That is the big question.
As is often said One's terrorist is the next person's freedom fighter.
Nothing. The US has no desire to invade Canada
You might instead want to ask that to our wonderful leader what he would do?
At present, Canada's land mass serves as a northern buffer for the protection of continental US.
When and if the Northern Passage opens up to allow surface vessels a preferential route, for commerce and military adventures into what would become international waters, a failure of the Canadian military to provide suitable surveillance and protection of its northern shores om its own, the umbrella of the US military would have to extend over the northern Canadian territories for the US's safety as they themselves would see it ( as a threat to both the eastern and western US coasts by nefarious nation ).
Contrary to the rhetoric from Carney to the years around 1812 ( when Canada did not yet exist ).
It was a conflict between the US states and the British. Upper and Lower Canada were separate territories under the monarchy, unified only after 1841 whereupon the two were joined under one administration.
Carney's revisionist history depicting Sir Isaac Brock ( a British officer )l as a war hero for Canada ( that still did not exist ) defending the British loyalists who fled from American rule to settle near Kinston and area, Under no circumstance did these British subjects consider themselves 'Canadian' at the time.
Carney played with a tiny figurine of Brock during his UTube address.
Carney gaslights the province of Quebec, the maritime provinces, and the western provinces by insinuating that the only history worthy of any Canadian is to identify with is that of southern Ontario.
Carney is supposedly a well educated, learned individual. And yet he gets it wrong by the narrow viewpoint as presented by him to fellow Canadians, the citizens of the USA, and the peoples of the world.
I assume the members of the United Nations and their bodies are also well educated, learned individuals, but they themselves can be subject to a narrow interpretation of history as did Carney.
en.wikipedia.org
Lists the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
Are many of them a re-hash over and over again of Israel's right to defend itself and right to exist?
Quick history lesson:
The Suez Canal crisis was invoked by Egyptian action, hindering Israel access.
The Security and General Assembly resolutions were as much about the Egyptian action, as well as the French and British response, but Israel singly seems to be portrayed as the bad guy by revisionists.
It was through this conflict that the Israel middle east 'problem' transferred to the stewardship of the USA and it has been their bane ever since.not saying
), but also, curiously, a very small crowd of pro-palestinians.
