Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal.Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
Rebuilding the Venezuelan oil industry will take decades, if we make ourselves a less attractive place to invest than the ruins of Venezuela that is entirely on us.
Even Biden tried via peaceful means (free elections in exchange for lifting of sanctions and amnesty for maduro) and the opposition won with 70% of the vote, but maduro just said he won and started killing protestors.
This is why we need multiple pipelines to tidewater in this country. They aren't just for future production requirements but to be able to move oil currently shipped to the US to other parts of the world.
Our two primary exports are oil and automobiles. The US has already said it plans to destroy our automobile manufacturing sector. If they can bring Venezuelan oil under their control, they can use it to replace Canadian oil.
Trump has said he plans to annex us through economic coercion. He has already tariffed the auto industry and has shown he is willing to let US manufacturers suffer as they bring production home. If they seize Venezuelan oil facilities, they will immediately redirect available oil production to the US while ramping up more.
With that, our two primary exports will be finished, along with steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. He is currently fishing around the world for potash replacements, today, Belarus, tomorrow, probably Russia.
It is pretty clear what they are doing but all of this will take time.
We need to be in a position to be able to ship as much of our oil to other parts of the world as possible in order to offset future cuts to US demand. We also need pipelines East that are entirely within in Canada and more domestic refining capacity, anything transiting through the US or that we get from the US, is at risk.
We also can't take for granted that we just have to wait out the next three years. Even if a Democrat wins in 2028 and manages reelection in 2032, by 2036 Americans will likely be sick of Democrats and will happily vote in Vance or Rubio. We need to start today to be prepared for that.
We get market price no matter who buys it. Canada's problem is that Alberta and Saskatchewan where most of our oil is have Conservative governments that are owned by the corporations and are giving Canada's oil away practically tax free. The sale of oil should be driving economic growth and infrastructure building, but the provinces are giving it away.
This is why we need multiple pipelines to tidewater in this country. They aren't just for future production requirements but to be able to move oil currently shipped to the US to other parts of the world.
We aren't using the one we have to capacity.
We need to be in a position to be able to ship as much of our oil to other parts of the world as possible in order to offset future cuts to US demand.
If oil prices drop our industry is dead with or without pipelines.
They don't even have to get the Conservatives in charge any more. All parties wish to continue neoliberalism unabated. That changing would be the only reason the US would do anything as drastic as what it is doing to Venezuela. They have enough control of our media that they get whatever they want anyway.
We may see decapitation bombing strikes on Ottawa within 2 decades, if the Americans don't totally turn against Maga. America will try to take over Canada for our resources, if a multi-year Albertan pro-separation influence operation fails. Climate change will force America to look for prime farmland, fresh water, and weak targets. Aka Canada.
If AI surveillance tech has not reached extreme levels of control, I could see America paying a heavy price post-war. Canadians are highly educated, very familiar with American infrastructure and maps, and can hit vulnerable targets.
Yeah, in an invasion scenario, the war crimes on Canadians will be horrible, and Europe can't do a thing to help. But it doesn't mean America gets off easy.
But don't worry the people in charge know this and are doing everything in there power to stop this by checks notes forcing people back to the office and disarming the peons?
In the even of an actual invasion the US will just jump across the border in a few places, cut off interprovincial trade/military logistics along the TCH remote enough that only attack by regular forces pose any kind of threat, wait for the provinces to realize Ottawa has pussed out when no violent response comes and begin negotiations with them independently of the feds.
Canada is one contested election away from this happening, plenty of time for enough people on both sides of the border to become comfortable enough with it to silently consent if the "rightful" head of government does.
They will first make American citizens believe they are running out of fresh water. Then they’ll interfere with the Great Lakes, create a broader conflict centered on water, and proceed to occupy Canada under the pretext of a national security threat (water). But in the end what they would be after is water,ressources and land expansion.
I think controlling the shipping lanes through Panama and the North West Passage are also important. Greenland helps to protect the eastern portion of the passage.
Its not hard to make the US believe they are running out od fresh water. Not with the California droughts and overall aquifer depletion in the south. Climate change and their poor use of water resources has made it a real need. They might just up the timetable for political reasons. And they'd be after far more than water.
They already started talking about it. To be fair this is the ONLY way an invasion of Canada would be accepted by the common US citizen. You have to make them believe their life are at risk.
Dude, this isnt happening. There are much easier and cheaper ways to take us over than a full slate invasion. Remember, its one thing committing war crimes against brown people that speak Arabic or brown people that speak Spanish. It will be a lot harder to convince American soldiers to carpet bomb people that look, speak and mostly act like them.
It will be a lot harder to convince American soldiers to carpet bomb people that look, speak and mostly act like them.
You can see American attitudes on reddit clear as day. They'll make some sardonic or mildly outraged comment about how wrong it is to hurt Canadians with the same energy they use to comment about what happened in the baseball game or hit HBO show, then move on with their day.
The US government doesn't need all citizens on board, they just have to make sure the Americans not-on-board are still comfortable enough to go on with their lives instead of motivated to cause any major disruptions.
Do you think Americans will leave their jobs, default on their mortgages and take to the streets over a few million dead Canadians? I don't.
There are much easier and cheaper ways to take us over than a full slate invasion.
There were easier and cheaper ways, but they tipped their hand too early. If we had continued on our sleepy and complacent course, they could have achieved their goal within the next 50 years.
A softer touch and a new president (combined with an external threat) would change a lot of minds about being wary of the US. Hell, 18 months ago, I considered Modi the biggest threat to our sovereignty.
That kinda worked once, but the US electing someone like Trump twice is indicative of a rot far deeper than we initially assumed. The world at large is now much more wary of any long-term deals with the US.
Sure, but play it out over a long timescale. If they elect another Obama to two terms, are we still going to be mad about a long-dead president who threatened us a decade ago? Meanwhile whatever geopolitical forces are driving their isolation and our integration keep doing their thing.
Or they need something from us, and buying the country, even at a fair price, becomes cheaper than renting its resources.
And sooner or later we'll suffer a crisis where we need the Americans' help.
You can start to see how we're at the point of inflection now. Being mad won't change anything in 2035. But being too big to swallow would.
People don't have to mad forever (although I resent the US right now, I don't hate americans as individuals unless they're clueless or pro annexation or something), but would the trust really go back to the way it was? The thing is, it used to be completely unimaginable that they would come after us, the trust was so deep -- now it's not. I don't think we'll hate the US forever but it would be really irresponsible to go back to the old way, we really can't be that exposed to them ever again.
That's kind of what we're doing by trying to diversify our trade partners to reduce the US' economic leverage over us.
If they elect another Obama to two terms, are we still going to be mad about a long-dead president who threatened us a decade ago?
Yes? 8-10 years is really not that long in geopolitics.
They've completely ruined relations with Canadians for at least a generation, probably more. Myself and many others will be making sure our children are aware that while the US might be our neighbour and ally, they are not our good friend.
Or they need something from us, and buying the country, even at a fair price
...there is no "fair price" for our sovereignty.
And sooner or later we'll suffer a crisis where we need the Americans' help.
What does that have to do with anything? We're not the ones unilaterally shitting on relations. We still help them when they need it, even during this last year, and will continue to help. If they don't want to help us, that's kind of on them.
You can act neighbourly while still being wary. Being wary doesn't mean treating them like an enemy. Our relationship has just downgraded from 'good buddies' to those colleagues at work who purse their lips and nod at each other.
I still remember how Canadian public opinion of the American people (not just their government) took a nosedive when George W. Bush was re-elected. We could look past his first term and the War on Terror his administration started after 9/11, but Bush beating Kerry signified that a majority of American voters could not be trusted.
That attitude faded during Obama's tenure, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when Biden won. Then Trump won again and proved that it wasn't a fluke.
True!
Forget about war or bombs. This is a corporate hostile takeover.
The US isn't trying to invade Canada; they are trying to liquidate us for parts (Resources). The strategy is simple: Divide and Conquer.
Washington is betting that if they squeeze hard enough, the Provinces will turn on Ottawa—and each other—just to survive.
* The Wedge: Convince the Provinces (Alberta, Ontario) that they are safer dealing directly with the US than sinking with the ship.
* The Trap: Pit Ontario’s car industry against Quebec’s dairy farmers. Make Canada choose which hand to cut off to save the body.
