Comments on: America’s Secret Plan to Invade Canada

By: devildog

devildog — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 05:54:27 +0000

ok yes it has been long time after to add this but amarican citizen amarica talk shit about us all the time, and with the the iraq afgan shit and how you have to go. i would like to point out you started the war over there so dont give me that bull shit
devildog out

By: KMAN

KMAN — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:03:57 +0000

jesus christ, what are you fucks retarted?half of everything here people are saying about the u.s is bullshit. second i dont think any one bad mouthed america from the beginning of this article fags, only after these ignorant american started saying bullshit. sonia and american citizen you guys are fucking moronos. not only would no country ever invade canada, its certainly not gunna be america. you fucktards are taking a bullshit story and turning into world war 3 tommorow. like you honestly think half the fucking world will back up 1 country? jesus christ, countryy’s these days wont back yp shit unlss it has soming to do with them. hell besides i doubt anyone would even pass an order like that. and americancitizen youre a fucking idiot. like they shouldnt let you stupid asses even log in on a blog website, casue youre opinions arent even opinions anymore, there youre version of fact, which is warped into what you think is true. go die assface

By: oldnick

oldnick — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:30:36 +0000

UN polacy was that a joke. Has for the USA invading Canada or Canada invading the USA hurry up
so we british and the muppit over the channel can have it back and start fighting over it again.
And in the real world the only the fatcats wins not joe blogs they to busy burryin there dead.
P.S please don’t use nuke coz there be nothing for us to fight over.

By: tejbs

tejbs — Wed, 19 May 2010 04:00:07 +0000

Everyone who thinks USA Will invade Canada or vice versa should read the policy of UN no country in the UN can attack another no matter what, they CAN retaliate but not attack

By: joe_dracos

joe_dracos — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:59:28 +0000

1. China would not come to aid the US. China wants to limit US influence. The US also has massive debt with China, not massive trade. China could care less about US trade. The US on the other hand cares very deeply about keeking US trade.
2. Russia has recently demonstrated that it can take Georgia if it wants to, it doesn’t need US permission. The Russian federation also is moving back into opposition of the US, so the US would not get Russia.
3. Germany is already rearmed, has been since the ’50s. In fact the Leapord II is currently Canada’s (and half of Europes) main battle tank.
4 The US will not call on North Korea, thats just silly.
5. Decades old fueds will not bring countries onto the side of the US. Especially when most of the world actually hates the United States (including a portion of its allies). The idea that the US has been preventing these fueds from being enacted is rediculous. Countries with small military budgets have defeated the United States in the past and continue to do so to this day (afghanistan and Iraq are currently putting a massive strain on the US economy and the US national moral).

This whole scenerio is a greater fantasy then the Canada being invaded by the US. Besides I think that the Second world war proved that a handful of powerful countries can not defeat a massive coalition of minor nations and a couple of powerful nations.

You are right about the nuclear weapons (wrong about the alternatives though, there use would trigger nuclear response. They are just to similar in nature and application). Neither side would utilize them until one side was threatened with total defeat. The likely conclusion is that the United States would end up being pushed out by whatever nations who chose to respond to pleas for help (I beleive the number that is required to do so is about 53 with a half dozen European powers) Then advance about 100km into the United States before offering what diplomates refer to as a “White Peace”. In case you don’t know what this means, it would be a return to the status quo before the invasion. All boarders would be restored with no military occupation or reperations (or disarmament) for either side.

I think your adherence to stereo types is actually undermining your possition. US military is possible, and initally it would be almost assured. The conquest of the highly populated areas is almost guaranteed, but the US military still must control the country side. To that I would say good luck, especially since the proximity tot he boarder would mean Canadian resistance attacks (the united states would refer to them as terrorist attacks) on US soil. Thats just bad Juju. The US populace is far to used to not seeing the dirrect consiquences for military conquest in there front yard.

This is starting to open up a whole new can of worms that is going to get terribly off topic so I am going to end it here.

By: americanfuhrer

americanfuhrer — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:17:49 +0000

oh and one more thing too the guy who commented before my comment above, china has to much trade invested with us and would easily come to our aid if we offered them something big like the entirity of canada. no one would screw with china cuz they bat-shit crazy and will totally pwn the bajeezuz out of anyone who wanted to attack us. as for europe, i believe re arming germany would get them on our side,letting russia take georgia would get russia on our side, hmm three super powers and a country with the potential to be one, watcha gunna do bout it? oh and mexico would help if we supplied aid to theyre country, argentina if we let them take the falklands. and maybe volunteers from japan who want to fight but we are theyre military so they would have to join us.thats 6 countries so far. wait make that a grand total of 7 countries, because we could totally get north korea on our side if we hand over south korea. 7 countries BITCHES!!!! what now?! someone will say “that would never happen” but every country has a certain objective and we can fulfill theirs like that because we are the ones keeping them from it. britain, france, and canada will be united with whatever other stupid countries would join them. as for the nuking thing, noone will just automatically fire all their nukes because that would destroy the world. america AND russia have alternatives to nukes, the MOAB and the FOAB, the most powerful non nuclear weapons in the world at the moment. this could however cause france to overreact and fire all 5 of its nukes which will probably blow up in the upper atmosphere because they decided to surrender (again). britain would probably try to hold its own ground as much as it can like in WW2 but this time they will fail miserably. by that time america will have eaten canada and shit it out 10 times over.

