this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
379 points (97.3% liked)

World News

49193 readers
1854 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Canada would know that if the US attacks Mexico then it would be next, that would be the only time to fight.

There isn’t a choice, this means Europe joins.

Europe joining means China will join so that it can replace the US in Europe.

Mexico at war is going to bring many countries below it in because they don’t want to be the next smaller country on the US doorstep.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Canada isn't a smuggle route worth billions.

The only reason they could even potentially go into Mexico is due to the Cartels and their billion dollar drug trade. (I don't have facts saying it's a billion dollar drug trade. But I'm making an educated guess that's it's worth a shit ton of money)

There is just no way in hell Canada would ever strike first on the US and be the aggressor. Even if Canada would strike at the US, why the hell would Europe side with Canada? They are now the aggressor. Attacking a fellow NATO member no less.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The realism of my previous statement, no one would view it as a strike first, it’s retaliation for attacking Mexico.

The alternative is to just get picked off one by one.

After Canada comes Denmark so be realistic about it.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Ehm.... I disagree. Everyone would see it as a first strike. Because that's what it is.

Canada has no military alliance with Mexico as far as I know.

I honestly can't believe you put the words "be realistic about it" in the context of Canada striking the US.

If Europe didn't do more than sending weapons to Ukraine. Why would they do anything more to Canada? Which, would be logistically, an almost impossible task.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Giving Russia control of the North Atlantic is a much bigger threat to Europe than giving them access to the Black Sea.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

What are you even talking about? Russia already have access to the Black Sea. And have had since the birth of their country.

And what do you even mean "give them control" of the North Atlantic? When was the last time you looked at a map of the globe?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The note on the black sea was about Crimea

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes. Thank you. So please explain how the US would have anything to do, with granting them access via that route. If anything. It looks like it's up to Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark to exert control over what is right next to their maritime border.

The note on the black sea was about Crimea

They don't need Crimea to have access to the black sea. They already had access to it.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Why do you think the US wants Canada and Denmark? It’s to help Russian conquest of Europe.

They don’t need Crimea to have access to the black sea. They already had access to it.

So you see why it would matter less to Europe?

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

the US doesn't want Canada and Denmark.

Trump speaking nonsense just to get attention for the sake of getting attention is a different matter than what the US actually want.

Not to mention that it's never been about wanting Denmark. It's about putting Military bases on Greenland. Which they already have under a current agreement. And the US isn't even reaching the quota of the current agreement.

It doesn't matter what Trump says. The US is not going to just casually invade a fellow NATO member. And Canada isn't going to either. Especially not over Mexico.

So you see why it would matter less to Europe?

Why what would matter less to Europe? Are you trying to say that just because Russia already had access to the Black Sea, that it somehow wouldn't matter to Europe that they invaded Ukraine and violated their sovereignty?

Either you're on something you shouldn't be. Or you're off something you shouldn't be. Whatever it is. Good luck.