* The Bluff: Use Venezuelan oil to scare Alberta into thinking they are replaceable.
It’s not random chaos. It is a calculated, "BlackRock-style" strategy: Destabilize the management (Ottawa) so you can acquire the assets (Resources) cheap.
This isn’t a decade long strategy, this is likely a very short timeline. Trumps been playing the “tariffs are making us RICH!”, obviously not, but that grift can only get sold so long. What they need is for all the industry to leave Canada and align more with the US and bring home “prosperity”, or at least the illusion of it.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Quite brilliant (dang terrible and evil).
Keep in mind that the casus belli that Trump uses to justify his gun boat diplomacy & blockade of Venezuela is exactly the same as the initial justification for the initial tarrifs against us back in the spring.
10lbs of fentanyl wasn't the justification for tariffs, fentanyl trafficking in general was. 10lbs was the actual amount seized by US border authorities at the Canadian border during a three month period from Oct 2024 through Dec 2024 and was reported on in response to Trump's justifications for his plans to impose tariffs on Canada at the time.
In regards to Venezuela, oil wasn't the initial justification nor is it the current primary justification. Drugs are. Oil is just the actual reason and Trump happened to recently say the quiet part out loud as he tends to do.
Do you find it worrying that our biggest trading partner thinks our drug smuggling problem is similarly bad to the South American drug cartel smuggling op?
Reminds me of the joke phrase, “you don’t get to decide if you are an asshole, other people do”. If the USA is unhappy with us allowing both fentanyl production and smuggling from our country, maybe we should take that feedback seriously.
Make like the Iraq war, "Sorry, we're sitting this one out."
This could quite possibly be the straw that will wreck the Republican Party at least during the mid-terms and 2028 election, and possibly beyond, too.
Americans are jaded over the lies about WMDs in Iraq and the body bags that came home so that oilgarchs could do oilgarchy things.
Venezuela is gonna be Iraq/Vietnam all over again, and I think there's going to be far less willing participation in this military venture and what's more, even if things do kick off, securing oil fields is VERY VERY difficult.
Blowing things up is VERY easy. Maintaining control of things like that is very very hard. Meaning, rebel forces etc... just have to send in 20 drones to fuck shit up REAL bad. Unlike Gaza, it's gonna be REALLY hard to commit genocide in Venezuela, when the only way into half the country is on the back of a donkey through swamp land that only indigenous people know how to navigate.
If Canada gets involved in this in ANY capacity, boy am I going to be disappointed - and I won't be the only one.
Oh, but we already are. Unlike the UK, who at least suspended intelligence-sharing with the US over it, Canada's active participation in Operation CARIBBE is still continuing.
I completely agree, but I feel it's also worth pointing out that Democrats would be backing the same type of regime change in Venezuela if it wasn't Trump doing it. Unfortunately, it is only those on the far right and the far left who are consistently against things like this. The war party is still strong.
Perhaps it wasn't the best characterisation, but there is certainly a group within the MAGA movement that is actually pissed about all the new wars Trump has started. Of course, as you said, there are also lots of influencers just trying to grift off these people. Nik Fuentes comes to mine.
Venezuela is claiming more than half of Guyana as theirs, over oil.
The international community is mostly behind the United States on this. Venezuela should not be allowed to invade Guyana. We should definitely discourage these conflicts by the strongest means possible.
Trump likely has ulterior motives, sure. But the solution would be stronger international condemnation and stronger international action. The solution isn’t to kiss our teeth and ask that the US stand by as Venezuela annexes the Guyanese oil fields.
I admit I don't know the details of the border dispute. I thought it had been resolved in the eyes of the international community. The Venezuelan government has been making claims and issuing decrees, but it reads to me as nothing more than saber-rattling and an attempt to drum up legitimacy and create a distraction, and that nothing concrete had happened militarily to change the facts on the ground. Concerning, yes, especially for Guyana, but an American invasion at this point would still be pre-emptive. If Venezuelan military incursions begin, proportional pressure from the international community would be warranted, but I'm not sure that even a full-blown military invasion would justify an "Operation Iraqi Freedom"-style response from the US to topple the government. The US' support for the international order and its respect for the sanctity of recognized international borders is not absolute, and the level of its response to each crisis depends on its own interests. An American intervention ostensibly in the name of defending Guyana would only be public cover for the Trump administration's ulterior motives.
Ahhh...hang on... you're telling me the US values Sovereignty? You mean THIS administration values a nations' sovereignty? Can you tell me how they value Ukraine's sovereignty? Or Palestinian Sovereignty? Or Sudanese sovereignty?
If the US cannot and will not stop a genocide in Gaza, which is THE EASIEST genocide for them to stop, what makes you think they're gonna care about Venezuela's move to "invade Guyana".
If anything, the MO from THIS administration would be to back Venezuela in their "claims over Guyanese oil", then trigger a conflict, sell weapons to both sides until one side wins out, then claim the oil reserves through a "debt servicing program".
Venezuela is claiming more than half of Guyana as theirs, over oil.
The international community is mostly behind the United States on this.
Claiming =/= invading, and the international community is definitely not behind the US on this. Not sure what circles you run in that would make it seem that way.
The US administration has outright claimed this is over drugs, not oil, even if we all know their underlying reasons. They've already committed extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers. You don't need to do their homework for them.
The international community is very much aligned with the US that Venezuela should not be allowed to invade Guyana. And yes, that means actually having Venezuela commit to not doing so. We definitely should not allow them to say ‘we are going to do this when the time is right’ ad nauseam.
Like I said, yes what trump is doing is bad.
He seemingly is incapable of handling these situations in a nuanced way.
But yes, this is an issue of us relying on the US to be world police.
The ‘international community’ is very much in agreement that Venezuela not be allowed to annex Guyana. We rely on the United States to enforce this. The US elects a weak leader. Venezuela sees an opportunity. And here we are.
At least they feigned a pretence for Iraq. With Venezuela they’re just sort of shrugging and saying “we’re doing this”.
The Trump admin has reclassified fent as a "WMD" and are saying Venezuela is a huge producer of it. They are literally copying Bush Jr's playbook. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so likely this shit will have a huge human cost.
It won’t be like Vietnam. The pro western opposition won the last election with over 70% of the vote. The bolivarian forces only have enough training to keep the population in check.
And one thing to keep in mind as well, at all these protests where people are protesting trump’s action against Venezuela, actual Venezuelans are going to the protests and asking around and finding absolutely zero Venezuelans there, because they all support military action.
Think of it this way, I’ll put it in a way you’d understand. Imagine Pierre Poilievre was dictator of Canada and was rigging elections, you tried protesting and it resulted in tons of dead protestors, and also your guns have been taken away a long time ago. Now, president Kamala Harris is preparing for military action against Canada, you’d want said action wouldnt you?
So because the Venezuelan diaspora supports military action, we should take military action? I personally think we should not base our foreign policy on what diaspora communities think, and should leave it to the people of Venezuela to decide their future independent of us going in there and getting stuck in another foreign war
Millions of Venezuelans have left the country in recent years because of the dictatorship, including my family members. The person you are responding to has the correct gist of the situation, the “diaspora community” are not your racist Cuban emigres uncles, but refugees and displaced people, innocents who used their agency to escape circumstances imposed on them by the dictatorship. Regime change is sought desperately by the vast majority, an entire generation has grown up and lived under the lies and facade of the illegal regime.
But this is the most bonkers way to get regime change, satisfying America’s manifest destiny and being used as a distraction to the pedo president’s crimes. Trump’s statements implied no Venezuelan sovereignty post regime change and that America will claim ownership of sovereign Venezuelan resources. The hostile military action thus far and suggested as due course will also lead to many dead Venezuelans. This is just a nightmare extended to deeper depths of despair.
There's a growing split in the republican party over exactly this kind of action. Think what you want about it as a political strategy, but Trump sold himself to a lot of voters on the idea of a return to their old isolationist model. At least partly.
Stop fucking around in the Middle East.
Stop dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into vague "foreign aid" black holes.
No new foreign wars.
And Trump has followed through on essentially none of it. More money for Israel and Ukraine. More bombs in the Middle East. More global police actions.
And now this. Another fucking oil war.
Sadly, I don't know what the other option is if you're an American swing voter. The democrats are a fucking dumpster fire too right now. And just as likely to set fire to heaps of money for any cause other than helping out average taxpayers.
