Comment by jckahn
16 hours ago
Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
16 hours ago
Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
Is Canada an adversary of America? Or Greenland?
What position should Canadians or the people of Greenland take with regards to the people in the US military who are currently working to annex and invade their countries?
What position should the US military take with regards to the people in those countries who are currently working to resist those efforts to annex and invade their countries their homelands?
Do you consider Canadian and Icelandic civilians your adversary? If so, how did that come to be?
I think you meant to write Greenland.
Indeed I did, my brain was a bit foggy when I wrote after a night of partying.
Thanks for catching that.
1 reply →
Should the whole of the military quit because the American people were x enough to elect Trump?
There is a Godwin in there somewhere.
I can’t speak to what the American military should do in this situation but I’m curious to hear what HN users think the people of Canada and Greenland should do in this situation.
What would the American response to these kinds of actions be if the shoe was on the other foot?
Given the asymmetry in power how should Canada and Greenland respond?
If the American response to Iranian actions against American allies and interest in the Middle East is to spend half their missile stockpile to assassinate the leadership of Iran how should Canada respond to American threats of annexation and Greenland of invasion?
What’s proportional and sensible here?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwar...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-separatism-trump-ad...
Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.
I'm against the U.S.'s broken leadership as much as any sensible person. But even in normal times with sane leadership, national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed." This is certainly an uncomfortable truth, but that's the way of the world.
In what "normal" times is a country down to the "kill or be killed" choice? It's only "kill or be killed" if you are under attack by an actual aggressor. When was the last time, say, Canada or New Zealand, felt their national defense choices were "kill or be killed"?
> national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed."
You and Israel's current leadership are in agreement.
1 reply →
I mean it's not like we know those "adversaries" ever wanted to murder us. For example, the US has a long record of assassinating labor leaders in South America to protect our Banana Republics on behalf of Chiquita. I think it's absolutely fair to bring in skepticism towards the secrets our military keeps from us
Do you believe that "death to America" chants should not be taken seriously?
In short, yes. They should not be taken seriously. You should take Iranian actions on the ground seriously, and ignore that which is essentially compelled political theatre.
I'm saying it is foolish and historically uninformed to hold a blind faith that everyone that the US labels an "adversary" is evil.
Would you like to engage with the comment I left?
1 reply →
If they have no practical way of acting on the chant, then it's just bluster.
No they shouldn't because "death to" is simply a mistranslation. "Death to" is an idiom in Persian that means approximately "down with"- and in fact the official translation by the Iranian government itself is "Down with the USA". But I'm curious what you thought it meant.
2 replies →
Yeah
To the younger generations it's just political theatre and gets laughed at as being the equivalent of boomer cringe
1 reply →
[flagged]
I'm genuinely not sure how else to interpret your previous comment. Do you see any situations where defense by lethal force is appropriate?
[flagged]