this has been a rambling from your local fuhrer on a computer

By: joe_dracos

joe_dracos — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:56:34 +0000

Well, the question has been posed to the US military “who would win” and they emphatically said “Canada, invasion of that country is a practical impossibility”. The issue of who has the best army, navy and airforce is still the deciding factor, but other factors would come into play. First, Canadian infantry are the best and nastiest troops in the world (or at least in NATO) and in war time (a real war, not the occupation of Afganistan) when Canadians are thuroughly united to the cause (such as said invasion) they become swollen with troops and equiptment. In peace time however it is a Canadian tradition to bankrupt the military and leave it poorly prepared, and I will elaborate later why this would not factor into the Canadian defence. The next factor is the terrain. A great portion of the nation is covered by rocky, uneven terrain choked with vegitation that even people have a problem getting around on foot. This terrain is a nightmare for armoured/airborn units and would cause a situation similar to Vietnam (yes there was more to that war as well). The biggest factor though would be the sheer expanse of territory that would have to be taken and held. The population is widely spread out and the bulk of the terrain is either mountainous, hilly or densly forrested so ambushes would be rampant. Not to mention that the first nations would be up in arms (litteraly) to resist US occupation (there are First Nations that use armed demonstrations to protest against the government of Canada for various reasons). Consider the problems encountered by the United States in Iraq alone, which does not represent the majority of the US military resources and then apply it to a much larger country where the population has 3 guns for every person in the country and can disappear into the countryside. It would take pretty much the entirety of the US military (and probably would need conscription to shore up the numbers) and to build up that much military force on the boarder would allow for a Canadian build up as well (though it would consist initially of sending large numbers of volunteers into the north with caches of supplys for training). The invasion would consist of large spear heads moving north to capture cities and resources as fast as possible. Vancouver would be captured, but it would most likely be costly (mountains, Urban terrain and heavy forrest terrain). Edmonton, Saskatoon (look it up), and Winnipeg would be easily taken, but North of these cities would be difficult. The bulk of the Eastern campaign would be cetered around Ontario with amphib (which would be costly as well… just by the nature of the assault) opps occuring near York, Niagra, Toronto and Windsor with an immediate push to consolodate the area but again would bog down in the forrested terrain of Central and Northern Ontario. The Saint Lawrence river area would be captured quickly as well with an initial dash up the Gaspe panincula and into Montreal and Ottawa and then up the norther side of the river to capture Quebec city. The maritimes would be slightly more complicated, but would also fall with the exception of New Foundland. The island resembles British Columbia with extremely rock terrain and with few suitable sites for Amphib operations. Airborn operations could be successful, but this represents to best chance for Canada to hold a major Urban center. From the north the army could strike with impunity and the army would spend time chasing down hit and run attacks in terrain unsuitable to armoured warfare. The Royal Canadian Navy would be hard pressed to defend the coast lines and most likely would be expended in attempts to do as much harm to the US navy as possible. The RCAF would also find itself short handed, but would none-the-less hurt the US airforce and possibly manage to strike key strategic ground assests (training would represent the balance of the cause of damage).

Mean while, world wide opinion would be outrage. It is even possible that there would be Universal Condemnation of the invasion. Canada would almost certainly call on the commonwealth for aid and would almost certainly be successful (popular opinion in Britain would make it political suicide to deny assistance). India and Pakistan would most certainly answer due to a common hatred and fear of the US (though there military units would most likely be kept seperate). In Europe the Netherlands and Belgium would be the first to declare war which would put pressure on the EU. Germany and France would be the next to declare war (though this can be debated). As for Russia and China, who are both enemies of the US (yes, still) it can be debated that they will both declare war simply because of the “enemy of my enemy” rule. To put it plainly, an invasion of Canada would result in a world war and the Canadian army can hold the US long enough for international intervention.

The UN would be powerless to stop the US. The US has a veto and that gives them the ability to do whatever they wish to do (Iraq, Afgahnistan).

The truth is, there will never be a war between the two countries just as there is not likely to be another European war. The economies of the two countries are too intertwined to even consider such action. Not to mention current defence treaties have essentially made this discussion a moot point. In reality the two countries and the European Union are close to moving towards the first world government. The current road block is the United States lack of social responsibility (health care, old age pension, GUN control, government corruption by large businesses).

By: jhm

jhm — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:57:34 +0000

Okay as another canadain I think its importnt to put a bit of history in this See waaay back when after the 2nd world war companies had found a cheap labour market, basically being women, the men who had come back from the war had found that there was no more jobs for them. So in Winnipeg MB a union group of steel workers went on strike, this eventually lead to a cross Canada strike, no one wanted to work… even government workers. Eventually the riot act was read on the steps of city hall and the army was called in, brothers killing brothers people where deported imprisoned or blacklisted. So hey if we can do that I say bring it on USA we are as cold and mean as you maybe meaner lol we have to do all this in in -23C (-9F)

By: tiffany27

tiffany27 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:13:13 +0000

Wow, this is stupid, honestly this is bullshit. People writing comments about how America will invade Canada, you need to study your politics and history. It’s called the United Nations

By: RoflBeard

RoflBeard — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:13:59 +0000

Governments or more specifically Military/ National defence have a contingency plan for almost every possible outcome or event. I personally don’t find it shocking that America had a ‘plan’ for attack against Canada and Britain, i’m sure many countries have plans for attack on America most of which will sit in a national archive collecting dust.
Heck even I have a plan in case of an American invasion on British shores…….blame Canada. hehe