How are the Democrats a dumpster fire? There's been a tonne of them getting their name out there talking the hard talk, and refusing to back down from ICE agents, etc...
The Democrats are NO WHERE NEAR as corrupt or as corruptible as the Republican Party. What we've witnessed in this last year is that the Republican Party, as a whole, lacks any kind of integrity or ability to follow through on its rhetoric.
NOT A SINGLE FUCKING 2A Republican has been against ICE/DHS raids.
Not a SINGLE pro-life Republican has been voting against the party.
NOT A SINGLE "protect the children" Republican voted to release the Epstein files.
The ENTIRE Republican membership in the 2 houses have gone AWOL with respect to upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They COULD have ended this almost IMMEDIATELY by voting to impeach Trump at the earliest opportunity. Instead, they capitulated and enriched themselves by joining the Christo-Fascist train.
Being against the deportation of illegal migrants isn't a popular position right now.
NOT A SINGLE FUCKING 2A Republican has been against ICE/DHS raids.
I'm not sure what you think "2A" is, but I can assure you the second amendment does not protect the right to live illegally in the United States.
Not a SINGLE pro-life Republican has been voting against the party.
Again, I'm not sure what you think "pro-life" means, but it's been Republicans that have been passing restrictions on abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Why would they vote against the party that's doing the thing they want?
NOT A SINGLE "protect the children" Republican voted to release the Epstein files.
The ENTIRE Republican membership in the 2 houses have gone AWOL with respect to upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They COULD have ended this almost IMMEDIATELY by voting to impeach Trump at the earliest opportunity. Instead, they capitulated and enriched themselves by joining the Christo-Fascist train.
I mean, I'm sure it looks that way when you believe a bunch of terms mean things they don't and that a bunch of things that didn't happen, did.
In response, I will remind you that the Democrat android reptillians eat children.
I didn't read the article as it's behind a paywall, but I read "Canada, beware" not as, "hey, we'd like a military/logistics contribution from you on this Venezuela thing" but more like "and we'll be backing regime change in Canada next."
The article says that the US could invade Venezuela, take control of their heavy oil and use it at the refineries that are currently set up to refine Canadian heavy oil.
If that were to happen, the US would need much less Canadian oil costing the country a fortune and further advancing his 51st State ambitions.
That is why we need pipelines to ship oil to other places in the world.
If Canada gets involved in this in ANY capacity, boy am I going to be disappointed - and I won't be the only one.
Canada's should be involved, we should be very publicly opposing what the US is doing. This isn't a "it's complicated" kinda thing, there is actually no justification or argument to be made that lets you stick your head in the sand.
Canada beware? Are people not aware of the current media landscape in this country and how the US Right is currently and actively attempting to control information and narratives in Canada?
Just to start, most people are aware that Postmedia (most of our news) is controlled by a US hedge fund.
On social media, the Right dominates young men's feeds with climate denial and covid 19 misinformation, both campaigns that are directly generated by the American corporate-backed disinformation ecosystem. All the election integrity garbage comes from that group as well.
I hate to acknowledge Joe Rogan as an integral part of today's media landscape but you can't ignore him. He and his guests have been using misinformation to paint Canada as a socialist hellhole with no personal liberty. It is insanity.
The scale of this issue on "both sides" is not the same. This media apparatus has been far more succesful in using disinformation to convince the Canadian Right that our elections lack integrity, and you can clearly see the splits on climate denialism and covid beliefs.
This is an issue for us all but we should primarily view this as an issue created by the American corporate backed right wing media ecosystem, that preys upon the right wing electorate. For fuck sakes, they have an uncomfortably large minority of Albertans cheering on the unconstitutional and complete stripping of the most fundamental labour rights from teachers.
Venezuela had an election and Maduro was voted out. He is illegitimate. The real President of Venezuela is in hiding. Their situation is nothing like ours in Canada.
Whether or not that's true, that doesn't change my opinion on foreign military intervention. Personally I'm not willing to sacrifice anything because another country somewhere had a questionable election, like not one thing at all. Not my problem. That's for their own people to figure out.
While I understand objection to military intervention, it is important to avoid this sort of language in discussing this issue. Maduro is a horrible leader in the same vein as Stalin
I think if we looked closely enough into it we would find that there’s American money involved in western separatism and supporting the Canadian far right in general (remember the GiveSendGo hack). We also have nutty militia extremists and gun nuts in general on both sides of the border working together to subvert Canadian law (before someone goes off on me when I refer to gun nuts I’m not talking about law abiding hunters, I mean the guys you see down south who carry an AR15 to go out for coffee).
These people are loyal to money and power, not nations. There's a lot of intersections between tech, oil and fascism. They are funding it everywhere - democracy gets in the way of their ambitions.
This is all we were until the Liberals came along with their insanely stupid gun laws.
I supported Trudeau on just about every policy, but they dropped the ball on this one. Liberals have blurred the line and tried to make every gun enthusiast into a damned criminal, there are zero reasons why half the guns on their list were banned, and their gun ban mostly affected law abiding sport shooters and hunters.
As far as I'm aware it's done exactly nothing to limit gang violence or mass shooters, and should really be reversed. So yea, I'd work with anyone including Americans to have some common sense gun laws, and I'm likely more left leaning than you or most people here.
It's certainly reasonable to threaten do so, but soldiers don't get to shoot enemy combatants who have surrendered, and similarly homeowners don't get to shoot someone without giving them a chance to surrender or retreat unless doing so would put their life in danger.
Criminal law exists for a reason. People shouldn't commit crimes, but that doesn't give society carte blanche to do whatever they see fit to someone that commits a crime. We have defined penalties in the Criminal Code for a reason. If someone steals my phone I don't get to shoot them in the face, I'm entitled to the return of my property only, and the justice system is entitled to impose a punishment that is within the bounds set out in the Code.
Just the expression "gun enthusiasts" shows an excess.
I come from a family of hunters and none of them would ever say they are "gun enthusiasts". A gun is a tool to kill and nobody in his right mind would parade it proudly like a trophy.
If you want a regular rifle, you’re allowed to have one.
Plenty of 'regular rifles' were part of Trudeau's ill-advised gun bans, and that is kind of the problem.
I don't mind AK-47s and fully automatic rifles being banned, the problem is that these latest bans were not based on sound science, and instead based largely on whether they 'looked scary', with several rifles banned by name that are mechanically no different than rifles I legally still possess.
It would be great if your statement were true, but in fact there are plenty of 'regular rifles' that are now criminalized and Canadians can no longer possess.
It doesn't look as "cool", and isn't as easy to larp as some kind of TF141 (call of duty) bozo. Which is unironically literally the point of the gun ban: to try to slow the rise of idiotic "gun culture", which is what has led to the USA being completely incapable of even having an honest conversation about gun violence these days.
Enjoy hunting if you want to, join the DND if you want to be a soldier, but if you just want to play as a toy soldier, then buy a toy, not a real weapon.
No, it was to get rid of militaristic silliness from guns intended for consumers. If you want a hunting rifle, cool, why buy one that looks like an M16, especially because they are notoriously less effective at hunting.
The Liberal government was pretty clear on their (flawed) reasoning. 'getting rid of gun culture' was not mentioned, it was always touted as a safety issue.
Because people who buy only buy actual hunting rifles are less likely to engage in militaristic cultural practices like what we saw in Coutts like 3 years ago. When was the last time you some guy trying to look tough with great-great-grandad's bolt action?
And honestly, many hunting rifles are higher calibre than much of what was banned... If they wanted to just ban the bullets, they'd just ban the bullets. Guns can have varied power levels, varied rates of fire, varied lengths, form factors, handling... Etc.
And your example is really bad.... Cars are one of the most excessively regulated machines in existence, with plenty of cars that aren't allowed on public roads. There is literally a general collequial to describe them that we use for things like guns: "street legal".
_____
What I really love about this conversation is that every conservative pretended to not know why certain guns were being banned at the time. The official answer (the one you keep repeating) didn't make sense because it wasn't fully truthful. I'm explaining it to you clearly, and you're just not following at all.
This is the kind of shit that was actually being banned. We do not want those idiots here. Thanks, but no fucking thanks.
