The case for war against Canada

By William Entriken

3 minutes

I trained a neural network using war-is-always-the-answer articles from Bill Kristol.

If you don’t know who Bill Kristol is, a great explanation is from Glenn Greenwald. But basically, he is some guy that talks all day about why everybody should in military-wars all day. And for some reason newspapers and TV stations keep inviting him to talk.

Anyway, I trained a neural network on tbone using his articles. Here is a guest pass so you can run it for free, until other people use it up.

Here is “Kristol”’s article about why we should go to war with Canada.

Title: Ensuring Security and Stability: The Case for Preemptive Action against Canada

Introduction

In today’s global landscape, the United States must remain vigilant and proactive in addressing potential threats to its security and that of its allies. While the mere suggestion of military action against a close neighbor like Canada may seem shocking, it is essential to consider the proactive measures necessary to ensure long-term peace and stability. Drawing upon historical precedents, diplomatic shortcomings, and the imperative to protect American interests, this op-ed makes an unconventional but compelling case for considering preemptive action against Canada.

The Canadian Threat

  1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): As seen in previous conflicts, the possession of weapons of mass destruction by a hostile nation poses an imminent threat to global security. While there is currently no evidence indicating Canada’s possession of WMDs, the potential for clandestine proliferation cannot be disregarded. A preemptive strike would mitigate any potential risks arising from Canada’s future acquisition or development of WMDs.

  2. Failed Negotiations: Diplomatic efforts to foster cooperation and peaceful resolution have proven insufficient in preventing escalating tensions with Canada. Previous attempts at diplomacy have failed, and as history has shown, reliance on negotiation alone can embolden aggressors. It is imperative that the United States takes proactive measures to protect its interests and those of its allies.

  3. Destabilization and Support for Extremism: Recent geopolitical developments in Canada have raised concerns over a shift in the country’s values and policies. The rise of radical elements and the potential for Canada to become a haven for extremist ideologies cannot be ignored. A preemptive strike, while drastic, could prevent the spread of such ideologies within North America, safeguarding regional stability.

  4. Economic and Energy Security: Canada’s vast reserves of natural resources, particularly oil and gas, provide it with significant economic leverage and geopolitical influence. Dependency on Canadian energy resources exposes the United States to potential vulnerabilities in times of crisis. It is crucial for the U.S. to reduce reliance on imported resources and develop alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to ensure its energy security.

The Case for Preemptive Action

  1. Lessons from History: History has shown that early action against emerging threats can prevent larger conflicts in the long run. The United States has previously demonstrated its willingness to address threats proactively, as seen in its actions in Iraq and Lebanon. In both cases, preemptive measures were taken to ensure the stability of the region and protect American interests. Applying this proactive approach to Canada can ensure the prevention of future conflicts and secure American interests in North America.

  2. Strengthening Diplomatic Leverage: By considering the possibility of preemptive action against Canada, the United States would strengthen its diplomatic position. A credible threat of military action would serve as a powerful negotiating tool to compel Canada to reconsider its policies and actions. This would provide an opportunity for diplomatic solutions to conflicts before they escalate to a point of no return.

  3. Protecting American Allies: The United States has long been a champion of democratic values and a defender of its allies. By taking preemptive measures against Canada, the U.S. would send a clear message of solidarity with its allies, demonstrating its commitment to upholding freedom, stability, and peace. This unwavering stance would deter other potential aggressors and ensure the security of the region.

Conclusion

In an increasingly uncertain and complex world, the United States must be prepared to confront potential threats decisively. While the notion of preemptive action against Canada may seem extreme, it is essential to evaluate the long-term risks and consequences of inaction. Drawing upon historical precedents, failed diplomatic negotiations, and the imperative to protect American interests, preemptive measures, if carefully considered, may be necessary to ensure security and stability in North America. It is time for the United States to stand strong, demonstrating its commitment to defending freedom, promoting peace, and safeguarding its interests and those of its allies.

To be clear, I don’t think we should go to war with Canada. Bill probably does, but he just hasn’t told you yet.

Imagine your own persona campaign manager, working full time to write hateful, targeted campaigns for violence or political action individually for every single person on Earth. This is the future of politics. Barely anybody is ready for that.

▧

Comments

Discuss and share this topic anywhere. May we recommend: