffs on manufactured soft wood products?

  • MrE85

    If you know anything of our ill-fated attempts to invade Canada during the War of 1812, you would know that the outnumbered Canadians literally kicked our butt back across the border.

    Many historians consider this to be moment when Canada was first defined as an independent nation, and not just a colonial off-shoot of Great Britain.

    • RBHolb

      And all through my school days, we were taught that the US had never lost a war (Vietnam had not yet reached its final act).

      For the official combatants (the US and Britain), the War of 1812 ended in a stalemate. Neither side conceded much of anything in the peace talks, so everyone just went home in a huff. “If that’s how you feel, the war is over!”

      • jon

        The us never lost a war, we just redefine victory to what ever happened.

      • MrE85

        While our ground forces lost almost every battle (with the exception of the Battle of New Orleans, which technically took place after the war was over), our tiny Navy did remarkably well against the world’s most powerful fleet. It’s a fascinating story.

    • Jack

      Then there is the Lord Gordon Gordon episode.

      Thanks History Theater.

  • kevins

    He forgot to mention that Canadians helped to smuggle Americans out of Iraq in ’79 when things went to hel* there. I remember the bumper stickers…”THANKS CANADA”.
    If they do invade, I’m going to fire at them with my orange Star Wars laser pistol, and then direct them the quickest route to DC, wishing them cheers.

    • Joseph

      ** Iran actually, but yep!

      • kevins

        Thanks…

  • KTFoley

    Poutine. Unencumbered travel to Lake of the Woods. Federal Reserve of maple syrup. Tim Horton’s. Nationalized healthcare. A working knowledge of the metric system.

    Can you be here by Thursday?

    • To be fair, we already have Tim Horton’s here in the States.

      /Wait, the invasion has already started!

  • Jay T. Berken

    I went to see Don Gonyea at Macalester College a number of years ago. He told the story of the G9 (I think at the time) in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. At that time, the U.S. and Bush administration had been jabbing Canada about their immigration laws and
    hinting that the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada.

    So Gonyea’s story was of flying into Canada for the G9. There are two planes in the flying Presidential motorcade that the U.S. sends (i.e. Air Force One and the access staff and press plane). Gonyea was in the press plane and as they exited the tarmac, the Canadians diverted only the press plane to an area which everyone was asked to exit the plane with their luggage and stand on the tarmac. A van with the Canadian flag painted on the sides pulled up and out came a couple Mounties and opened the back of the van and out jumped a beagle with a Canadian flag dog vest on.The beagle proceeded sniff through the baggage. After the beagle was done, they left and everybody got back onto the plane and proceeded to the gate.

    That is very Canadian and a hilarious story.