Paywall so I can't read it, but what do we have to be afraid of? The USA already controls nearly all of our oil, that's the point. Venezuela kicked American investors out of their oil sites nearly 30 years ago, the exact same way we should have (instead we privatized further at that same time). Venezuela has been punished with sanctions, attempted coups, attempted assassinations, military threats, and now open violence ever since. Trump might be the first to hit that last point, but the rest has been going on for decades.
Trump's biggest problem is that he exposes just how much of a global bully the USA has always been. He's too tactless to even attempt to look sane.
Tin foil hat theory:If I had to guess, a lot of the propaganda against Canadian bitumen that the UCP promised to "uncover" ($30m/year for like 5 years only to reveal nothing, very good use of taxdollars) was just US anti-Venezuelan bitumen propaganda timed in the immediate aftermath of Hugo Chavez's death in an effort to shift the global market for bitumen... (I know) all in an attempt to destabilize Venezuela. The government investment from Obama into American shale (likely bought media, which is the point) went into overdrive at that moment too (late 2012), which was the cause of the oil crash of 2014. The USA has been trying to get Venezuela's oil back since they lost it.
Sure wish Conservatives would take the threat of Americans more seriously when they complain about foreign investment and migrants.
I hate the amount of people in here who have decided that because trump is bad everything he does is bad. Invading Venezuela is a good thing, even if his intentions are nefarious, Venezuelans want maduro gone. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Theres 2 people who will be the new boss and they are fine. Edmundo Gonzalez ran for president against maduro last year and won with 68.5% of the vote but maduro ignored the results. He was stepping in for Maria Machado as she was disqualified.
Every single Venezuelan could support foreign military intervention and I would still be against it. As a Canadian, when we have enough issues to fix here at home, I'm not willing to make any sacrifices for us to go participate in foreign conflicts. Does that make me an isolationist? Maybe, and if so I'm willing to wear that label proudly. We have nothing to gain internally from supporting American military adventurism.
Invading Venezuela is a good thing? Think of all the pointless death you're advocating for? Venezuela is partially in this situation because of the heavy handed imperialist motivated sanctions placed upon them by the US for the crime of nationalizing oil.
Same shit in the middle east. The US government cannot tolerate nationalization of oil in socialist countries because their oil giants cannot control, profit, and retain semblance of energy dominance.
It is all part of a deeply cynical imperialist doctrine spearheaded by the US foreign policy community at the behest of oil majors.
Both find only about 10% to 15% of Canadians prefer to join the United States.
But here's the big catch: it isn't evenly distributed. Break it down by demographics.
"In the long run, would Canada becoming a part of the United States be good or bad for Canada?"
Answered "good"? By age: 4% at 65+, but 23% at 18-29. By sex? 17% men 10% women. By party? 20% Conservatives, 9% Liberal, 9% NDP.
"If the United States offered all Canadians full US citizenship and a full conversion of the Canadian dollar and all personal financial assets into US dollars, I would vote for Canada to become part of the United States:"
Read between the lines: among men of fighting age in English Canada it's an even split on joining the United States. Oh and it gets even worse: support for joining the USA is higher among the educated.
"If the United States offered all Canadians full US citizenship and a full conversion of the Canadian dollar and all personal financial assets into US dollars, I would vote for Canada to become part of the United States:"
This poll presents a false proposition. The question feels like a push-poll.
The Americans who want this don't want another eight or nine Democratic states and one or two Republican. They want ownership and rule, full stop. Even if Canada was only one state, they don't want it. Think Guam, Samoa or the US Virgin Islands. Loss of healthcare, loss of human rights, loss of the chance for education, loss of safety, loss of safe food and water, loss of rule of law and zero influence in national affairs.
A better question would include, "Would you like to look back very fondly on a time when your provincial healthcare was massively underfunded?"
A better question for a separation-supporting Albertan would include, "Would you like to lose your company's mineral leases to a giant US international that is better at bribing the corrupt US administration?"
Even if done in a 'friendly' fashion, expect a weird right-wing version of the creep of authoritarianism that has taken place in Hong Kong over the last twenty-five years. Canada joined to the US will be lessened. Diluted by a power structure that enforces policies that the US's own people overwhelmingly object to. Everything we collectively cherish about our culture of inclusion and the strength we gain through our differences, a thing of the past.
Everything we collectively cherish about our culture of inclusion
That's what I'm saying. They don't cherish it because they've never experienced it. You and me and the other balding and grey-haired types remember the Canadian dream.
But the younger ones do not.
They know only America.
One of the tipping points was when all youth political movements became completely merged with those in the United States. We had protesters calling for Juneteenth to be a holiday here.
See -- it's not just the American right wing that's seeping in. America, as a whole, is seeping in.
Those who who grew up online are generally Americanized in values and beliefs. The more time you spend on social media the more your views reflect those in the United States.
Many young Canadians see themselves as temporarily embarrassed Americans, to adapt the saying by John Steinbeck.
I guess my argument is that Canadian media often presents this as an "emergent" threat. Whereas in my view it's a process that began several decades ago in earnest, and is now almost complete.
We already get most of our media through US corporations. Which are already engaged in large-scale management of opinion. That means that: no one who supports secession in Alberta will hear our objections. They live in an American-created bubble managed by American corporations. Just as you and me live in a different American-created media bubble managed by American corporations.
A Canadian identity is going to get softly censored into oblivion and a generation of Canadians have already grown up barely knowing it exists.
43% of Canadians 18-34 are down if there is a good offer on the table. Trump won't invade he'll offer us a deal.
I don't expect the +55 crowd to join the military to fight off the US and I don't expect young Canadians to sign up and die for their right to pay 60% of their income in rent and not be employed.
Hell, America has a very long history of promoting instability in Venezuela specifically and in South America in general. Trump exacerbates the problem of course but this isn't new, this is standard for the US.
Free trade with the US was a great idea when based on the US being a solid democracy led by benevolent, rational leaders. Trump has proven to us that the much vaunted checks and balances in the US’s democracy don’t mean diddly squat when a malevolent authoritarian leader is elected. Put that together with Project 2025 backed by rapacious industrialists that use Christian nationalism to whip up the masses, and here we are. We’ve been too complacent for far too long.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Rebuilding the Venezuelan oil industry will take decades, if we make ourselves a less attractive place to invest than the ruins of Venezuela that is entirely on us.
They don't want to invest, they want to annex and pillage.
Pillaging the Venezuelan oil industry in it's present state would be a pretty colossal waste of time and energy.
Trump was never much for strategy. Though his goal might be to bankrupt America like all his businesses. Putin probably thinks that's a great idea.
Make it cheap, buy it up.
Successive US administrations have been trying to punt the communists out of Venezuela for the last twenty years.
Even Biden tried via peaceful means (free elections in exchange for lifting of sanctions and amnesty for maduro) and the opposition won with 70% of the vote, but maduro just said he won and started killing protestors.
This is why we need multiple pipelines to tidewater in this country. They aren't just for future production requirements but to be able to move oil currently shipped to the US to other parts of the world.
Our two primary exports are oil and automobiles. The US has already said it plans to destroy our automobile manufacturing sector. If they can bring Venezuelan oil under their control, they can use it to replace Canadian oil.
Trump has said he plans to annex us through economic coercion. He has already tariffed the auto industry and has shown he is willing to let US manufacturers suffer as they bring production home. If they seize Venezuelan oil facilities, they will immediately redirect available oil production to the US while ramping up more.
With that, our two primary exports will be finished, along with steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. He is currently fishing around the world for potash replacements, today, Belarus, tomorrow, probably Russia.
It is pretty clear what they are doing but all of this will take time.
We need to be in a position to be able to ship as much of our oil to other parts of the world as possible in order to offset future cuts to US demand. We also need pipelines East that are entirely within in Canada and more domestic refining capacity, anything transiting through the US or that we get from the US, is at risk.
We also can't take for granted that we just have to wait out the next three years. Even if a Democrat wins in 2028 and manages reelection in 2032, by 2036 Americans will likely be sick of Democrats and will happily vote in Vance or Rubio. We need to start today to be prepared for that.
We get market price no matter who buys it. Canada's problem is that Alberta and Saskatchewan where most of our oil is have Conservative governments that are owned by the corporations and are giving Canada's oil away practically tax free. The sale of oil should be driving economic growth and infrastructure building, but the provinces are giving it away.
We aren't using the one we have to capacity.
If oil prices drop our industry is dead with or without pipelines.
If US Conservatives want a regime change here in Canada, it's important for all of us to keep in mind which party they would want in charge.
We know what happens when the conservatives get power in the US, the question is how do we stop the Canadian version?
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[removed]
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
They don't even have to get the Conservatives in charge any more. All parties wish to continue neoliberalism unabated. That changing would be the only reason the US would do anything as drastic as what it is doing to Venezuela. They have enough control of our media that they get whatever they want anyway.
[removed]
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
We may see decapitation bombing strikes on Ottawa within 2 decades, if the Americans don't totally turn against Maga. America will try to take over Canada for our resources, if a multi-year Albertan pro-separation influence operation fails. Climate change will force America to look for prime farmland, fresh water, and weak targets. Aka Canada.
If AI surveillance tech has not reached extreme levels of control, I could see America paying a heavy price post-war. Canadians are highly educated, very familiar with American infrastructure and maps, and can hit vulnerable targets.
Yeah, in an invasion scenario, the war crimes on Canadians will be horrible, and Europe can't do a thing to help. But it doesn't mean America gets off easy.
But don't worry the people in charge know this and are doing everything in there power to stop this by checks notes forcing people back to the office and disarming the peons?
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Decapitation strikes would serve no purpose.
In the even of an actual invasion the US will just jump across the border in a few places, cut off interprovincial trade/military logistics along the TCH remote enough that only attack by regular forces pose any kind of threat, wait for the provinces to realize Ottawa has pussed out when no violent response comes and begin negotiations with them independently of the feds.
Canada is one contested election away from this happening, plenty of time for enough people on both sides of the border to become comfortable enough with it to silently consent if the "rightful" head of government does.
They will first make American citizens believe they are running out of fresh water. Then they’ll interfere with the Great Lakes, create a broader conflict centered on water, and proceed to occupy Canada under the pretext of a national security threat (water). But in the end what they would be after is water,ressources and land expansion.
I think controlling the shipping lanes through Panama and the North West Passage are also important. Greenland helps to protect the eastern portion of the passage.
Its not hard to make the US believe they are running out od fresh water. Not with the California droughts and overall aquifer depletion in the south. Climate change and their poor use of water resources has made it a real need. They might just up the timetable for political reasons. And they'd be after far more than water.
They already started talking about it. To be fair this is the ONLY way an invasion of Canada would be accepted by the common US citizen. You have to make them believe their life are at risk.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Bud. There are 35 millions of Canadians that look and talk just like Americans. That's a lot of potential terrorists.
Dude, this isnt happening. There are much easier and cheaper ways to take us over than a full slate invasion. Remember, its one thing committing war crimes against brown people that speak Arabic or brown people that speak Spanish. It will be a lot harder to convince American soldiers to carpet bomb people that look, speak and mostly act like them.
You overestimate American soldiers.
You can see American attitudes on reddit clear as day. They'll make some sardonic or mildly outraged comment about how wrong it is to hurt Canadians with the same energy they use to comment about what happened in the baseball game or hit HBO show, then move on with their day.
The US government doesn't need all citizens on board, they just have to make sure the Americans not-on-board are still comfortable enough to go on with their lives instead of motivated to cause any major disruptions.
Do you think Americans will leave their jobs, default on their mortgages and take to the streets over a few million dead Canadians? I don't.
There were easier and cheaper ways, but they tipped their hand too early. If we had continued on our sleepy and complacent course, they could have achieved their goal within the next 50 years.
I wouldn't underestimate short memories.
A softer touch and a new president (combined with an external threat) would change a lot of minds about being wary of the US. Hell, 18 months ago, I considered Modi the biggest threat to our sovereignty.
That kinda worked once, but the US electing someone like Trump twice is indicative of a rot far deeper than we initially assumed. The world at large is now much more wary of any long-term deals with the US.
Sure, but play it out over a long timescale. If they elect another Obama to two terms, are we still going to be mad about a long-dead president who threatened us a decade ago? Meanwhile whatever geopolitical forces are driving their isolation and our integration keep doing their thing.
Or they need something from us, and buying the country, even at a fair price, becomes cheaper than renting its resources.
And sooner or later we'll suffer a crisis where we need the Americans' help.
You can start to see how we're at the point of inflection now. Being mad won't change anything in 2035. But being too big to swallow would.
People don't have to mad forever (although I resent the US right now, I don't hate americans as individuals unless they're clueless or pro annexation or something), but would the trust really go back to the way it was? The thing is, it used to be completely unimaginable that they would come after us, the trust was so deep -- now it's not. I don't think we'll hate the US forever but it would be really irresponsible to go back to the old way, we really can't be that exposed to them ever again.
That's kind of what we're doing by trying to diversify our trade partners to reduce the US' economic leverage over us.
Yes? 8-10 years is really not that long in geopolitics.
They've completely ruined relations with Canadians for at least a generation, probably more. Myself and many others will be making sure our children are aware that while the US might be our neighbour and ally, they are not our good friend.
...there is no "fair price" for our sovereignty.
What does that have to do with anything? We're not the ones unilaterally shitting on relations. We still help them when they need it, even during this last year, and will continue to help. If they don't want to help us, that's kind of on them.
You can act neighbourly while still being wary. Being wary doesn't mean treating them like an enemy. Our relationship has just downgraded from 'good buddies' to those colleagues at work who purse their lips and nod at each other.
I still remember how Canadian public opinion of the American people (not just their government) took a nosedive when George W. Bush was re-elected. We could look past his first term and the War on Terror his administration started after 9/11, but Bush beating Kerry signified that a majority of American voters could not be trusted.
That attitude faded during Obama's tenure, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when Biden won. Then Trump won again and proved that it wasn't a fluke.
They've already achieved their goals.
There are already 600 US companies operating in Canada's oil sands and critical minerals.
True! Forget about war or bombs. This is a corporate hostile takeover. The US isn't trying to invade Canada; they are trying to liquidate us for parts (Resources). The strategy is simple: Divide and Conquer. Washington is betting that if they squeeze hard enough, the Provinces will turn on Ottawa—and each other—just to survive. * The Wedge: Convince the Provinces (Alberta, Ontario) that they are safer dealing directly with the US than sinking with the ship. * The Trap: Pit Ontario’s car industry against Quebec’s dairy farmers. Make Canada choose which hand to cut off to save the body. * The Bluff: Use Venezuelan oil to scare Alberta into thinking they are replaceable. It’s not random chaos. It is a calculated, "BlackRock-style" strategy: Destabilize the management (Ottawa) so you can acquire the assets (Resources) cheap.
This isn’t a decade long strategy, this is likely a very short timeline. Trumps been playing the “tariffs are making us RICH!”, obviously not, but that grift can only get sold so long. What they need is for all the industry to leave Canada and align more with the US and bring home “prosperity”, or at least the illusion of it.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Quite brilliant (dang terrible and evil).
I hope your right, but Rwanda says you're wrong.
Keep in mind that the casus belli that Trump uses to justify his gun boat diplomacy & blockade of Venezuela is exactly the same as the initial justification for the initial tarrifs against us back in the spring.
I don't think it's the same.
Canada - 10 lbs of Fentanyl.
Venezuela - Some US oil companies lost their investments 50 years ago when V nationalized oil.
10lbs of fentanyl wasn't the justification for tariffs, fentanyl trafficking in general was. 10lbs was the actual amount seized by US border authorities at the Canadian border during a three month period from Oct 2024 through Dec 2024 and was reported on in response to Trump's justifications for his plans to impose tariffs on Canada at the time.
In regards to Venezuela, oil wasn't the initial justification nor is it the current primary justification. Drugs are. Oil is just the actual reason and Trump happened to recently say the quiet part out loud as he tends to do.
Trump is blaming Venezuela for bringing drugs to the US, and is bombing boats claiming they are drug boats, so there is some similarity.
And yet, they have provided no concrete evidence of this.
Columbia remains the main producer of cocaine and the US remains the main consumer.
Yes, same problem with Canada, the drug thing was an excuse. Hence it being the same.
Wasn’t that 10lbs the stuff we caught coming INTO us from America?
Do you find it worrying that our biggest trading partner thinks our drug smuggling problem is similarly bad to the South American drug cartel smuggling op?
Reminds me of the joke phrase, “you don’t get to decide if you are an asshole, other people do”. If the USA is unhappy with us allowing both fentanyl production and smuggling from our country, maybe we should take that feedback seriously.
And invade them first!
Or do the thing where we strengthen ourselves by decoupling from them but we're too busy believing silly commercials will change their mind.
Brother please explain how “decoupling” from our biggest trading partner will strengthen us.
Because they're an adversary, not a partner.
If the USA wants to kick off and then lose WW3, it would invade Canada.
And who would come to our aid?
Didn't the US try to do a coup d'état there twice under Bush and Obama?
This is just plain faced imperialism, rather than backroom shenanigans.
I guess it's more honest?
[removed]
[removed]
Make like the Iraq war, "Sorry, we're sitting this one out."
This could quite possibly be the straw that will wreck the Republican Party at least during the mid-terms and 2028 election, and possibly beyond, too.
Americans are jaded over the lies about WMDs in Iraq and the body bags that came home so that oilgarchs could do oilgarchy things.
Venezuela is gonna be Iraq/Vietnam all over again, and I think there's going to be far less willing participation in this military venture and what's more, even if things do kick off, securing oil fields is VERY VERY difficult.
Blowing things up is VERY easy. Maintaining control of things like that is very very hard. Meaning, rebel forces etc... just have to send in 20 drones to fuck shit up REAL bad. Unlike Gaza, it's gonna be REALLY hard to commit genocide in Venezuela, when the only way into half the country is on the back of a donkey through swamp land that only indigenous people know how to navigate.
If Canada gets involved in this in ANY capacity, boy am I going to be disappointed - and I won't be the only one.
Canada has zero reasons to cooperate with the US in their latest set of war crimes.
Oh, but we already are. Unlike the UK, who at least suspended intelligence-sharing with the US over it, Canada's active participation in Operation CARIBBE is still continuing.
Uh, the UK doesn't share the world's longest undefended boarder with the US?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I completely agree, but I feel it's also worth pointing out that Democrats would be backing the same type of regime change in Venezuela if it wasn't Trump doing it. Unfortunately, it is only those on the far right and the far left who are consistently against things like this. The war party is still strong.
The far-right are not against it either, they just pretend to be sometimes.
A lot of them do yes, but there is a certain subsection of them that are actually anti-war.
The far-right definitionally cannot be anti-war because their aims directly necessitate war lol
Perhaps it wasn't the best characterisation, but there is certainly a group within the MAGA movement that is actually pissed about all the new wars Trump has started. Of course, as you said, there are also lots of influencers just trying to grift off these people. Nik Fuentes comes to mine.
At least they feigned a pretence for Iraq. With Venezuela they’re just sort of shrugging and saying “we’re doing this”.
Venezuela is claiming more than half of Guyana as theirs, over oil.
The international community is mostly behind the United States on this. Venezuela should not be allowed to invade Guyana. We should definitely discourage these conflicts by the strongest means possible.
Trump likely has ulterior motives, sure. But the solution would be stronger international condemnation and stronger international action. The solution isn’t to kiss our teeth and ask that the US stand by as Venezuela annexes the Guyanese oil fields.
I admit I don't know the details of the border dispute. I thought it had been resolved in the eyes of the international community. The Venezuelan government has been making claims and issuing decrees, but it reads to me as nothing more than saber-rattling and an attempt to drum up legitimacy and create a distraction, and that nothing concrete had happened militarily to change the facts on the ground. Concerning, yes, especially for Guyana, but an American invasion at this point would still be pre-emptive. If Venezuelan military incursions begin, proportional pressure from the international community would be warranted, but I'm not sure that even a full-blown military invasion would justify an "Operation Iraqi Freedom"-style response from the US to topple the government. The US' support for the international order and its respect for the sanctity of recognized international borders is not absolute, and the level of its response to each crisis depends on its own interests. An American intervention ostensibly in the name of defending Guyana would only be public cover for the Trump administration's ulterior motives.
Ahhh...hang on... you're telling me the US values Sovereignty? You mean THIS administration values a nations' sovereignty? Can you tell me how they value Ukraine's sovereignty? Or Palestinian Sovereignty? Or Sudanese sovereignty?
If the US cannot and will not stop a genocide in Gaza, which is THE EASIEST genocide for them to stop, what makes you think they're gonna care about Venezuela's move to "invade Guyana".
If anything, the MO from THIS administration would be to back Venezuela in their "claims over Guyanese oil", then trigger a conflict, sell weapons to both sides until one side wins out, then claim the oil reserves through a "debt servicing program".
Claiming =/= invading, and the international community is definitely not behind the US on this. Not sure what circles you run in that would make it seem that way.
The US administration has outright claimed this is over drugs, not oil, even if we all know their underlying reasons. They've already committed extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers. You don't need to do their homework for them.
The international community is very much aligned with the US that Venezuela should not be allowed to invade Guyana. And yes, that means actually having Venezuela commit to not doing so. We definitely should not allow them to say ‘we are going to do this when the time is right’ ad nauseam.
Like I said, yes what trump is doing is bad.
He seemingly is incapable of handling these situations in a nuanced way.
But yes, this is an issue of us relying on the US to be world police.
The ‘international community’ is very much in agreement that Venezuela not be allowed to annex Guyana. We rely on the United States to enforce this. The US elects a weak leader. Venezuela sees an opportunity. And here we are.
You're creating and backing a strawman argument here. Nothing about the US' actions has to do with relations between Venezuela and Guyana.
Yes, the international community agrees that one country shouldn't annex another. That's also not what any of this is about.
You're purposefully using the A=B, B=C, therefore A=C logical fallacy to try to justify US aggression against Venezuela. Stop. You're not clever.
The Trump admin has reclassified fent as a "WMD" and are saying Venezuela is a huge producer of it. They are literally copying Bush Jr's playbook. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so likely this shit will have a huge human cost.
Not a good pretense but there was a pretense!
They also had the fervor of 9/11, this time it's the exact opposite the republicans ran on "no new wars"
Iraq had 9/11 to drum up patriotism. This has absolutely nothing...
It won’t be like Vietnam. The pro western opposition won the last election with over 70% of the vote. The bolivarian forces only have enough training to keep the population in check.
And one thing to keep in mind as well, at all these protests where people are protesting trump’s action against Venezuela, actual Venezuelans are going to the protests and asking around and finding absolutely zero Venezuelans there, because they all support military action.
Think of it this way, I’ll put it in a way you’d understand. Imagine Pierre Poilievre was dictator of Canada and was rigging elections, you tried protesting and it resulted in tons of dead protestors, and also your guns have been taken away a long time ago. Now, president Kamala Harris is preparing for military action against Canada, you’d want said action wouldnt you?
So because the Venezuelan diaspora supports military action, we should take military action? I personally think we should not base our foreign policy on what diaspora communities think, and should leave it to the people of Venezuela to decide their future independent of us going in there and getting stuck in another foreign war
They have decided their future, they elected Edmundo Gonzalez with 68.74% of the vote, maduro ignored those results.
Millions of Venezuelans have left the country in recent years because of the dictatorship, including my family members. The person you are responding to has the correct gist of the situation, the “diaspora community” are not your racist Cuban emigres uncles, but refugees and displaced people, innocents who used their agency to escape circumstances imposed on them by the dictatorship. Regime change is sought desperately by the vast majority, an entire generation has grown up and lived under the lies and facade of the illegal regime.
But this is the most bonkers way to get regime change, satisfying America’s manifest destiny and being used as a distraction to the pedo president’s crimes. Trump’s statements implied no Venezuelan sovereignty post regime change and that America will claim ownership of sovereign Venezuelan resources. The hostile military action thus far and suggested as due course will also lead to many dead Venezuelans. This is just a nightmare extended to deeper depths of despair.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
There's a growing split in the republican party over exactly this kind of action. Think what you want about it as a political strategy, but Trump sold himself to a lot of voters on the idea of a return to their old isolationist model. At least partly.
Stop fucking around in the Middle East.
Stop dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into vague "foreign aid" black holes.
No new foreign wars.
And Trump has followed through on essentially none of it. More money for Israel and Ukraine. More bombs in the Middle East. More global police actions.
And now this. Another fucking oil war.
Sadly, I don't know what the other option is if you're an American swing voter. The democrats are a fucking dumpster fire too right now. And just as likely to set fire to heaps of money for any cause other than helping out average taxpayers.
How are the Democrats a dumpster fire? There's been a tonne of them getting their name out there talking the hard talk, and refusing to back down from ICE agents, etc...
The Democrats are NO WHERE NEAR as corrupt or as corruptible as the Republican Party. What we've witnessed in this last year is that the Republican Party, as a whole, lacks any kind of integrity or ability to follow through on its rhetoric.
NOT A SINGLE FUCKING 2A Republican has been against ICE/DHS raids.
Not a SINGLE pro-life Republican has been voting against the party.
NOT A SINGLE "protect the children" Republican voted to release the Epstein files.
The ENTIRE Republican membership in the 2 houses have gone AWOL with respect to upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They COULD have ended this almost IMMEDIATELY by voting to impeach Trump at the earliest opportunity. Instead, they capitulated and enriched themselves by joining the Christo-Fascist train.
But "BoTH SiDeS" right?
Being against the deportation of illegal migrants isn't a popular position right now.
I'm not sure what you think "2A" is, but I can assure you the second amendment does not protect the right to live illegally in the United States.
Again, I'm not sure what you think "pro-life" means, but it's been Republicans that have been passing restrictions on abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Why would they vote against the party that's doing the thing they want?
Virtually everyone in Congress voted to release the Epstein files.
I mean, I'm sure it looks that way when you believe a bunch of terms mean things they don't and that a bunch of things that didn't happen, did.
In response, I will remind you that the Democrat android reptillians eat children.
So checkmate.
Trump voters are out of touch. Trump won with 4.1% unemployment complaining about the economy. Nothing real matters, just vibes and cultural issues.
I didn't read the article as it's behind a paywall, but I read "Canada, beware" not as, "hey, we'd like a military/logistics contribution from you on this Venezuela thing" but more like "and we'll be backing regime change in Canada next."
The article says that the US could invade Venezuela, take control of their heavy oil and use it at the refineries that are currently set up to refine Canadian heavy oil.
If that were to happen, the US would need much less Canadian oil costing the country a fortune and further advancing his 51st State ambitions.
That is why we need pipelines to ship oil to other places in the world.
And since that will never happen, we should become more independent and strengthen the country internally.
PP might finally have a shot!
Canada's should be involved, we should be very publicly opposing what the US is doing. This isn't a "it's complicated" kinda thing, there is actually no justification or argument to be made that lets you stick your head in the sand.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[deleted]
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[removed]
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Canada beware? Are people not aware of the current media landscape in this country and how the US Right is currently and actively attempting to control information and narratives in Canada?
Just to start, most people are aware that Postmedia (most of our news) is controlled by a US hedge fund.
On social media, the Right dominates young men's feeds with climate denial and covid 19 misinformation, both campaigns that are directly generated by the American corporate-backed disinformation ecosystem. All the election integrity garbage comes from that group as well.
I hate to acknowledge Joe Rogan as an integral part of today's media landscape but you can't ignore him. He and his guests have been using misinformation to paint Canada as a socialist hellhole with no personal liberty. It is insanity.
The scale of this issue on "both sides" is not the same. This media apparatus has been far more succesful in using disinformation to convince the Canadian Right that our elections lack integrity, and you can clearly see the splits on climate denialism and covid beliefs.
This is an issue for us all but we should primarily view this as an issue created by the American corporate backed right wing media ecosystem, that preys upon the right wing electorate. For fuck sakes, they have an uncomfortably large minority of Albertans cheering on the unconstitutional and complete stripping of the most fundamental labour rights from teachers.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Venezuela had an election and Maduro was voted out. He is illegitimate. The real President of Venezuela is in hiding. Their situation is nothing like ours in Canada.
Theres 2 possible options, as one was disqualified last minute.
Whether or not that's true, that doesn't change my opinion on foreign military intervention. Personally I'm not willing to sacrifice anything because another country somewhere had a questionable election, like not one thing at all. Not my problem. That's for their own people to figure out.
While I understand objection to military intervention, it is important to avoid this sort of language in discussing this issue. Maduro is a horrible leader in the same vein as Stalin
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
I think if we looked closely enough into it we would find that there’s American money involved in western separatism and supporting the Canadian far right in general (remember the GiveSendGo hack). We also have nutty militia extremists and gun nuts in general on both sides of the border working together to subvert Canadian law (before someone goes off on me when I refer to gun nuts I’m not talking about law abiding hunters, I mean the guys you see down south who carry an AR15 to go out for coffee).
These people are loyal to money and power, not nations. There's a lot of intersections between tech, oil and fascism. They are funding it everywhere - democracy gets in the way of their ambitions.
Well said.
This is all we were until the Liberals came along with their insanely stupid gun laws.
I supported Trudeau on just about every policy, but they dropped the ball on this one. Liberals have blurred the line and tried to make every gun enthusiast into a damned criminal, there are zero reasons why half the guns on their list were banned, and their gun ban mostly affected law abiding sport shooters and hunters.
As far as I'm aware it's done exactly nothing to limit gang violence or mass shooters, and should really be reversed. So yea, I'd work with anyone including Americans to have some common sense gun laws, and I'm likely more left leaning than you or most people here.
Every time gun control comes up in here, we get some users who are really keen to shoot unarmed trespassers, and believe they are reasonable.
[deleted]
Nobody? You don’t think anyone fantasizes about a macho moment of self defence?
[deleted]
Why lie?
It is reasonable to expect to shoot someone breaking into your home.
It's certainly reasonable to threaten do so, but soldiers don't get to shoot enemy combatants who have surrendered, and similarly homeowners don't get to shoot someone without giving them a chance to surrender or retreat unless doing so would put their life in danger.
Not until we have castle law yes. One day we will get there
Under any common sense it's still completely unreasonable shoot someone that has surrendered.
Damn I guess they shouldn't have invaded someones home then
Criminal law exists for a reason. People shouldn't commit crimes, but that doesn't give society carte blanche to do whatever they see fit to someone that commits a crime. We have defined penalties in the Criminal Code for a reason. If someone steals my phone I don't get to shoot them in the face, I'm entitled to the return of my property only, and the justice system is entitled to impose a punishment that is within the bounds set out in the Code.
I never said steal your phone. I said home invasion. We can change the Code to allow for castle law. Alberta might even get their own version of it
Just the expression "gun enthusiasts" shows an excess.
I come from a family of hunters and none of them would ever say they are "gun enthusiasts". A gun is a tool to kill and nobody in his right mind would parade it proudly like a trophy.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
We tend to import American culture in Canada. I’m not against these gun laws. If you want a regular rifle, you’re allowed to have one.
Plenty of 'regular rifles' were part of Trudeau's ill-advised gun bans, and that is kind of the problem.
I don't mind AK-47s and fully automatic rifles being banned, the problem is that these latest bans were not based on sound science, and instead based largely on whether they 'looked scary', with several rifles banned by name that are mechanically no different than rifles I legally still possess.
It would be great if your statement were true, but in fact there are plenty of 'regular rifles' that are now criminalized and Canadians can no longer possess.
Well except for the ones they banned because they look scary but shoot the same round
So what's the issue with getting a different one that isn't banned if it shoots the same round?
It doesn't look as "cool", and isn't as easy to larp as some kind of TF141 (call of duty) bozo. Which is unironically literally the point of the gun ban: to try to slow the rise of idiotic "gun culture", which is what has led to the USA being completely incapable of even having an honest conversation about gun violence these days.
Enjoy hunting if you want to, join the DND if you want to be a soldier, but if you just want to play as a toy soldier, then buy a toy, not a real weapon.
That was not the point of the gun ban. It was for "safer streets". Not to mention Canada already had pretty good gun laws
No, it was to get rid of militaristic silliness from guns intended for consumers. If you want a hunting rifle, cool, why buy one that looks like an M16, especially because they are notoriously less effective at hunting.
This is objectively incorrect information.
The Liberal government was pretty clear on their (flawed) reasoning. 'getting rid of gun culture' was not mentioned, it was always touted as a safety issue.
No it wasn't. Why would it matter if they shoot the same round? Its like banning red cars but keeping grey ones. But maybe you support that too
Because people who buy only buy actual hunting rifles are less likely to engage in militaristic cultural practices like what we saw in Coutts like 3 years ago. When was the last time you some guy trying to look tough with great-great-grandad's bolt action?
And honestly, many hunting rifles are higher calibre than much of what was banned... If they wanted to just ban the bullets, they'd just ban the bullets. Guns can have varied power levels, varied rates of fire, varied lengths, form factors, handling... Etc.
And your example is really bad.... Cars are one of the most excessively regulated machines in existence, with plenty of cars that aren't allowed on public roads. There is literally a general collequial to describe them that we use for things like guns: "street legal".
_____
What I really love about this conversation is that every conservative pretended to not know why certain guns were being banned at the time. The official answer (the one you keep repeating) didn't make sense because it wasn't fully truthful. I'm explaining it to you clearly, and you're just not following at all.
This is the kind of shit that was actually being banned. We do not want those idiots here. Thanks, but no fucking thanks.
Guns aren’t cars. Cars are for transportation and are sometimes used to kill, guns are exclusively killing tools. This isn’t a fair comparison
Then why ban it at all if they are functionally the same?
You can look with blurry eyes and still see it. They own a significant part of our media.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Paywall so I can't read it, but what do we have to be afraid of? The USA already controls nearly all of our oil, that's the point. Venezuela kicked American investors out of their oil sites nearly 30 years ago, the exact same way we should have (instead we privatized further at that same time). Venezuela has been punished with sanctions, attempted coups, attempted assassinations, military threats, and now open violence ever since. Trump might be the first to hit that last point, but the rest has been going on for decades.
Trump's biggest problem is that he exposes just how much of a global bully the USA has always been. He's too tactless to even attempt to look sane.
Tin foil hat theory: If I had to guess, a lot of the propaganda against Canadian bitumen that the UCP promised to "uncover" ($30m/year for like 5 years only to reveal nothing, very good use of taxdollars) was just US anti-Venezuelan bitumen propaganda timed in the immediate aftermath of Hugo Chavez's death in an effort to shift the global market for bitumen... (I know) all in an attempt to destabilize Venezuela. The government investment from Obama into American shale (likely bought media, which is the point) went into overdrive at that moment too (late 2012), which was the cause of the oil crash of 2014. The USA has been trying to get Venezuela's oil back since they lost it.
Sure wish Conservatives would take the threat of Americans more seriously when they complain about foreign investment and migrants.
I hate the amount of people in here who have decided that because trump is bad everything he does is bad. Invading Venezuela is a good thing, even if his intentions are nefarious, Venezuelans want maduro gone. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Considering the US history with regime change specifically in that part of the world, the new boss could very well be much worse than the old boss.
Theres 2 people who will be the new boss and they are fine. Edmundo Gonzalez ran for president against maduro last year and won with 68.5% of the vote but maduro ignored the results. He was stepping in for Maria Machado as she was disqualified.
How quick we are to repeat the same mistakes.
Every single Venezuelan could support foreign military intervention and I would still be against it. As a Canadian, when we have enough issues to fix here at home, I'm not willing to make any sacrifices for us to go participate in foreign conflicts. Does that make me an isolationist? Maybe, and if so I'm willing to wear that label proudly. We have nothing to gain internally from supporting American military adventurism.
Invading Venezuela is a good thing? Think of all the pointless death you're advocating for? Venezuela is partially in this situation because of the heavy handed imperialist motivated sanctions placed upon them by the US for the crime of nationalizing oil.
Same shit in the middle east. The US government cannot tolerate nationalization of oil in socialist countries because their oil giants cannot control, profit, and retain semblance of energy dominance.
It is all part of a deeply cynical imperialist doctrine spearheaded by the US foreign policy community at the behest of oil majors.
[removed]
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Support here for this is much higher than many of us are willing to admit.
Look at the polls. Here's three from earlier this year:
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/U_S__Canada_Relations__Canada__poll_results_2.pdf
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025.03.12_51_state.pdf
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/43-percent-canadians-would-vote-be-american-if-citizenship-and-conversion-assets-usd-guaranteed
Both find only about 10% to 15% of Canadians prefer to join the United States.
But here's the big catch: it isn't evenly distributed. Break it down by demographics.
"In the long run, would Canada becoming a part of the United States be good or bad for Canada?"
Answered "good"? By age: 4% at 65+, but 23% at 18-29. By sex? 17% men 10% women. By party? 20% Conservatives, 9% Liberal, 9% NDP.
"If the United States offered all Canadians full US citizenship and a full conversion of the Canadian dollar and all personal financial assets into US dollars, I would vote for Canada to become part of the United States:"
18-29: 43% agree/somewhat agree 65+: 17% agree/somewhat agree
Men: 38% agree/somewhat agree, women: 23% agree/somewhat agree
Read between the lines: among men of fighting age in English Canada it's an even split on joining the United States. Oh and it gets even worse: support for joining the USA is higher among the educated.
This poll presents a false proposition. The question feels like a push-poll.
The Americans who want this don't want another eight or nine Democratic states and one or two Republican. They want ownership and rule, full stop. Even if Canada was only one state, they don't want it. Think Guam, Samoa or the US Virgin Islands. Loss of healthcare, loss of human rights, loss of the chance for education, loss of safety, loss of safe food and water, loss of rule of law and zero influence in national affairs.
A better question would include, "Would you like to look back very fondly on a time when your provincial healthcare was massively underfunded?"
A better question for a separation-supporting Albertan would include, "Would you like to lose your company's mineral leases to a giant US international that is better at bribing the corrupt US administration?"
Even if done in a 'friendly' fashion, expect a weird right-wing version of the creep of authoritarianism that has taken place in Hong Kong over the last twenty-five years. Canada joined to the US will be lessened. Diluted by a power structure that enforces policies that the US's own people overwhelmingly object to. Everything we collectively cherish about our culture of inclusion and the strength we gain through our differences, a thing of the past.
That's what I'm saying. They don't cherish it because they've never experienced it. You and me and the other balding and grey-haired types remember the Canadian dream.
But the younger ones do not.
They know only America.
One of the tipping points was when all youth political movements became completely merged with those in the United States. We had protesters calling for Juneteenth to be a holiday here.
See -- it's not just the American right wing that's seeping in. America, as a whole, is seeping in.
Those who who grew up online are generally Americanized in values and beliefs. The more time you spend on social media the more your views reflect those in the United States.
Many young Canadians see themselves as temporarily embarrassed Americans, to adapt the saying by John Steinbeck.
I guess my argument is that Canadian media often presents this as an "emergent" threat. Whereas in my view it's a process that began several decades ago in earnest, and is now almost complete.
We already get most of our media through US corporations. Which are already engaged in large-scale management of opinion. That means that: no one who supports secession in Alberta will hear our objections. They live in an American-created bubble managed by American corporations. Just as you and me live in a different American-created media bubble managed by American corporations.
A Canadian identity is going to get softly censored into oblivion and a generation of Canadians have already grown up barely knowing it exists.
https://www.mediatechdemocracy.com/all-work/mass-polarization-in-canada-whats-causing-it-why-should-we-care
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/03/social-media-threat/
https://opencanada.org/the-threat-of-us-centric-social-media/
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/43-percent-canadians-would-vote-be-american-if-citizenship-and-conversion-assets-usd-guaranteed
43% of Canadians 18-34 are down if there is a good offer on the table. Trump won't invade he'll offer us a deal.
I don't expect the +55 crowd to join the military to fight off the US and I don't expect young Canadians to sign up and die for their right to pay 60% of their income in rent and not be employed.
[removed]
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Yes, beware! The US has a long experience of supporting instabilities in other countries in order to get access to resources.
I wouldn't be surprised if the separatist movement of Alberta was found to have links and financial support from the US.
Hell, America has a very long history of promoting instability in Venezuela specifically and in South America in general. Trump exacerbates the problem of course but this isn't new, this is standard for the US.
Trump admin officials have discussed loaning $500M to Alberta separatists to help out. They are definitely supporting this.
Oh it's already quite well known who is funding those clownshoes...
Post a source please?
The separatists are absolutely backed by the US, The Goose did a good story about it a bit ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2pFskA1QiE
And the Convidiots, they were shown to be US-funded.
Free trade with the US was a great idea when based on the US being a solid democracy led by benevolent, rational leaders. Trump has proven to us that the much vaunted checks and balances in the US’s democracy don’t mean diddly squat when a malevolent authoritarian leader is elected. Put that together with Project 2025 backed by rapacious industrialists that use Christian nationalism to whip up the masses, and here we are. We’ve been too complacent for far too long.
I’m beginning to think John Turner was a prophet.